,\;'

Electronic Monitoringto Protect Victims of Domestic Abuse

Findings Report

Submitted by

Minnesota Department of CorrectionsJanuary, 1993

Pursuant to 1992 Laws, Chapter 571,__ Article 6, Section 20 and coded as -

Minn Statutes 611A.07. subd 2

This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp ,\;'

Electronic Monitoringto Protect Victims of Domestic Abuse

Findings Report

Submitted by

Minnesota Department of CorrectionsJanuary, 1993

Pursuant to 1992 Laws, Chapter 571,__ Article 6, Section 20 and coded as -

Minn Statutes 611A.07. subd 2

REPORT ON ELECTRONIC MONITORINGTO PROTECT

DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

Page #

'FINDINGS REPORT

IntroductionFindingsConclusionLegislative Recommendations

TRADITIONAL ELECTRONIC MONITORING

IntroductionCurrent TechnologyU.S. PictureMinnesota ExperienceBib 1iography

1256

12368

ELECTRONIC MONITORING (EM) MANUFACTURER SURVEYResearch Methodology 1Summary Ana~ysis 1Survey Results 3

~ ~.~. ~ ~.~"~ IDJJi\l~ ? ;~, l~!0"';

lEGISLATIVE REFERENCE L1B~J\RtlSTATE CAPITOl.. i /

ST. PAUL, r:JI. Z~::;~

I NTr;;ODUCT I ON

Section 20 of the Laws or Minnesota for 1992 5 chapter 571, article 6(codified at Minn. Stat. § 61iA.07, subd. 1) states that the"commissioner of cOlTections ... shall adopt standards gove1-ningelectronic monitoring devices used to protect victims of domesticabuse." The commissionel- is tJ.:J pel-fonn this function aftel­considering recommendations from the Battered Women Advisory Council,the Sexual Assault Advisory Council and in collaboration with theCommissioner of Public Safety. The commissioner is also to obtaininput from the tenth judicial district concerning their use of EMdevices. Subdivision 2 of Section 20 goes on to state that thecommis~ioner shall report, by January 1, 1993~ to the legislature onthe proposed standards.

Section 12 of the same law (codified at Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd.521..) states that the court may not order an offender to use anelect.ronic monitoring (Et'j) device "until the commis-:-ionel- ofcorrections has adopted standards governing electronic monitoringdevices used to protect victims of domestic abuse."

In order to carry out the above outlined responsibilities, theDepartment of Corrections set up an advisory council comprised of theparties mentioned in Section 20. The committee decided on a missionas follo\-Js:

The purpose of the Committee on Electronic Monitoring Standardsfor Victims of Domestic Abuse is to establish standards which:

* ensure that the use of electronic monitoring as a warningdevice will enhance the safety of victims of domestic abuse,and* identify situations where the use of EM technology isappl-opdate.

The following, entitied "Findings- Repol-t," frames issues 01- concernsthat were voiced by the committee and other interested parties inresponse to the proposal that reverse EM technology be used as ameans of pl-otecting domestic abuse victims. The committee attemptedto address many of the concerns by carrying out its primarymission--drafting proposed standards. Before the committee begandrafting standards, however, it contacted the 10th Judicial Districtfor input, but found that no pilot project had been started.Extensive public comment was then sought and obtained regardingstandards for reverse electronic monitoring. This input, along withcommittee deliberation, has led the committee to conclude thatstandards should not be adopted or presented to the legislature.This decision is based primarily on the rationale that, at present,there is no viable technology to fulfill the goal of protectingvictims. Present technology depends solely on phone linetransmission, limits early warning protections to the confines of thevictim's residence and provides no tamper-proof mechanism on thedevice worn by the offender being monitored.

1

The final section, entitled "Recommendations," was not discussed orapproved by the advisory committee. The recommendations are theresult of the commissioner's consultation with the Battered WomenAdvisory Council and the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women.

NOTE: The tenT! "electl-onic monito1-ing" 01- "EW' is used thl-oughoutt.he findings, and often, "reverse electronic monitol-ing" is used.Generally, EM is used in conjunction with the intermediate sanctionsof house arrest or home confinement where the offender is put onelectronic surveillance in his own residence via a bracelettransmitter and receiver. Use of EM in the findings is, with fewexceptions, referring to EM as applied to victims of domestic abuse,and should not. be confused with traditional EM for offenders norshould the findings be construed as objections to traditional EM.

1. Technoloc:iV

Concern: Current electronic monitoring (EM) technology when usedin a reverse application is not sufficient to provide protection orenhanced safety to domestic abuse victims.

Discussion:a. The offender may remove the transmitter or otherwise disable

it, thereby allowing entry into the protective radius withoutwarning. Currently, the transmitter cannot be made tamper-proofexcept in cases where the offender is not allowed to leave hisresidence under any circumstances.

b. The victim must stay within a certain radius of the EMreceiver for the system to work, i~eD~ she must be able to hear orsee the receiver's alarma

c. Both the EM system and the victim depend on a phone linetransmission of the aignal and call. For various reasons, not allvictims have phone service.

d. Many manufacturers acknowledge that EM is a technologyde~igned as an offender surveillance system, not as a way ofprotecting crime victims.

Concern: The application of current EM technology to domesticabuse is not a cost-effective approach to dealing with criminalvictimization. There are many good laws already passed that ifenforced would be more effective both from a quality and coststandpoint to reduce victimization.

Discussion/Resolution:a. Because of EM equipment also being placed in the victim's

home, the cost could conceivably be double that of EM where equipmentis placed only in the perpetrator's home for house arrest purposes.

2

b. Education of the courts, law enforcement, probation officers,monitoring agencies, victim advocates and victims as to processresponsibilities will be costly and time-consuming for an alreadyoverburdened system.

c. In many cases, neither the offenders nor the victims will beable to afford the costs so that the government and ultimately thetaxpayer will have to underwrite this program. Until the advantagesof reverse EM outweigh the disadvantages, other approaches to protector enhance the safety of victims should be considered, such as:consistent criminal justice response, more advocacy, more safeplaces, perpetrator consequences implemented, etc.

3. Revictimization of the Battered Woman

Concern: The offender may use the system as a means to antagonizeor fUl-t~'1er victimize the battel-ed \'.}oman. The criminal justice "::;"/::;temitself may tend to further victimize as a result of the victimmisunderstanding the choices regarding the program.

Discussion/Resolution:a. The offender may intentionally set off the victim's alarm

simply to harass her especially if the system cannot prove it was himrather than a false alarm. The offender may violate the no contactorder knowing there will be few consequences for such a violation.The offender may also use the system as another means of obtainingconfidential information about the victim such as her home addressand phone number if the data is not adequately secured.

b. Strict product standards could address the false alarm problemwhile standards establishing violation guidelines or requirementscould address the dilemma of no consequences. Also, proposedstandards addressing strict confidentiality could ensure victim datapl- i vacy.

c. Regardless of whether an offender is ordered onto reverse EM,victim harassment may well continue.

4u No Guarante p of Safety

Concern: The legal liability Tor a monitoring agency or amanuTacturer due to their inability to guarantee victims' safety mayprevent them from pursuing their involvement in reverse monitoringwith present technology.

