GPS Monitoring Solutions

By Don Thompson Associated Press
Posted: 08/24/2010 05:35:07 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO — California state senators unanimously approved tough legislation Tuesday that calls for locking up some convicted child molesters for life.

The bill was spurred by the slaying of two teenagers and named after 17-year-old Chelsea King, who was murdered in a San Diego County park this year. A convicted child molester has pleaded guilty to raping and killing King and 14-year-old Amber Dubois.

“This tragedy exposed a number of serious flaws in how California deals with violent sex offenders,” said Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta, who carried the bill in the Senate.

The bill would reserve life without parole for adult predators who kidnap, drug, bind, torture or use a weapon while committing a sex crime against a child. The life terms could be ordered for first-time and repeat offenders.

The measure also increases other penalties for child molesters, including requiring lifetime parole with GPS tracking for those convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under 14. Current law permits lifetime GPS monitoring, but most tracking ends when offenders leave parole.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office had found the increased prison terms and parole monitoring could eventually cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year. However, the bill’s author, Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, amended the bill in the Senate to offset its cost as the state faces a $19 billiondeficit.

Because it was amended, AB1844 must return to the Assembly for a final vote before it goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who issued a statement supporting the bill.

One amendment restricts the bill’s lifetime parole provision to habitual sex offenders and those convicted of crimes such as aggravated sexual assault on a child. People convicted of other sex crimes involving children would be monitored for 10 or 20 years after leaving prison.

The bill includes recommendations from the state’s Sex Offender Management Board to improve monitoring of paroled sex offenders, which Fletcher said would cut costs by preventing new crimes.

Kelly King, Chelsea’s mother, said she had tears streaming down her face as she watched the vote from the family’s new home in Illinois.

“I can’t think of anything short of having our daughter back that would be more meaningful,” she told reporters during a conference call.

Brent King, Chelsea’s father, said the family will work to promote similar laws around the nation.

Senators also unanimously approved two bills supported by Maurice Dubois, father of Amber Dubois. Both measures were co-authored by Assemblymen Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, and Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley.

The first, AB33, supports uniform guidelines on how law enforcement agencies should respond to missing persons reports.

The second, AB34, requires the state’s Violent Crime Information Center to send information about a reported abduction to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons system within two hours. The same two-hour deadline would apply to local law enforcement reports to the Department of Justice. The current deadline is four hours.

Both bills will return to the Assembly for final consideration.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed three bills into law that create broader protections for victims of domestic violence, electronic monitoring of violent offenders and greater awareness of teen dating violence— sweeping reforms the governor said will help prevent abuse and provide support and safety for victims in the “darkest moments.”

“Domestic violence is an issue that touches all walks of life. There is so much pain, so many damaged souls and so much loss. These news laws will strengthen what I believe are already some of the toughest domestic violence laws in the nation,” Rs. Rell said during a recent bill signing ceremony at the Connecticut Coalition on Domestic Violence in East Hartford.

“With these reforms we are providing the support and safety victims need in their darkest moments and harsh penalties for the offenders.,” she said.

The centerpiece of the reforms is House Bill 5497, An Act Concerning the Recommendations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ Task Force on Domestic Violence, which addresses numerous programs in criminal justice, social services and education.

The legislation resulted from a bipartisan task force formed by Speaker of the House Christopher Donovan (D-Meriden),

“We’re taking steps to reduce domestic violence, protect families and prosecute violators,” he said. “We need to put a stop to this terrible crime. Today we’re beginning to do just that.”

The law includes the following:

• A pilot program in which the high-risk offenders are electronically monitored and requires the Judicial Branch to apply for federal grants to fund the program;

• Expands information and disclosure requirements for family intervention units, courts and the Department of Children and Families;

• Allows the chief court administrator to establish domestic violence dockets in three geographical areas

• Expands the persistent offender law for crimes involving assault, trespass, threatening, harassment and violation of restraining or protective order.

