About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

85 Fed. Probation 34 (2021)
The Use of Location Monitoring at the Post-Conviction Stage of Supervision

handle is hein.journals/fedpro85 and id is 149 raw text is: 34 EEDERAL PROBATION Volume 85 Number 3 Vanessa L. Starr U.S. Probation Officer Specialist Eastern District of Pennsylvania Thomas H. Cohen Probation and Pretrial Services Office Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts THE LOCATION MONITORING program within the U.S. probation and pretrial services system has played a significant role in the supervision process for several decades. In 1986, the federal system launched the home confinement program, using a special curfew of approximately 60 days (Gowen, 2000). In 1989, the program was expanded when the Federal Judicial Conference authorized the use of electronic monitoring for federal supervisees in 12 districts, and a couple of years later the program was expanded nationally (Cornish & Whetzel, 2014). The agency next began to explore the possible implementation of various technologies as a tool for the home confinement program. Monitoring technology by that time offered equipment that would allow officers an increasing ability to remotely monitor the location of supervisees. Today, the three location monitoring technologies that are used in pretrial and post-conviction supervision are radio frequency (RF), global positioning system (GPS), and voice recognition. Location monitoring is imposed as a condition of supervision for a variety of reasons, including as an alternative to pretrial detention or custodial sentences or as a means of addressing high-risk behaviors/ violative behavior or noncompliance during supervision (Gowen, 2001). An ancillary advantage is cost savings. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported in 2020 that the daily cost of incarceration per person was $108.00, while the daily cost of GPS location monitoring was $4.15.1 Since GPS is the most expensive form of location monitoring, it is apparent that location monitoring results in substantial savings as an alternative to incarceration. In this study we sought to develop a better understanding of location monitoring as a major component within the federal system. More specifically, we first provide an overview of location monitoring in the federal supervision system and then explore several topics, including the characteristics of those who receive the condition, the application of the risk principle to location monitoring (hereafter referred to as LM), and the relationship between LM and recidivism outcomes. History of Location Monitoring in the Federal System In the late 1990s, U.S. probation and pretrial service officers began to assess the types of technologies for the LM programs. The first awarded contract for LM services was in 1993, and the initial program solely used RF and voice recognition technology (Cornish 1 Costs for incarceration are calculated based on information received by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Location monitoring costs are based on information received from the AO's Budget Division for fiscal year 2020. & Whetzel, 2014). New technology paved the way for advancements in monitoring equipment that would use GPS. This level of monitoring offers degrees of intensity (for example, real-time monitoring) to pinpoint exact locations that are instrumental in the surveillance of higher risk cases and participants with third-party risk factors, such as a victim or co-defendant. Noting the evolution of the home confinement program;' the Guide to Judiciary Policy (Vol. 8, § 160(a)) notes the evolution of the home confinement program;' including the renaming of program as the location monitoring program: The new name provided a better description of all the monitoring capabilities of the program, emphasizing that it was more than just monitoring at a residence. The court has the authority to impose a period of LM under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(19) for probation cases and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) for supervised release cases as an alternative to incarceration. LM is a multifaceted condition that can be imposed for a variety of reasons. When LM is imposed at the time of sentencing, for example, it tends to be used in place of a custodial sentence. As will be shown, the imposition of LM at the time of sentencing tends to be associated with individuals at low risk of re-offending. When an individual is deemed low risk, the LM sentence is not intended to promote behavior change or risk reduction; in such cases LM is satisfying a 34 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 85 Number 3

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most