Discussion:a. Some manufacturers have already acknowledged to the committee

that the liability is too great for them to enter this market.b. Some manufacturers have admitted that this system may set up

false expectations of protection for the victim which cannot beguaranteed, thus setting up the possibility of future lawsuits.

c. 1'10ni todng agencies may not be able to "contl-act away" theil­liability if victims insist on protertion before they consent3

5.· Infoi-m;::>.j Consent

Concel-n: Victims \'-lill not tntly be able to give "informed consent"3

when the consequences of this system cannot be fully contemplated.

Discussion:a. Uncertainty of how the criminal justice system will process

offender violations will make it difficult for the victim to decideif sh~ wants to participate.

b. There is a concern that if the victim decides not to consentto this system, she will be viewed by prosecutors and judges ascomp lacent..

c. If the victim is not fully informed of the disadvantages orweaknesses of the system, her expectations will be unduly raised suchthat she could have a false sense of security, and consequently, failto take the necessary precautions she would have normally takenwithout the systema

Concern: Reverse application of EM is viewed as a warning systemfCIj- the victim, but incj-eased safety as an objective of the !I;'I~i.i-ning"

is dependent on the timely' j-e'3pOn'3e of 1a;") enforcement and moni tOl-ingagencies.

Discussion/Resolution:a. It is unknown whether law enforcement will attach a high

enough priority to this system's alarm so that the response will bequick and effective. This situation could be addressed with astandard which states that before a reverse EM program can beinstituted, law enforcement and the monitoring agency must agree to aminimum response time.

b. With present technology, the alarm does not go directly to lawenforcement, but rather it goes to the monitoring agency first. Ifagency staff are not available at the time of the alarm (not allmonitoring agencies have 24-hour service) or the alarm does notreceive immediate action, the response will be slower than a 911call. A standard requiring all monitoring agencies to be operating24 hours a day and t~ respond immediately to the victim's alarm wouldaddress this issue. Also, it is likely that the alarm can be set upto go directly to law enforcement and a standard requiring this wouldbe helpful here.

c. Within and outside the committee, there is differing opinionon whether a warning only briefly in advance of the approachingperpetrator is useful to the battered woman. There are those whobelieve a warning, no matter how brief, will allow a victim ~o takeevasive action. Others believe such a warning is of no use to avictim.

7. Misuse of EM by Court~

Concern: There is potential for the courts to misuse this EMsystem when sentencing offenders.

Discussion/Resolution:a. If the offender is fitted with a transmitter bracelet and is

not put under house arrest, it is questionable as to whether he is4

being sanctioned. However, judges might view this as adequatepunishment when other sanctions would have been more appropriate.Proper use of reverse EM could be addressed with a state law.

b. Present experience indicates some judges have not fUllyunderstood when to use traditional EM since there have been instancesof sentencing a known abuser to EM/house arrest when the victim isresiding in the same house. Standards which give the final approvalof offenders to be monitored to the monitoring agency could controlthl'::; •

8. Burden on Respon~ible Agenries

Concern: Instituting a domestic abuse EM program may add to theresponsibilities of probation officers, law enforcement officers andthe criminal justice system as a whole~ when agencies are alreadyC!'./ej-bui-tSened l.:.Ji t.h curl-ent j-espon-sibi 1i t.ies 1&

Discussion/Resolution:a. Manufacturers who are marketing this system will sell it in

one OT two way::;. The lesser cost would involve the probationofficers doing the field work such as installing the system,attaching the bracelet, periodically checking the equipment andresetting a tripped alarm. This, of course, would require~ybstantial time on the part of the agent and dramatically take awayfrom other supervisory duties. The alternative would be for themonitoring agency to provide such services at a higher cost.

b. Both the courts and law enforcement will have added paperworkand responsibilities with this system because the victim will, in asense, be an added party on which to keep current data and to whomservices will need to be provided. For instance, if a victimwithdraws from the EM system, the offender may have to beresentenced, setting off a chain of attendant duties. Additionalwork is a factor with any new programming effort in Correctionswhether it be victim related or not. The victim must be attended toas a legitimate party of the criminal process.

c. Local jurisdictions who wish to undertake a reverse EM'proqramfor victims of domesiic abuse would be willing to undertake -additional responsibilities and costs if the gains are significant.

CDNCLUE; I DN

Based on the above findings, the committee has concluded that itshould not adopt standards when no EM technology exists to fit theintended purposes of the legislation--that is, EM which will protector enhance the safety of victims of domestic abuse. That is not tosay that the department does not accept continuing responsibility forstaying apprised of new developments in EM or other technology whichmay better meet the goal of protecting victims of domestic abuse.

'.(1

iJI,iiienCn:i"0

..~ '-J­CL

r. r(i1.11 '-1­r~n

CU.r-l C

..J-.:' 1:1 ruo C

_':1 .....1 iJiE

·rlI.fI ..J-"

U·rl>.

.~

r-l QI{j ~_

l].I 0..[1.III ..J-':'!_ 0

r~

'[J..J-':' UiI:) 1.0C r(i

111 LI£ ..p ..J-':'..J..) ::i 11'". C

LI 1:J r(i!_ C U'=' U rei oro-!

'-J- QI 1.1-1.0 >.,,~

cOrJ'CCI a. 0 r:n

_..-I I:) r--i .r'"!_ 0 (00.. r:

.cUIII+,

..p[1.1=Iii I.Ii>~ ouIII ::;;:

I.n r.nC ...·I'rjo ..I·) 3:

.....1 U

.4':- .ro-!

Iti !._1::;1 4":'C 10III ·rlI.:;: 'T.:II::oUill!._ U

1l1..J-:'..I.:: LI~c. QI

..J-':'!­el['..L /....

:l III Ij

:J: -g .:~ !- '1-111 .r,,);..J..) 1.1'1,- U .rli= .1: :J ..c

..J") LJ ..pC c111 0 C

,j' ..p u 0

(n Cal a1fI ·rlO-J..=a[1. U

..J-:' IIIC >-+.III r..11 C!!- (j !­!- r-l 0..::i 0!...J C 0.1

.cuU U .r-l

III III :>IJI ..J-':' (:.=i !--

~..:. [1.III C

U IU > 1.11 0-'C f[i!_ 4::'Ui ill ..c !­~.:.!- ::i IiiC [ll 0 U~'

.r-! ..C +:t ......3:iJI

.~.':I

I::IIII::

>-. I').r..11 0o .-1

r-l IIIo :>C 1.11

£ 1:1UUi

.~..:-

III!­::i

open ::iC '-1-

111[(I::i

(n U0.. en C::i C:- d0 0 1'-1

!- ~c, ..pen r-'" IT,i

.,.., .c(0 :J +,::iLlo

1)1 01UlW (nLI ::iCI (j

>. !_o ·r'i_0 0.. !_

n:i10 ::;;: ;::­E fll

....... .-1 III111 ..p >·.C!.. LI J1J .prei . ..-1 ~_

In~..p

_.p fa,...; IlJ > iJf::i !- In 'ti QIIU _C C 1'1- '0m"~OOL-::iI.Il -r-! o..-i r.....

rti O··J.,)~..:. 'u

UCalEEoUIII!- ...... -T.J

Cl1:i

~_ .ro-!