• Allows courts to consider the convictions for essentially the same crimes in other states.

All provisions take effect Oct. 1, with the exception of the electronic monitoring funding, which is effective upon passage.

Mrs. Rell also signed the following bills:

• House Bill 5246, An Act Concerning the Protection of and Services for Victims of Domestic Violence.

The law makes it easier for tenants who are victims of family violence to terminate their rental agreement without penalty, creates a public service awareness campaign to prevent teen dating violence and mandates the state Department of Social Services to make payments from marriage license surcharges to domestic violence shelters.

The effective date is Oct. 1, except for marriage license surcharge funds and public service campaign, which were effective July 1.

• House Bill 5315, An Act Concerning Education and the Reduction of Domestic Violence.

The law requires school boards to offer training on preventing teen dating violence to employees as part of the health education information they must provide.

It became effective July 1.

The governor said the state has already dedicated more than $2 million in federal stimulus funds over the last year for a variety of domestic violence programs.

Most recently, the state awarded $140,000 in stimulus funds to the Judicial Branch to start a GPS monitoring program for domestic violence offenders in Bridgeport, Danielson and Hartford.

The funds will be used to purchase the monitoring service plus some equipment for a minimum of 21 high risk offenders.

The offenders will be identified by the courts.
Source

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer

A 25-year-to-life sentence for a third-strike offender convicted of failing to update his sex offender registration within five days of his birthday does not necessarily violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sanjay T. Kumar, sitting on assignment in Div. Five, said the Third District Court of Appeal’s contrary ruling in People v. Carmony (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1066 was wrong.

A potential life sentence may be appropriate, Kumar said, when the defendant’s history, and particularly the crimes resulting in the registration requirement, show him to be a danger to society.

The case of Willie Clifford Coley, whose habeas corpus petition was denied by the panel, is one in which the penalty was fitting, Kumar said.

Coley was arrested as part of a “parolee at large sweep” and charged with failing to update registration under Penal Code Sec. 290. Because his prior sex offense, rape in concert, was a felony, the registration offense was a felony.

Prior conviction allegations of voluntary manslaughter and robbery were found true, triggering the Three-Strikes Law. His Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence for violating the registration requirement, and other challenges, were rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2003.

Following Carmony, however, he petitioned the state Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus overturning his sentence on the same ground. The high court ordered the Court of Appeal to rule on the merits.

Kumar explained in a footnote that while an issue resolved on direct appeal normally cannot be relitigated in a habeas corpus proceeding, the California Supreme Court has recognized an exception where the law has changed, an exception “arguably” applicable to Coley.

But Kumar cited Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a third-strike sentence for a convicted shoplifter, and said the Carmony court erred in relying in part on a dissent in Ewing, in failing to factor the defendant’s possibility of early release on parole into its analysis, and in failing to consider the defendant’s prior criminal history in determining the proportionality of the sentence.

Coley, he noted, was convicted of burglary, voluntary manslaughter, burglary, rape in concert, and two burglaries between 1978 and 1988 and released on parole in 1998. Between his release and his arrest in the parole sweep three years later, he violated parole by testing positive for several controlled substances, failing to report and leaving the state without permission.

The prior offenses, Kumar added, were “particularly callous.” In the manslaughter case, Coley and another man—using an electrical chord—choked tied up a woman they accused of stealing drugs, then fell asleep and woke up to find the woman dead, then tried to conceal the body in a freezer after cutting her fingernails in an attempt to destroy evidence that she had scratched the other man while struggling.

Four months later, the jurist noted, Coley and the same accomplice raped a woman, ordered her to call another man and invite him for a visit, then stole the man’s wallet and knifepoint and threatened to kill him. The pre-sentence investigator said it was “absolutely incomprehensible” that the defendant continued to live in an apartment with a body in the freezer, that he was “a man without a conscience,” and that he showed no remorse and would likely commit more crimes if released from prison.

