Does Electronic Monitoring Work High Quality
Daría Davino
In 2020, as the world grappled with the emergence of COVID-19, prisons and jails became hotspots for outbreaks. Looking to slow the spread of the disease, and under the threat of litigation, some jurisdictions began to look for alternatives to incarceration, turning to electronic monitoring as the answer.
This ACLU report calls on jurisdictions to replace electronic monitoring with less restrictive and more effective measures, such as court reminders and transportation assistance. The report also outlines ways jurisdictions can mitigate the harms of monitoring in accordance with due process and fairness principles.
You can read the full report here. Defense attorneys can check out our resource with guidance on challenging pretrial electronic monitoring here. Below, three people share their stories of enduring electronic monitoring.
Electronic monitoring has seen a 140 percent increase in just over a decade. About 125,000 devices are in use, with up to 30,000 of them attached to immigrants on any given day. States with the most prolific use of electronic monitoring include Florida, Texas, California, Massachusetts, and Michigan.
Not only does electronic monitoring impose excessive surveillance on people coming home from prison, but it also hinders their ability to successfully transition back into the community. Additionally, there is no concrete evidence that electronic monitoring reduces crime rates or recidivism.
People subject to electronic monitoring often pay user fees ranging from $3 to $35 per day, along with $100 to $200 in setup charges. This unfairly shifts the costs of incarceration from the government to individuals and their families. A class-action lawsuit in Alameda County alleges that this practice amounts to extortion.
Electronic monitoring can make it difficult for parolees or probationers to go to job interviews, access employment and education, receive medical treatment, responsibly parent their children, or take part in family and community life. Short perimeters around their homes can stop people from emptying their garbage or doing yard work. Exclusion zones may prevent people from visiting homes of family members, religious services, school, or work.
Electronic monitoring can interfere in employment activities. It can create challenges for landscaping, construction, or delivery jobs. Some buildings, such as warehouses, interfere with GPS signals, so people may need to leave work to pick up the signal or call their parole officers. Unplanned overtime or a sudden change in work schedule can also lead to violations that result in further incarceration.
Some states contract with more than one electronic monitoring company. For example, they may rent GPS tracking devices from one company but rent the SCRAM devices used to detect blood alcohol from another firm.
These requirements were added to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) on April 11, 2022. There was a special rule that applied in the first year of the requirement. Employers that employed 25 or more employees on January 1, 2022 had until October 11, 2022 to have a written policy on the electronic monitoring of employees in place.
Beginning in 2023, and in the years that follow, employers that employ 25 or more employees on January 1 of any year must have a written policy on the electronic monitoring of employees in place before March 1 of that year.
The requirements relating to written policies on the electronic monitoring of employees apply to all employees and employers covered by the ESA except the Crown, a Crown agency or an authority, board, commission or corporation whose members are all appointed by the Crown and their employees.
For example, an employer owns three wine shops with 12 employees employed in each shop on January 1. This employer employs 36 employees. The employer must have a written policy in place for all employees on the electronic monitoring of employees, even though there are fewer than 25 employees employed at each individual shop.
If an employer employs 20 employees in Ontario on January 1, 2022, that employer is not required to have a policy in place on the electronic monitoring of employees. Say the employer then hires five more employees in May 2022, this employer continues to not be subject to the requirements to have a written policy in place for 2022.
However, if all 25 employees remain employed by that employer on January 1, 2023, the employer would meet the 25 employee threshold on January 1, 2023 and will be required to have a written policy on the electronic monitoring of employees in place for all employees before March 1, 2023.
The ESA does not require the employer to provide employees with a right to privacy. The ESA requirements give some employees the right to be provided with specified information about electronic monitoring by their employer.
The stakes for electronic monitoring are too high for devices to work inconsistently. With use of ankle monitoring devices on the rise, and monitoring apps on the horizon, it is all the more important that technologists and policy experts work together to ensure that all devices meet the same high standards.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is the official in charge of electronic monitoring, which due to bail reform and COVID-19 precautions in the jail has exploded in numbers. In 2010 only 500 suspects were free on electronic monitoring. That population is now over 3,500.
There have been notable recent walkaways who were quickly recaptured. Last March, so-called "serial stowaway" Marilyn Hartman walked away from the West Side shelter where she is confined on electronic monitoring, and was tracked as she rode a bus to O'Hare where she was quickly taken into custody.
Companies can electronically monitor their employees in numerous ways. If you have a work-issued computer, your boss can access your keystroke data, how much time you spend idle, webcam data, and your microphone.
We can advise you regarding your electronic monitoring concerns while working from home. Call us today or contact us online to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced employment attorneys.
Common examples of alternative sentences include work furloughs, probation, community corrections programs, diversion programs, and rehabilitation programs. An individual may also receive an alternative sentence that includes electronic monitoring, such as a probation sentence that includes house arrest with electronic monitoring or alcohol intake monitoring via an ignition interlock device.
For example, the device can detect when the person ordered to wear the device enters or exits their house, or leaves a certain designated area. The electronic monitoring system can even detect if the person attempts to tamper, remove, alter, or damage the monitor.
If the wearer of the electronic monitoring system violates the conditions of their alternative sentence, then they could have to wear the electronic monitoring system for longer, or receive the criminal penalties that were otherwise deferred.
If you have been convicted of a crime that resulted in being monitored via an electronic monitoring device, and you have questions regarding the electronic monitoring system, you should contact a criminal defense lawyer in your area.
Many fisheries across the United States have, or are currently working to, integrate electronic monitoring and reporting tools into their data collection programs. For example, on-board cameras were added to boats in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to track the bycatch of bluefin tuna. In Alaska, four fleets have fully implemented electronic monitoring. These fleets fish for groundfish including walleye pollock, the biggest and one of the most valuable catches in the nation. There are plans to implement more monitoring programs in other fisheries in coming years.
It depends. Cost comparison studies between electronic monitoring and the use of human, at-sea fishery observers for two hypothetical fisheries in the Northeast found that electronic monitoring may be a cost-effective option in some cases, but not in others:
We are also learning a great deal from our experience implementing systems in pilot programs. While we have not seen across-the-board cost savings in all fisheries, we expect that electronic monitoring and reporting costs could decrease in the future as we work collaboratively with industry and the private sector to refine these systems.
When people are placed under community supervision as a condition of being out of jail or prison, local governments sometimes will put a GPS monitor on their body (usually their ankle or wrist) to constantly track their whereabouts 24 hours a day. For people awaiting trial, this technology, commonly known as electronic monitoring, is designed to ensure people show up to court. And for people who have been convicted of a crime and whom governments have determined pose a higher risk of reoffending, electronic monitoring may allow them to serve their sentence in the community and avoid a term of imprisonment. In either case, electronic monitoring offers more freedom of movement than prisons and jails while aiming to reduce recidivism and advance public safety.
And even if a person agrees to electronic monitoring to remain in the community, they can still land behind bars because of it. People on electronic monitoring must follow numerous rules that are often onerous, broad, and ambiguous. These restrictions cover a wide range of areas, including employment, curfew, and exclusion zones. They even extend to device charging and interactions with friends, family, and community members.
Stand-alone monitoring does not involve a component (e.g., curfew, home detention, home incarceration) restriction; however, the person under supervision must comply with the location or travel restrictions as imposed by the court. Stand-alone monitoring should be used in conjunction with GPS technology.
dd2b598166