ITj -J..=aIII U0. ""i

0..":­IT,i

[(IE 1.­al HI U

r-l 01 1.11.0 C +1o f[i IT,iI !- r-f0.. ~:, 1],1

I.Ii !-

!­III JT.iI.fJ >­W.1: li­

m ..J-:' 0111E ~. (0

·rl III U!_ !- IIIU 0 III

I.n 1+- r:IT.i >... at

..J-':' !- Ui1_ III .c ..pHI J: ..J-':' C1:1..1- 111o -H!_!- C!-

It'. 0.. II ::::i ::i..--1 ~_ou

= ill ,-I U rt:i U

~I 15 f. ~ ~ J1~ :~ '~:;

C '-1'- III.r-l 0 ~L:I ll_ c:

CI 111..I.:: I.n CI .r::U [:: ~~, 1.0 ::;;:~_ ...-J 1=n:i ~p

al Ulfl ...-1

fll ;>!-

~p

!­oo..ullJ .,~

!.- ..)..:-(n

In fll.,.., E£ 0+. U

III1Il!- CIII ·rl IiI a 1.1.1'> 10 III 1.1- +> £(uUrOEOC..J-':'!- III or-I . .-1

C 1.0 !_ r:.rl EO LI ':;J III

ll'_ r-oi ' .. '"1 .d..::a:: .r'" 1.110-+.:.4':1 >:: .....:1 f(i....j...,) ~_ (l

:::i U 111 U·.J..) .r--{ n =i111 O·rl J.n ·rl ..I.') I.;:' 0tn >- ....... 0 !-:J I.n ~. '-J- ..J-':' .C

E '-f- ..J-':' C (jIII f1I 0 C .rl".J !­

..c r~ III il.i ['..L

..J-:' ..0 I.n 1= UI UC1Q1ln£C

C!_o..l.l1..J-':'Uiou>··rl1 ~p

./:, !_. !_ ClJ ill n:i O·r-J

111 £ !_ .r::10 ..p al::i .r:U ~...pa III 0

Ii- (0::i !­

..0 0"0 1+-

~p

(lJ U.r: ill In~f..':- ~p [:n

CI C .1::al !-.rl U

,-, 0.. U ::i·rl C I.n£ C1.rl3: ..p It-

'=' !.­~:. W

'1:;1J:J. C

..-i IIIJ~' '-1­I.n '1'­L:: C!CI

·r'·! 1'1_4':' 01'0

1.1.1 J1J..I: UI.n C

....... l(iIII r-l£r-l

'N

1.11 f1I!- >­III !._

£ ::i::;;: III

().r.:-

III!-EIIIW

1+-!_ '-J •.1.11 0

-J"C III

..~ I.n::i

£ ilJ.p J:·rl I­::;;:

'[J ".J'u 'Tj!_ I J,n

[1.1 ~.:. .r:; .,~

.~.':l r-i lfl

'I~ :i: ~ ~f,".:1 !... alf" !_ C EdJ I[i ·rl

..p alCIII!->.r~ 1.1'1 III .r-l

::i 1.:1 +'~~. ':;J C Uo ..c III 111r: 1+- 1-1_

!.~, 1.1- 1'1­III 0 C, 1],1!-'T; C III C

'=' J= r[ir.n.d ..I··)L: ..p I.n

.::: :ii ~ ·rl-1·':1' -l·) '=' ':1ITj 1].1 -I..:s r:'D '1:1 ·rl rr.;r- r:Iii IlJ 0 III[~ ;5 I:: ..LJ

::: J:: Lli .;~:III!- r-~I I'''; ':1

rO 'ti alrll C C I.n1.f1 0 0 0III or-!.r-! 0­r- ..J...=I ~p r.l.~= .,-1 .1"'1 :::i

I.fI

UI.C

...p

U <cC .......·rl .......

'.(I

(IJ1:J ['":::i ()r~

If!1.0 III CIJI ..J...:'I 0f1I :J.rlU ..p ..J-':'o rr.i U, ..J-':' III0. III Ul

U rEiQI If)

..pLI11.1 U

I+- ..0'-I- ::i<[ In

::i'f- I.n

(lI1+_ .....:to =i

.....:1n:i

..p01

In:>' (~1en .......C,

r-l I::r­el <::­c -.J)

..CLI CIII 0

...j..) ... '"'

1;-o 3:

III·rl

>..enr:00>­

r--i . .-1 1],1CJ I,n !_C '1-1

..I.:: _~ 'ul..J IIIIII !­

..J-':'u'1:)

1l.1 'ut5 ~ '1:J

~? C.p ,..to n:ir: r:Ill·'" rJ.1~_ -1-.)!_ I.n ::i:::i C -I":'U 0 n:i

.rl -I":'1.1- -,..:. I.n -1-.)

o Iti 111 1...1U '-1- !- Ui

11Ir:O::i1.liJ.n al ..p::i I:: 1fI

E r:III a 0..c U .r-J.p III ~~.

!- !.....p 0 IIIr(i 111 0.. I.n.c I.n ::i

..J-':' ~ ~~ U r(i1.0 +' ·rl C ..J-:'en ..J ..) fr.i 0 'r'"!

C ~. C I.n

:8~~g:5~~uc ..-1 I.n ·,-1 c.o

.r-:! ..j.J .0 ..f":•• r; :JI.I-U:::ifl:iE:LO

.rl I.n :JIII >. r-kl

.e 1'1- '0+=, --:1":- 0 >

U IIIC 111 1._o ~..:. III !-

ei .0 '='U !_ E 1.1­al 0. ::iI.n CI'll 4,)II, '=' r-t

C r-!C f{if(i f:::

.,..~I U In

I.nCo.rl+ .or.;

UC111EEoLl[llIX

1fI..p.C

HI,~

o.0([

1.11..C~~

r-lro !..!- fllIII CC 0ill .rl

f.!:1 I.nI.n

tr. >- OJ~I U +'.,.~ <[ 'uU .,.-1r: E !­=i ·rl 0..(:I .p au U !-

r-l·rl

~ LIrr.i C::i :J>:: 0III U

1.11

;-

ill CTJ .,~

~. 1.11!- m UIU E ·rl

..-I.r-! >::i.p alU U U

.r; .r-l

.+.:, >­!-Iti 0r:l.. -p

1.11 1_.CI III

C>.. 0IT,i .r-!

E 1.0I.n

>- .r'[:[1 1=o E

...-i 0o LIC.c III UU.C CIII -I" "r.;+'

III '0 >­al .n C III !_

..::.:: iTj J.:: 0r(ir-l ..pmE...-i :::.... ..-1

f(j -I":'

~~ ,;~ITj

IfIIj)-0!._ Uf(i "'kl

1.:1 ""-1 • d [l.r:.1J >"::> 0..rei ::i!_ nj

~.:. CI- C! IIIa, I.n 1.0 E (n

..c ll_ .,-1 .....-1 G+'llIo;::-!-fIi

..I.:: '[J U III'+- f- !_ ,j: u

IT) >.. 0 III..p C r:

•j':' III QI 0 al"0 '-1- In III ·rl E

..c: n:i ::i !._ IJi 0~~. I.n ::i In 3:

III ..p ,,'-1I.n U ..c rei E 1.:1IlJ 1lI..p~~ E III al· .....r:U 1.01:;J!_£E

·rl C !_ .rl LJ III +, EE 111 0 c:n ~c, C!!- .C '-I- III 1.11 ~.c' ~. UIII c: ..... -1 ..r: Iti r--J+' 1],1 In ~c, IX! .ri 111III U III U.C

U r~n !- ..I.:: ..I:: III r: .,pr::: n:i ~.;, .p ..I.:: ::;i

!- .t'i U ..-I..J..:r 0 0..III!_CO::;;: U::ir: III r(i ~.:, J: 0'=.I ,{-- ~ t: +, >. t_

o,.,-{ 1+_ III 1.f1 '=1 .,.vl !- 01

iJI 0 r: ..-1 3: 0Iii 0.. 0 ~~, I.n !--.rl r: a ..~ ,t; r: ·rl 1.11G .,,001 r-I --:I..) !_ 0 >- ..cE t]Jrr.iO·.--J1:J-J.~o III ..... TJ H[) .1·.:' <T.: 0

I.J .?~ ~ f:fi ~:~ .;.~: :-i~' >..