Those facts, Kumar said, were sufficient to establish that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense. Rather than abstractly consider the seriousness of failure to update, he reasoned, the court must also consider the seriousness of the crimes resulting in the registration requirement.

The case is In re Coley, 10 S.O.S. 4491.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

July 27–Judge-executives from the Owensboro region said Monday they are unsure how they will comply with “Amanda’s Law,” a new state law that allows courts to put global positioning system devices on people who violate emergency protective orders.
The law, which was passed by the state legislature during the spring session and went into effect July 15, does not include any money to help pay for the GPS devices that will be needed.
“It’s the classic unfunded mandate,” Daviess County Judge-Executive Reid Haire said.

“Amanda’s Law” was passed in memory of Amanda Ross, who was fatally shot Sept. 11, 2009. At the time of the shooting, Ross had an active restraining order against Stephen R. Nunn, a former state legislator who is accused of killing her. He is the son of former Gov. Louie B. Nunn.

The law gives judges the right to force people who violate restraining orders to wear GPS devices so their whereabouts can be monitored at all times.

Haire was not aware that the law is in effect until contacted by the Messenger-Inquirer, but he said county officials will begin looking into the issue.

“I know we did not budget that,” Haire said. “Hopefully in the next few days, we’ll have a plan of action.”

Daviess County Attorney Claud Porter said he has met with law enforcement officials to discuss the law. “The statute says counties are not supposed to pay for it,” Porter said. “The problem is … if (the person ordered to wear a GPS device) is declared indigent, they don’t have to pay for it and the provider has to absorb the cost.”

Porter said that sets up a system where the company eventually chosen by the county to provide the GPS service will have to estimate how many people will not be able to pay for GPS devices — and base its fees on that estimate to make up for those who can’t pay.

“They will not know how many … will be declared indigent. They’ll have to guess a number, so they (can) spread the cost over those who are able to pay,” Porter said.

Counties will have to contract with GPS providers for the service. The law requires a GPS operation that can both monitor the person ordered to wear the device and notify the person who took out the protective order if a violation occurs.

“It’s complicated and somewhat expensive,” Porter said. ” … What we would have to do is (advertise) for a system to be paid for by the persons being monitored, except for those declared indigent,” while including a disclaimer that “the county is not responsible” for picking up the cost of those who cannot pay.

“If I were answering that proposal, I’m not sure I would answer, (or would say), ‘We’ll tell you what it will cost (per person monitored), and we’ll not monitor anyone else’ ” who cannot pay, Porter said.

Hancock County Judge-Executive Jack McCaslin said there have been discussions in the county about the new law. McCaslin said the county has a system for monitoring people sentenced to home incarceration that relies on a land telephone line. That system costs the person being monitored about $2 per day.

“The GPS system they’re talking about using … they run $7 a day,” McCaslin said. “If we have to pay for those, some of those EPOs run for months. That would break the bank.”

McCaslin said using GPS to monitor people who violate protective orders is “a good concept,” but the county will have to pay for indigent people who are ordered to wear the devices.

“Most of them are probably going to be indigent,” McCaslin said.

The county or the commonwealth’s attorney’s office will have to attempt to collect the fees from everyone judged able to pay, McCaslin said.

The number of people who could be ordered to wear the devices will create a financial drain for counties, McCaslin said.

“We’re just a little, old, small county, but our county has a lot of domestic violence,” McCaslin said. “You look at big counties … who knows how much domestic violence they have?

“The bottom line is, who’s going to pay for it? The counties,” McCaslin said.

Ohio County Judge-Executive David Jones said he hasn’t studied the new law closely yet.

“For me, it’s not unusual for legislators to adopt bills and not put in money to take care of it,” Jones said. But Jones said: “Anything we feel like we need to do, we’ll do it.”

Muhlenberg County Judge-Executive Rick Newman could not be reached Monday for comment.