~~ t r-I :§ ~:: ~~ r-~ ~~..:. III r-l 0 U I.n 'u

';- Iti 1...1 C I.Ii 1.J"1-'1-£ il.i com r:fo-l l]j III !._ ·r-I U c:I rJ:i

I{i

u

'f.JruI.n

aD0..o~.

In• III

I.Ii U111 ...iU :•.r·' i.u

u

COJ 0

III ..I: CL.C f-- ::;i.p

I.nu ::;;:!_ ruro .,.~

".J ':.C i:uI"f,i !­

.,ptil r-l

r(i1.1"1 ·rl

Cl.·Pr.) .r-;

r-l Cill ·rl>III C

,..J rO

>­1:J IIIr: Uf(i

IIIU I.nill alJ.n .CO--t-=an.o !­!- 0 I-{_

n 1.1- 0

In

f::;

0.1

::i'='u.e

1•..1

>... t_rei 0E+)O

. .-1 -J.,)-i.':' C!- 0 C

I::; 0·rl..prr.;Uo

r-l

>. >­III

I.J III..c

(]1 .... .:cC

+. IIIo .r::C+>

ill .,..1

£ r­1-. ':i

1fIUIU

.,'-1 CI·r-!!- ..,...) "»o iii

..p Cl.".:1oM '1' .., Ul +,C.cO.lCU01,l1>0::JE c: '1'-1 • .-1 ,':'1

,=,·1":' -P CU ·r-I I.J I.": 0

..., .p ru ru u !_e:: 1T,i 1.1- ~'M ()

o r--i 1.1-- t_ r-E 'l.J!_ OJ G.l 0 .--1 C.p!- U rr.i IIILI ,.-1 _c >-III C .,~ '+- I.n

.r-! _~I 0c: !-

c ::i !_ 1.1.1"1- ':;J III C ..I')o .r-' >... c: '='+, +1 O.r1III rr.; 1],1 .,-1 I.nI,n u I.J- I.n I.n::i Ci fT.i iJl .rl

r-l In .,~ 1=III F' I~£!-EEO-I":' 111·..-1 0 U

u·J" U1_ C Ual III 'r'

T.J 1-1- >!-. li_':' 0 ([I

U ,-IC .r-!10 ..p

..C CC ::i(IJ

I.n .,~

Ui+>U U

.r·1 ...... 1.11!­f(i

I.n'[J

c:III1=f'"oUIII!-

Iii

en11.1

""-1

C.rl

I.n..j':l r1JC III1],1 I­E 'T;

..f.':1!__ r.:nn;i Cf:t. .,-1III ::;;

U 0,-I

ill r-lJ.:: 0I- 11-

.r'

,..:1III.pUrei["'

IiiIII

.1:1

.prrjr~

III.C-J..:'

I+­oUI1fI::i al

E1'-1 0ruJ::Co L­

'r-I 0-£.,.:! I.J-or·1

~15!-

4':1 If-

aQI.r: ru.p In

::io./':' ru

.C!- -1-.)III

1.1- alal I.n!- ~_.

()4':' 1,:1o c I.nC J]J C

C1o 0 .r-!

"0''''':' -1-":'rO

In I.n uc ru .,~

o ~ r--I

.rl r: 0..4':' .r-l 0..f(j _I·':' rU'0 CC O..f·':1

W U I))

1'= illr= .p 1_o f- !­U iii roal r=!-.p 111

!_ I.nal ro ::iIn 0.. Qill al .C.e u"f- c

ru 0.1: or;

WI f-- .~f·- 111o ..1-"Z:E: III'-' W ".J

cozo>....I­0([QZWLLoU1.L1IX

l.J.J:>

TRADITIONAL ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Minn. Department of CorrectionsDecember 1992

I. INTRODUCTION

The 1970s saw an increase in crime that went beyond experts'predictions and seemingly beyond the ability of anyone to control it.Part of this may have been due to the political climate, specificallythe fundamentally different approaches to criminal justice that weretaken by our nation's supreme court. Cognizant of the changes broughtabout by the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the "Warren Court"under Chief Justice Earl Warren moved toward the due process modelwhich stresses the rights of the accused and demands strict "dueprocess" on the part of the government so as to protect theindividual. The "Burger Court" under Chief Justice Warren Burgerduring the 1970s and into the 1980s, tended to lean toward the crimecontrol model, an approach that lays heavier stress on the "rights ofsociety" and regards crime control as so important that greater stateintervention is necessary. (Lilly and Ball)

With this shift in the 1970s and 1980s came a sharp move to theconservative political right which led to two interesting phenomenon:1) a growing demand for crime control and, 2) a change in the nature oflegal and social boundaries between the public and private realms.(Lilly and Ball) The response to the first phenomena was to passstatutes which would help control crime. The policy objectives seemedto be to increase the likelihood that those convicted would beincarcerated, that their sentences would be for a longer duration, andthat they would be less likely to be released before having servedtheir whole sentence.

These shifts in policy, together with the increasing number ofoffenders moving through the justice system, resulted in a massiveinstitutional overcrowding problem. Policymakers were confronted withmeeting the demands of the public calling for punishment by increasingthe crowding of prisons and conversely, building more institutionswhich was fiscally objectionable. Since increasing the use of paroleflew in the face of public sentiment, policymakers looked toalternatives to incarceration.

Alternatives to incarceration were explored including increased use ofprobation. Intermediate punishments such as fines, community serviceorders, intensive supervision probation, work release and homeconfinement were tried by many states as ways of reducing prisonpopulations and still maintaining accountability of offenders. Themost recent new approach is electronic monitoring (EM) which has beenused traditionally in conjunction with home detention.

Home detention, also referred to as home confinement or house arrest,is the legal confinement of an individual to his/her residence for aspecified time period. The goal of home detention, like that of prisonor jail, is to restrict an individual's freedom to a particularlocation, in this case the home. Home detention is used both as aprimary sanction and as an element of other intermediate alternatives,such as intensive supervision probation.

Electronic monitoring involves the use of a technological device to

verify that offenders are at designated locations at specified timeperiods. The sanction usually allows for approved absences foremployment, education, court-ordered treatment programs, and religiousservices. Additional controls like prohibition of alcohol andrestrictions on visitors vary by program and by case.

During the early use of EM, about 75 percent of the offenders wereprobationers. When used as a condition of probation (at the front endof the sentence), usually a judge will sentence a nonviolent offenderto home confinement with the use of electronic monitoring instead of aperiod of incarceration. Use of EM with probationers has dropped to 25percent as judges broaden the use of EM. For instance, at the back endof the sentence, home confinement with EM can substitute for morecostly community-based programs in which inmates typically participatefor the final 60 to 180 days of their sentence. Electronic monitoringhas al~o been used for pretrial monitoring.

II. CURRENT TECHNOLOGY

There are two basic types of electronic monitoring systems: programmedcontact or passive and radio frequency or active. There are numerousmanufacturers of electronic monitoring. The most recent survey listedsixteen American manufacturers and one European manufacturers.(Journal of Offender Monitoring) This report ~ill not attempt todescribe the differences from one manufacturer to another or toevaluate their hardware, but merely point out the commoncharacteristics among EM equipment.

A. Programmed Contact System

The programmed contact system (passive system) monitors compliancethrough telephone contacts randomly generated by a host computer. Theclient's schedule and the frequency of contacts are entered into thecomputer by the program personnel. When the offender answers thetelephone, certain tasks must be performed to verify his or herpresence.

There are several types of verification including voice stressanalysis, video images or an electronic "handshake" with the computer.The latter method involves the offender's answering the telephone callby coming to the telephone, stating his/her name and time and insertinga wristlet into a verifier box which is hooked up to the telephone.The computer can tell whether this is the right person answering thecurfew call by comparing the actual response to the expected response,and produces a hard copy status report. If there is no response or itis late, the computer will alert program personnel. The theory behindthis system is that the unpredictability of the contact schedule,combined with the threat of sanctions, will deter offenders fromunauthorized absences. (Baumer and Maxfield)

2

B. Radio Frequency System

The radio frequency system (active system) requires that a transmitter,with a limited range--150 to 100 feet--be strapped to the individualbeing monitored. A receiver/dialer is connected to the telephone andmonitors the presence of the individual through the signals emitted bythe transmitter. This remote receiver periodically contacts the hostcomputer through telephone lines. When contacted by the receiver, thehost computer compares the information received with the storedschedule and produces a status report. The primary purpose of radiofrequency (RF) system is to provide information, approaching real timereports, about offender compliance with detention conditions. (Baumerand Maxfield)

C. Hybrid Systems

A vari~tion of the passive and active systems is called the hybridsystem. This system operates from a radio frequency system, however,when the receiver reports an irregularity, such as an unauthorizedabsence, the host computer switches to a programmed contact mode andattempts to contact the offender. If the programmed contact affirmsthe exit report, the system produces a violation notice.

There are additional features which provide useful monitoringinformation. The breathalyzer can detect whether an offender has beendrinking alcohol, thus, violating one of the conditions of homedetention. Drive-by mobile units offer the ability to locate theoffender. For instance, in a stalking situation, authorities can usethe drive-by unit to determine if the offender is sitting in a car nearthe victim's residence. Using a directional antenna, the unit's RFreception is increased and determines the direction from which thesignal is coming.

D. Cellular

At present, EM technology is moving in the direction of cellularapplicatiohs. Cellular phones are often used in traditional EM whenthe offender does not have a regular phone either because it isunaffordable or for some other reason, such as location, a traditionalphone is inappropriate. Some manufacturers who are studying thedomestic abuse application are looking to cellular technology toprovide the victim with a receiver wherever she goes. The drawback ina mobile receiver is that should an offender's transmitter come nearthe receiver, thereby setting off an alarm, the victim would bedifficult to locate.

III. U. S. PICTURE

The increase in the use of EM has expanded dramatically from the firstprogram in Palm Beach, Florida in 1984 to 33 states in 1988 monitoringnearly 2,300 offenders to all but three states in 1990 supervisingapproximately 12,000 offenders. Although there is no final dataavailable for 1991-92, it is safe to say that virtually all states are

3

using some form of EM. (Renzema and Skelton)

The programs are operated differently from state to state. Somestates, such as Michigan, monitor most of the offenders through theirstate department of corrections, while others such as Florida monitor alittle over half through their state corrections department and theother half are monitored by sheriff's offices, local correctiondepartment, police departments and private agencies.

A. Offender Selection

EM technology is used on probationers, parolees, work releasees,pre-trial releasees and other offenders under correctional supervisionin the community. The criteria for placement in electronicallymonitored home confinement varies from state to state and jurisdictionto jurisdiction. The U.S. Department of Justice released a monograph(February 1989) with the following recommendations on offenderselectIon/placement:

1. Suitability of the home (electrical source, structuralimpediments, telephone availability);

2. "Fi t" between the type cir equipment and the offenderprofile;

3. Offense committed;4. Significant others involved; and5. Special needs of the offender.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons considered the following issues whenplacing inmates into its home confinement program: backgroundinformation regarding health, mental stability, substance abusehistory, prior record, community and familial stability. A residenceis considered essential as is the support and cooperation of personsresiding with the inmate. Agencies should obtain voluntary writtenconsent from any offender placed in the program which outlinesobligations and requirements. The use of all monitoring devices shouldbe specifically authorized by the court or releasing authority.

It appears that nonviolent offenders were the first type of offendercommonly put on home detention. For instance, those convicted of DWIoffenses were often put on EM in a house arrest situation. A 1988study showed that a quarter of offenders were charged with majortraffic offenses. Property offenders represented 10 percent andclosely related offenses such as burglary (28 percent), thefts andlarcenies (39.6 percent), and breaking and entering (17.6) percentrepresented most of the rest of the participants.- Drug lal-J violatorsconstituted 15.3 percent of monitored offenders in this study.(Stewart) Broadly classified, one might say that many of the offenderswere those that otherwise would be released through a halfway house.

In selecting participants for electronically monitored house arrest(EMHA), it is important to look at whether the individuals are pretrial

4

detainees or post-trial offenders. For pretrial participants, twofactors should be present: release on recognizance would not be grantedand EMHA would never be used where a defendant chose to post bond. Inthe post-trial environment, the primary purpose of EMHA should bediversion from incarceration, rather than substituting for supervisedprobation. (Walker)

B. Cost of Electronic Monitoring

The cost of an EM program is usually paid at least in part by theoffender. One study found that two-thirds of the programs collect feesand that they average $200 a month. Some programs charge as much as$15 a day. (Renzema and Skelton) Some charge as little as $5 a day.The majority of programs that charge a fee have sliding fee scales.Costs that cannot be paid by the offenders are picked by by localgovernments or by the state. Obviously, governments can only go so farin underwriting the costs before cost benefits of the system are lost.(Fr iel ·and Vaughn)

It is wise for each local or state agency involved with EM to have apolicy for indigent offenders so that individuals who are otherwisegood candidates for EM but who cannot afford a telephone or themonitoring fees are not precluded from using the system. It is also agood idea to have an indigent policy because lack of such a policymight lead to race and class bias, a result which the American CivilLiberties Union already is concerned about. Because there is generallya rigorous screening process as previously mentioned, programs may endup putting a disproportionately large number of white-collar offenderson EM--those who have minor criminal records, no history of drug abuseand ability to pay EM fees. These programs, then, would appear to showrace and class bias. This situation raises possible "equal protection"concerns and concerns about overall fairness. (Petersilia)