McLean County Judge-Executive Larry Whitaker said putting people who violate protective orders on GPS tracking will likely be less expensive than the alternative — sending them to jail.

“I think there are trade-offs,” Whitaker said. “(The county buys) drug testing kits right now. What that allows us to do is (allow offenders to be) released rather than incarcerated. The cost of providing the tests is cheaper than incarceration fees.

“I think I would take a hard look at, ‘How much is it going to cost us incarcerate them?’ ” Whitaker said.

The person ordered to wear a GPS device “should pay for it,” Whitaker said. But counties could also look at fees to pay for the service, such as fees that were created to pay for the construction of new judicial centers, Whitaker said.

“We can be creative, if the legislature will allow us to do that,” Whitaker said.

James Mayse, 691-7303, jmayse@messenger-inquirer.com
By James Mayse Messenger-Inquirer, Owensboro, Ky.
Publication: Messenger-Inquirer (Owensboro, Kentucky)
Date: Tuesday, July 27 2010

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

1210.7.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a county
probation department may utilize continuous electronic monitoring to
electronically monitor the whereabouts of persons on probation, as
provided by this chapter.
   (b) Any use of continuous electronic monitoring pursuant to this
chapter shall have as its primary objective the enhancement of public
safety through the reduction in the number of people being
victimized by crimes committed by persons on probation.
   (c) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
to specifically encourage a county probation department acting
pursuant to this chapter to utilize a system of continuous electronic
monitoring that conforms with the requirements of this chapter.
   (d) For purposes of this chapter, “continuous electronic
monitoring” may include the use of worldwide radio navigation system
technology, known as the Global Positioning System, or GPS. The
Legislature finds that because of its capability for continuous
surveillance, continuous electronic monitoring has been used in other
parts of the country to monitor persons on formal probation who are
identified as requiring a high level of supervision.
   (e) The Legislature finds that continuous electronic monitoring
has proven to be an effective risk management tool for supervising
high-risk persons on probation who are likely to reoffend where
prevention and knowledge of their whereabouts is a high priority for
maintaining public safety.

1210.8.  A county probation department may utilize a continuous
electronic monitoring device pursuant to this section that has all of
the following attributes:
   (a) A device designed to be worn by a human being.
   (b) A device that emits a signal as a person is moving or is
stationary. The signal shall be capable of being received and tracked
across large urban or rural areas, statewide, and being received
from within structures, vehicles, and other objects to the degree
technically feasible in light of the associated costs, design, and
other considerations as are determined relevant by the county
probation department.
   (c) A device that functions 24 hours a day.
   (d) A device that is resistant or impervious to unintentional or
willful damage.

1210.9.  (a) A continuous electronic monitoring system may have the
capacity to immediately notify a county probation department of
violations, actual or suspected, of the terms of probation that have
been identified by the monitoring system if the requirement is deemed
necessary by the county probation officer with respect to an
individual person.
   (b) The information described in subdivision (a), including
geographic location and tampering, may be used as evidence to prove a
violation of the terms of probation.

1210.10.  A county probation department shall establish the
following standards as are necessary to enhance public safety:
   (a) Standards for the minimum time interval between transmissions
of information about the location of the person under supervision.
The standards shall be established after an evaluation of, at a
minimum, all of the following:
   (1) The resources of the county probation department.
   (2) The criminal history of the person under supervision.
   (3) The safety of the victim of the persons under supervision.
   (b) Standards for the accuracy of the information identifying the
location of the person under supervision. The standards shall be
established after consideration of, at a minimum, all of the
following:
   (1) The need to identify the location of a person proximate to the
location of a crime, including a violation of probation.
   (2) Resources of the probation department.
   (3) The need to avoid false indications of proximity to crimes.