C. Response to Violations

In order to assure program credibility, something has to be done withthose offenders who violate EM rules. It is advisable for the agencyto have a clear, concise policy directive to guide them in respondingto violations. As a'first step, the policy should recognize thedifference between true violations and equipment "glitches." The factthat a monitor reports violations may increase the liability if furthercriminal acts occur. The arrest/no arrest decision must be based uponclearly articulated policy and procedure. (U.S. Dept. of Justice)

An EM program which combines EM, substance-abuse testing and intensivehuman supervision usually provides so much negative information that aninflexible policy of incarcerating rules-violators would greatly worsenjail overcrowding. Ten percent of the programs in a 1989 survey saidthat technical violators were invariably incarcerated. The mostcommonly used sanction, reported by 96 percent of the programs, was thewarning, written or verbal. Other common violation responses were thetightening of reporting requirements, increased urine testing, strictercurfews, and increasing the frequency of random calls for thosemonitored by passive systems. (Renzema and Skelton)

5

IV. MINNESOTA'S EXPERIENCE

Minnesota is a very recent entrant into the electronic monitoringarena, having just begun their EM program three years ago. Initially,EM was largely left up to each local jurisdiction as to whatorganization they wished to contract with and how the monitoringprocess itself should operate. The Department of Corrections (DOC) hadlittle or no control over the rates that were being charged for EMservices.

A. DOC's Electronic Monitoring Policy

One of the DOC's first steps was to get involved in the vendorcontracting process by issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) coveringall state-funded contracts for EM services. In April 1992, thedepartment took an additional step by adopting a state policy on EM.(Division Policy Memo, Vol. 8, No.1)

The policy acknowledges EM as a legally permissible sanction and methodof supervising offenders. The policy establishes the correctionsagent's role in EM as a case manager who will be involved ~vith theproper DOC classification of the offender. The DOC will be responsiblefor the costs of EM only when the offender is under the DOC'sjurisdiction, otherwise the district court will assist in establishingpayment responsibility. The Office of Adult Release and the districtcourt will determine the duration of EM.

Contracts for EM services will be issued by the work release unit orthe community services support unit. Contracts are to addressprocedures for technology operation and for notification of agents.The supervising agent or officer of the day will be contacted by themonitor in the event of an EM violation. An agent's response is to bebased on the degree of determined risk and violation circumstances.

The DOC policy sets forth the following criteria to be used in offenderselection:

1. Level of viqlence demonstrated by the offender;2. Prior law enforcement contacts and convictions;3. Prior chemical dependency and mental health evaluations and

treatments;4. Employment and/or education status;5. Length of community residence;6. Willingness to participate; and7. Suitability of residence.

The policy also takes into account various constitutional challengesthat have been made to EM's potentiality of infringing upon the rightsof offenders. The policy seeks to protect offenders' 4th and 5thAmendment rights of unreasonable search and seizure andself-incrimination as well as the 14th Amendment right of equalprotection.

6

B. DOC Policy on Indigency

The DOC has promulgated a policy designed to address offenders' rightof equal protection in that no eli~ible candidate for EM should beprohibited from participating solely because the offender cannot afforda telephone. The department iterates its intention to underwritetelephone costs for those offenders who are truly indigent based onassessments performed by case managers.

C. Current Contractors and Delivery System

Minnesota's DOC currently contracts with General Security ServicesCorporation (GSSC) to provide EM services to those offenders onsupervised rel~ase. GSSC uses the radio frequency or active system ofelectroriic monitoring.

Those offenders who are on work release/EM are serviced through acontract with the Minnesota's Citizen Council.

7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baumer, Terry L. and t'lichael G. Maxfield, "A Viable Sanction-Not a Magic Bullet,"Corrections Compendium, February 1992, Vol. XVII, No.2.

Bennett, Dave and Barry Benoit, "Radio Frequency Receivers & Transmitters: TheirApplication in Electronic Monitoring," Journal of Offender Monitoring, Vol. 5, No.4Fall 1992. pp. 16-17.

Del Carmen, Rolando V. and Joseph B. Vaugh, "Legal Issues in the Use of ElectronicSurveillance in Probation," Federal Probation, June 1986.

Fox, Richard G. "Dr. Schwitgebel's Machine Revisited: Electronic Monitoring ofOffenders," AUST and NZ Journal of Criminology. September 1987, pp .. 131-147.

"Electronic Monitoring in Intensive Probation and Parole Programs," U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Monograph February 1989.

Friel, Charles M. and Vaughn, Joseph B., "A Consumer's Guide to the ElectronicMonitoring of Probationers," Federal Probation, Vol. 50, 1986, pp. 3-14.

Lilly, J. Robert and Richard A. Ball, "A Brief History of House Arrest andElectronic Monitoring," Northern Kentucky Law Review, 13:342-374 (1987).

Maxfield, Michael G. and Terry L. Baumer, "Electronic Monitoring in Marion CountyIndiana," Corrections Compendium, Vol. XVII, No.2, February 1992, pp. 7-8.

Morris, Norval and Michael Tonry, "Between Prison and Probation-IntermediatePunishments in a Rational Sentencing System," NIJ Reports, January-February 1990.

Petersilia, Joan, "A Man's Home Is His Prison," Criminal Justice, Winter 1988 pp.17-19, 40-42.

Petersilia, Joan, "House Arrest," NIJ Crime File, 1988.

Renzema, Marc and David Skelton, "Trends in the Use of EM," Journal of OffenderMonitoring, Vol. 3, No.3, Summer 1990, pp. 12-17.

Topics in Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, "The Merging of IntermediatePunishments, Home Confinement and Electronic Monitoring," August 1990.

Schmidt, Annesley, "Electronic Monitors, Realistically, What Can be Expected?"IARCA Journal, May/June 1991, pp. 7-11.

Von Arx, John, "Electronic Monitoring Programs: Use Spreads Throughout the Nation,"The National Sheriff, December/January 1988, pp. 42-44.

Walker, James L., "Sharing the credit, sharing the blame: managing political risksin electronically monitoried house arrest," Federal Probation 54(2): 16-20, 1990.

8

ELECTRONIC MONITORING MANUFACTURER SURVEY

Department of COrlectionsDecembel- 1992

ELECTRONIC MONITORING MANUFACTURER SURVEY

I. Research Methodology

In order to carry out this survey, he Department of Corrections contacted throughthe mail all the electronic monitoring (EM) manufacturers who were listed in theSummer 1992 issue of the Journal of Offender Monitoring and other manufacturersidentified through the press or trade shows. Manufacturers were asked a series ofquestions regarding electronic monitoring as a safety enhancement for domestic abusevictims (see the letter following). A total of 20 manufacturers were solicited forinformation. If written or phone responses did not occur within 30 to 45 days, themanufacturers were contacted by phone. Nine of the manufacturers' responses are theresult of th~se phone calls. The information is somewhat limited due to thedifficulty in getting technical information in a phone conversation. Five of themanufacturers did not respond to letter(s) or phone calls. It was apparent thatmany companies were reluctant to divulge too much information with a new EMapplication such as the dom~stic abuse system appears to be. The preceding caveatsshould be kept in mind when reading the chart which contains the results of thesurvey.