1210.11.  (a) A county probation department operating a system of
continuous electronic monitoring pursuant to this section shall
establish prohibitions against unauthorized access to, and use of,
information by private or public entities as may be deemed
appropriate. Unauthorized access to, and use of, electronic signals
includes signals transmitted in any fashion by equipment utilized for
continuous electronic monitoring.
   (b) Devices used pursuant to this section shall not be used to
eavesdrop or record any conversation, except a conversation between
the participant and the person supervising the participant that is to
be used solely for the purposes of voice identification.

1210.12.  (a) A county chief probation officer shall have the sole
discretion, consistent with the terms and conditions of probation, to
decide which persons shall be supervised using continuous electronic
monitoring administered by the county probation department. No
individual shall be required to participate in continuous electronic
monitoring authorized by this chapter for any period of time longer
than the term of probation.
   (b) The county chief probation officer shall establish written
guidelines that identify those persons on probation subject to
continuous electronic monitoring authorized by this chapter. These
guidelines shall include the need for enhancing monitoring in
comparison to other persons not subject to the enhanced monitoring
and the public safety needs that will be served by the enhanced
monitoring.

1210.13.  A county chief probation officer may revoke, in his or her
discretion, the continuous monitoring of any individual.

1210.14.  Whenever a probation officer supervising an individual has
reasonable cause to believe that the individual is not complying
with the rules or conditions set forth for the use of continuous
electronic monitoring as a supervision tool, the probation officer
supervising the individual may, without a warrant of arrest, take the
individual into custody for a violation of probation.

1210.15.  (a)  A chief probation officer may charge persons on
probation for the costs of any form of supervision that utilizes
continuous electronic monitoring devices that monitor the whereabouts
of the person pursuant to this chapter, upon a finding of the
ability to pay those costs. However, the department shall waive any
or all of that payment upon a finding of an inability to pay.
Inability to pay all or a portion of the costs of continuous
electronic monitoring authorized by this chapter shall not preclude
use of continuous electronic monitoring, and eligibility for
probation shall not be enhanced by reason of ability to pay.
   (b) A chief probation officer may charge a person on probation
pursuant to subdivision (a) for the cost of continuous electronic
monitoring in accordance with Section 1203.1b provided the person has
first satisfied all other outstanding base fines, state and local
penalties, restitution fines, and restitution orders imposed by a
court.

1210.16.  It is the intent of the Legislature that continuous
electronic monitoring established pursuant to this chapter maintain
the highest public confidence, credibility, and public safety. In the
furtherance of these standards, the following shall apply:
   (a) The chief probation officer may administer continuous
electronic monitoring pursuant to written contracts and appropriate
public or private agencies or entities to provide specified
supervision services. No public or private agency or entity may
operate a continuous electronic monitoring system as authorized by
this section in any county without a written contract with the county’
s probation department. No public or private agency or entity
entering into a contract may itself employ any person who is a
participant in continuous electronic monitoring surveillance.
   (b) The county board of supervisors, the chief probation officer,
and designees of the chief probation officer shall comply with
Section 1090 of the Government Code in the consideration, making, and
execution of contracts pursuant to this section.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

I have been lobbying for legislation that will allow the use of GPS monitoring in domestic violence and stalking cases across the country. Time and time again I am always asked the same question, “Do you think GPS monitoring gives victims a false sense of security?”.

The answer is NO! Here is why.

What does give victims a false sense of security is a white piece of paper with black writing on it that says R-E-S-T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G O-R-D-E-R!

Like millions of stalking and domestic violence victims I walked out of the court house as fearful as I was upon entering for the restraining order hearing, and today even with a protective order in effect I have no way to know really if the batterer now a stalker will make good on his threats to kill me, but I refuse to let that get me down but getting to this place was not easy.

I live each day to the fullest, and I am happy to be alive, but I never let my guard down and I will definitely not be an easy target for a stalker or for anyone, and this is not because of any help or support that I have received from any Domestic Violence,Crime Victim Organization, District Attorney, DA Investigator or even from law enforcement.