II. Summary Analysis

Of the 20 manufacturers surveyed, eight stated that they are not currently marketinga domestic abuse application of their EM technology. Of these eight, two expressedan interest in the domestic abuse application: Strategic Technologies and Vericon.A third company, BI, Inc., has no plans to market a domestic application under theircompany name, but clearly has an interest since they have provided seed money toBodyguard-Technology--a company that has been formed exclusively for development andmarketing of a domestic abuse application of EM technology. One of themanufacturers who is not planning on adopting their EM technology for domestic abuseis Mitsubishi. This manufacturer expressed concern about the liability to whichtheir company would be exposed and, furthermore, believes that the current EMtechnology does not provide an acceptable level of safety and protection for thevictim.

Seven manufacturers, of the 20 surveyed, discussed using their technology as a wayof providing some additional safety to victims of domestic abuse. Five of the sevenidentified locations where the technology was being tested or used: ADT, BodyguardTechnologies, Electronic Surveillance, Total Control, and Tracktek. All five ofthese companies appear to have just recently begun test cases or pilot projects.Hence, no results from the tests were available at the time of the survey. Twomanufacturers who have yet to begin pilot projects are Innovative Security Systemsand VOREC. These two companies have, however, researched and developed electronicwarning systems for domestic abuse victims.

Two of the seven manufacturers with domestic abuse applications of theirtechnologies--ADT and Tracktek--are not using technology which fits the definitionof "electronic monitoring device" set forth in Minn. Stat., section 609.02, subd. 14or the definition of "electronic warning system" (EWS) given in the standards. ADTis marketing a panic or emergency button to be activated by the victim when shebelieves she is in imminent danger, i.e., her abuser is at or near her residence.The victim must be in her house for the alarm to work. ADT does not fit the

.PAGE 2EM Survey

perpetrator with a transmitter or monitor the perpetrator~s part of their system.Because there are no restrictions whatsoever placed on the perpetrator, this wouldnot meet with the definition of "EWS" in the standards, nor would the court orderthis type of safety device where only the victim is involved. This safety devicefor the victim would have to be offered to the victim through victim advocates,corrections or some other means outside of the court system.

In contrast to ADT's panic button for the victim, Tracktek's domestic abuseapplication involves only the offender. Here the perpetrator is placed on EM andsome form of home detention, while the victim has no receiver or warning device inher house. It appears, then, that Tracktek's domestic abuse system is no differentthan traditional EM except that the offenders who have committed domestic abuserelated crimes are designated and perhaps monitored a little more carefully oruniquely than. the others on EM.

Of the seven manufacturers that have developed some form of EWS for domestic abusevictims, five recommend putting the perpetrator on EM with some form of homedetention. It appears that this may be done regardless of whether the perpetratoris a pretrial detainee or a-probationer. Thus far, states such as Texas who placepretrial detainees on EM and home curfew and whose criminal code provide magistrateswith the authority to order EM/home curfew, have had no constitutional challenges tothis practice. Minnesota may wish to expand the definition of EWS or EM device toinclude some form of home detention.

The two manufacturers who do not recommend putting the offender on EM/home curfeware ADT and Bodyguard Technologies. ADT, whose system has already been discussed,uses technology which involves the victim only. Bodyguard, on the other hand, takesa more encompassing approach in that it markets its technology with additionalprogram components: a 12-week stabilization program for the perpetrator, optionalvictim survivor/empowerment group, and a rapid response system. While Bodyguard'ssystem appears to most closely meet Minnesota's statutory definition of an EM device(or the EM standards' definition of EWS), it is not necessarily the best orpreferred system. However, Bodyguard's Jurismonitor project appears, thus far, tobe the most comprehensive electronic warning system.

JP:EMMFSURI

01104/1993

Mfg. Contact

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

EM MANUFACTURE;RS RESULTS

If yesLocation of

Installation Comments

Page

Catherine BartoSaatchi & Saatchi Public

Relations375 Hudson StreetNew York, NY 10014-3620212/463-3171for ADT Security Systems

x

.'

- HillsboroughCounty,Tampa,Florida- Knoxvi lle, TN- Boston", MA- Seattle, WA- MiddlesexCounty, "NJ

EWS Operation: The AWARE <Abused Women's ActiveResponse Emergency) project began in January, 1992,with the placement of security systems and emergencynecklace pendants in approximately 24 batteredwomen's residences in the Tampa, Florida area. Thewomen are to press their pendant or the emergencybutton mounted on the wall if they are in imminentdanger. ADTdispatchers will alert the appropriatelaw enforcement officials.

The victim must be in the home in order to set offthe alarm. The victim signs a standard monitoringcontract which releases ADT from liability.Contract is similar to ADT's burglar alarmcontract. Current system needs a phone, but aretesting cellular equipment. Each city or countydevelops their own participation criteria.

NOTE: There is no electronic monitoring of t~e

perpetrator with this system.

Cost: Approximately $50,000 per market; however,ADT is offering the system free of charge at thistime. Individual installation would be about $300to $500 for equipment and $19-22 per month if ADTwere charging •

Mfg. Contact

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

EM MANU~ALIU~~Hb ~~~ULlb

If yesLocation of

Installation Comments

Page:

Vince StintonBI, Inc.6400 Lookout Rd.Boulder, CO 80301800/666-2911

David G. O'Neil, Pres.Bodyguard Technologies,Inc.7490 Clubhouse Rd.Suite 201Boulder, CO 80301303/581-0100

x

x

..

Arapahoe County,Colorado

Not marketing their own equipment for domestic abuseapplication. Provided seed money to BodyguardTechnologies. Bought out Tracktek.

Operation of Electronic Warning System (EWS):In addition to BI, Inc., Bodyguard has also receivedseed money from Lifelong Systems, Watertown,Massachusetts, who provides the master computer.The name of their domestic abuse EWS isJurismonitor. The system is designed to increasesafety'of the victim. The program consists of threeparts:.

1. Stabilization of the perpetrator:consisting of ankle bracelet transmitter + 12-weekstabilization program.

2. Victim empowerment: inform victim ~his isnot protection, but it is part of a safety plan theydevelop wherein Jurismonitor will help them identifycommunity resources. Optional victim survivorgroup.

3. Rapid response: when OFP issued, it isdistributed to many parties including police, paroleofficer, monitoring agency, etc. System is set upto quickly and effectively respond to victim's alarmwhich is triggered when the offender comes withinrange of her receiver. Victim also has an emergencybutton which will set off the same rapid responsesystem •

The manufacturer characterizes the Jurismonitorsystem as 20'l. technology, 40'l. perpetrator/victimprograms, 40'l. rapid response. Manufacturerconsiders this system to be a new tier ofintervention between incarceration and unsupervisedrelease.

Mfg. Contact

Lewis Weidman.Chubb Electronics, Ltd.297 Kingston RoadLeatherhead, SurreyKT22, 7LS, UK0372/378023

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

EM MANUFACTURtRS RESULTS

If yesLocatio'n of

Installation

No response.

Comments

Page :5

Jeff SlaterCOMGUARD CorporationPO Box 907Kankakee, IL 60901800/842-5454

Frank R. Bauer, V.P~

Corrections Services,Inc.3050 E. Commercial Blvd.Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308800/282-9444

Walter McMahon, Pres.Cost Effective MonitoringSystem2207 Grange CircleChampaign, IL 61801217/333-4579

Paul SchnellDigital Products Corp.dba/HitekCenter Port800 NW 33rd St.Pompano Beach, FL 33064800/323-9476

x

x

x

.'

No domestic abuse application.

No domestic abuse application.

No domestic abuse application. Efforts arecurrently going into hospital EM use withAlzheimer's patients who wander.

No response •

Mfg. Contact

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

l:.Ivl jvIANUFACTUHJ::J<S HI::SUL I S

If yesLocation of

Installation Comments

Pag~ 6

Chris Grubbs, V.P.Electronic Surveillance,Inc.63 Chaparral Dr.New Braunfels, TX 78132800/388-7939

George Polk, Pres.EP Systems131 Greene StreetNew York, NY 10012800/359-6554

John B. Coogler, Pres;Innovative SecuritySystems19855 Stevens Crk. BI.Suite 180Cupertino, CA 95014408/446-5899

x

x ,

.'

Texas: SeeTexas code ofCriminalProcedure Art.17.43 whichprovides that amagistrate mayrequire thedefendant tosubmit to homecurfew and EM asa condition ofrelease onpersonal bond.

No project hasbegun as of11/92.

EWS Operation: Perpetrator is generally on EM/Homecurfew. Does not always know victim has receiver inher house. Victim also has panic button with rangeof 1200 feet. Police use high priority for domesticabuse cases--same as for rape, burglary.Manufacturer is certified by Underwriter'sLaboratory <UL).

Comment: This company did not send any writtenmaterial on their EWS because they viewed allinformation as proprietary. They provided theinformation herein over the phone. They would beavailable for a demonstration.

Cost: Standard cost for EM is approximately$5.50/day with 2 receivers, it goes up to$10-12/day.

No response.·

Cost: ISS recommended leasing the equipment at $5to $20/day depending on level of monitoring service,geography involved and equipment options selected.

EWS Operation: Intelligent Monitoring Unit (IMU)placed in victim's home. ISS recommends placing inoffender's home also. Offender's transmitter has arobust RF signal and makes use of antenna in the .strap. Recommends use of drive-by unit withdirectional antenna to constantly monitor offender'smovements.

Provide. electronic surveillance of the offenderbased on the belief that stalking generally occursduring the first 6-12 months the offender is freefrom incarceration. Recommend 24-hour a dayservice.

Mfg. Contact

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

~M MHNU~ALIUHlH~ H~bULJ~

If yesLocation of

Installation Comments

Page 7

David Page, Mktg. V.P.Guardian Technologies,Inc.5200 Fields Ertel Rd.Cincinnati, OH 45249

Tom RozlakMarconi ElectronicDevices, Ltd100 Smith St.Farmingdale, NY 11735516/293-8686

Dino RizzoferratoMitsubishi ElectronicsAmerica, Inc.800 Biermann CourtMt. Prospect, II60056-2173708/298/9223

Robert FrithMotorola, Inc.Govt. Electronics Group8220 E. Roosevelt st.Scottsdale, AZ 85257602/441-3033

Ronald Hoelscher, Sr VPStrategic Technologies,Inc.

, 2430 42nd Av. E., #229Seattle, WA 98112800/827-1942

x

x

.'

x

Guardian merged with Cincinnati Microwave. Acquiredby Bl.

No response to our inquiries.

No response to our inquiries.

Comments Per letter of 10/8/92: "Based on thelimitations of existing technology, we do notbelieve that current electronic monitoring devicesprovide an acceptable level of safety and protectionfor victims."

Per telephone call of 10/7/92: Looking at 15-30minute response time. 911 may be better. Questionof liability for manufacturer. Insubstantialincrease in safety. False level of security.

Developing security system via use of zoning andcordless phone for penal institutions' work crewsand for college campuses.

Manufacturer expressed interest in the domesticabuse application, but is not currently involved inany efforts.

Mfg. Contact

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

1:.1'1 J'J/-ljljW-/-lL I UKt.Kb Kl:.bUL 1~

If yesLocation of

Installation Comments

Pagt.. 8

Randy Ziesenis, Pres.Total Control Systems/Track-Find3228 South BI., Suite 324Edmond, .OK 73083-1775405/348-1465

Everett Bell, Exec VP CEOTraktek, A Division of BIInc.7655 E. Redfield Rd.Suite 10Scottsdale, AZ 85260602/596-0442

Richard D. Hawn, Jr VPVericon Systems, Inc.11551 Forest Central Dr.Suite 103Dallas, TX 75243800/878-0850

John C. Resch, Sr.VOREC, Inc.358 Saw Mill River Rd.Millwood, NY 10546800/832-0152

x

x

x

x

.'

One case beingtested inOklahoma. Wi 11be using.AT&T !McCawseamless networkvia satellites.

Harris County,Texas4-5 domesticabuse caseswhere offenderis on EM/Housearrest.

Proposed:Dolphin County,Pennsylvania andDutchess County,New York •

EWS Operation: The equipment to be used will becellular. The victim will have a mobile receiverthat can be carried to work. The offender will havea cellular transmitter and a mobile receiver. Thesystem will also make use of a drive-by unit.

Commments per telephone call of 11/9/92: Currentlylicensing the technology for domestic abuseapplication. Plan to do this in joint venture withother manufacturer.

EWS Operation: Offender is put on house arrest as acondition of surety bond. Manufacturer considersclose surveillance of offender to be a system whichwill help protect victim.

Does not appear that victims are given any kind ofalarm system.

Comments: Interested, but have not begun anythingas of 11/92.

Selling their technology to Strategic Technologies,Inc. in Seattle, WA.

EWS Operation: Proposing to set up domestic abusepilots, but have not done so as of 11/92.

Offender's equipment: voice verification unit,receiver, and transmitter bracelet with 150 feetrange. Victim's equipment: mobile receiver(adaptation of drive-by unit>, panic button worn onwrist. Offender is on some type of supervision,usually intensive. Recommend EM in pretrialsi tuations.

Comments: Manufacturer is concerned aboutliability. Continues to work on perfecting tampercontrol. Does not work in rural setting because ittakes police 30 minutes to respond.

EM MANUFACTLw~RS RESULTS

Mfg. Contact

Domestic Abuse/EM ApplicationYES NO R&D

If yesLocation of

Installation Comments

Page 9

VOREC, Inc. Cont'd Cost of Each System ComponentPurchase of Equipment - Central Station (in-house)

$.50 per day, per unit$.30 per day, per unitNegotiable

$3.28 per day, per unit$2.19 per day, per unit

$ 2,250.00 per unit$ 1,500.00 per unit

$17.80 per dayIncluded in computer pkg.Included in price per day

per unitOne with every 15 units

leasedIncluded in unit priceof the package.

$15,000.00$ 1,500.00 per yearbeginning with year 2.

(drive-by) One with every 15 unitspurchased-no cost.Included in unit priceTransmitters (bracelets)

Maintenance AgreementVVU'sVISA's

Field verifier

Lease of EguipmentVoice verificati~n unitVISA R.F.Computer

Accommodates up to 200SoftwareMaintenance Agreement

Voice verification unitVISA R.F.Computers (2 computers,2 modems, & 2 printers)Software

Dri ve-by un i t

Transmitters (bracelets)Updates included as part

Vorec Monitoring ServiceVoice verification unit $4.93 per day, per unitVISA R.F. $3.84 per day, per unitOnly paying for unit actually in use.

jp:EMSUR2