After being turned away from the local domestic violence center because of my batterers occupation, I knew that I was going to have a very difficult time, but with time I realized I had two choices.

1.) I could complain and gripe from the sidelines

OR

2.) I could fight like hell to change the way crime victims are treated here where I live and beyond to ensure “No Victim is Left Behind”

I chose option number two.

I reported restraining order violations and stalking incidents repeatedly, and I knew from the way I was treated and also from hearing the words come straight from the various deputy sheriff’s, District Attorney and DA Investigator’s mouths that it was up to me and me alone to protect myself, nobody was going to do anything.

I had never taken any self defense classes and gun ownership had not crossed my mind until one was pointed my direction by some thugs sending me a message from my batterer. I learned quickly that I could cry and complain, or I could gather the tools and resources to ensure my safety and teach other victims of crime how to survive as well.

There was no free lunch and no picnic for me, and just like millions of crime victims every year I was left behind; but I got back up stronger, wiser and better than ever before. I am thankful for this opportunity to share my experiences, and to help ensure that “No Victim is Left Behind” as I was.

The problem with restraining orders is that they offer false hope not GPS monitoring.

Protective Orders,Restraining Orders, Orders of Protection, No Contact Orders are all great tools if a victim has the ability to pay for surveillance equipment, a driver and does not have to work or leave the home, but for everyday victims who need to “live” and care for children and can’t afford the expensive surveillance equipment, driver and security full time they are useless without GPS monitoring.

That is why I advocate and lobby for GPS monitoring nationwide, and bare my soul and life experiences pertaining to what I have endured, so that stalking victims like Jeffrey Gross of New York who was shot 6 times at close range by his stalker, and those tragically murdered like Mary Babb of Michigan and Cindy Bischof of Illinois do not get overlooked or swept under the rug.

I am here and I have a chance to help save lives by promoting this legislation so I do because I can.

Today tragically many victims are encouraged to run and hide by law enforcement, advocates and the justice system, however running and hiding is not a solution.

Running and hiding was always an option folks would throw out at me and I would laugh because with the datafurnishing business today anyone can locate anybody with a few clicks of a mouse and a phone call or two. I know this from my work as a high-tech investigator locating people, assets, and doing investigations.

It is a piece of cake to find anyone at anytime these days and it costs very little. Anybody can locate anyone, even the “bad guys” convicted criminals, violent batterers and stalkers have the ability to locate anyone today.

Even Judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, victims and the general public have no place to hide because all of our records are on-line and being provided by companies known as datafurnishers.

If you don’t know what a datafurnisher is or what datafurnishing is visit about.com women’s issues and read the segment regarding datafurnishing.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/violenceagainstwomen/f/datafurnishing.htm

Privacy is still an issue today for everyone including crime victims. I receive hundreds of calls and e-mails each week from victims, witnesses, members of Law enforcement, prosecutors and from members of the public who are concerned about their privacy.

There is no magic wand to go below the radar for anyone. Even those in the witness protection program have been located and the program penetrated.

Today, technology is being used by perpetrators and it is time that technology be available to victims.

With GPS it creates a real solution to prevent violence and it works, however there is a lot of misinformation out there giving victims false hope and the public misinformation regarding the implementation of the GPS monitoring programs after the legislation has been passed.

An important subject not often reported is the truth regarding the GPS monitoring programs implementation. There should be a big disclaimer on every law makers web site and included within the law makers press releases when the bill is introduced, indicating how, where and when the GPS monitoring will be implemented so that victims are not re-victimized or given false hope and to prevent misunderstanding.

Just because the GPS legislation has passed in any particular state, does not mean that GPS monitoring is available.

Not every state that has passed and approved GPS monitoring legislation has it implemented or available to victims in every county of every state -if at all.

In Illinois for example where Cindy’s Law was passed last year, victims contact me confused and heartbroken to learn that the GPS monitoring is not available in the county where they live. Other victims contact me uninformed and not sure how to request that GPS monitoring be implemented in their particular case.

In CA, GPS monitoring legislation was passed but can’t be implemented because of the costs, so this is an issue that must be addressed because victims lives are at stake.

I can’t emphasize this enough, there is a lot of misinformation coming from the press releases from public officials who have introduced the GPS monitoring legislation without providing victims and the public with accurate information regarding the implementation of the GPS monitoring program. This must change.

Tragically, domestic violence makes for good headlines, so passing the law helps many politicians garner press and often on the backs of innocent and vulnerable domestic violence victims.

I am appalled that law makers would not provide accurate information to the press and more importantly to victims, but with organizations like Survivors In Action and by speaking out I hope that this information will make its way to those who need it the most the victims, and help to send a reminder to law makers that it is not “ok” to introduce legislation without ensuring that victims needs are addressed and taken seriously.

GPS monitoring works and has been proven to be 100% effective at preventing homicide in domestic violence cases when implemented, however there is much work still needed to be done to ensure that the GPS monitoring is being implemented so that “No Victim is Left Behind”.

To learn more about GPS monitoring visit Survivors In Action
“No Victim Left Behind”

By:Alexis A. Moore

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

 Source

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

3010.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation may utilize continuous
electronic monitoring to electronically monitor the whereabouts of
persons on parole, as provided by this article.
   (b) Any use of continuous electronic monitoring pursuant to this
article shall have as its primary objective the enhancement of public
safety through the reduction in the number of people being
victimized by crimes committed by persons on parole.
   (c) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article
to specifically expand the authority of the department acting
pursuant to this article to utilize a system of continuous electronic
monitoring that conforms with the requirements of this article.
   (d) (1) For purposes of this article, “continuous electronic
monitoring” may include the use of worldwide radio navigation system
technology, known as the Global Positioning System, or GPS. The
Legislature finds that because of its capability for continuous
surveillance, continuous electronic monitoring has been used in other
parts of the country to monitor persons on parole who are identified
as requiring a high level of supervision.
   (2) For purposes of this article, “department” means the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
   (e) The Legislature finds that continuous electronic monitoring
has proven to be an effective risk management tool for supervising
high-risk persons on parole who are likely to reoffend where
prevention and knowledge of their whereabouts is a high priority for
maintaining public safety.

3010.1.  The department may utilize a continuous electronic
monitoring device, as distinguished from an electronic monitoring
device as described in Section 3004, pursuant to this section that
has all of the following attributes:
   (a) A device designed to be worn by a human being.
   (b) A device that emits a signal as a person is moving or is
stationary. The signal shall be capable of being received and tracked
across large urban or rural areas, statewide, and being received
from within structures, vehicles, and other objects to the degree
technically feasible in light of the associated costs, design, and
other considerations as are determined relevant by the department.
   (c) A device that functions 24 hours a day.
   (d) A device that is resistant or impervious to unintentional or
willful damage.

3010.2.  (a) A continuous electronic monitoring system may have the
capacity to immediately notify the department of violations, actual
or suspected, of the terms of parole that have been identified by the
monitoring system if the requirement is deemed necessary by the
parole officer with respect to an individual person.
   (b) This information, including geographic location and tampering,
may be used as evidence to prove a violation of the terms of parole.

3010.3.  The department shall establish the following standards as
are necessary to enhance public safety:
   (a) Standards for the minimum time interval between transmissions
of information about the location of the person under supervision.
The standards shall be established after an evaluation of, at a
minimum, all of the following:
   (1) The resources of the department.
   (2) The criminal history of the person under supervision.
   (3) The safety of the victim of the persons under supervision.
   (b) Standards for the accuracy of the information identifying the
location of the person under supervision. The standards shall be
established after consideration of, at a minimum, all of the
following:
   (1) The need to identify the location of a person proximate to the
location of a crime, including a violation of parole.
   (2) Resources of the department.
   (3) The need to avoid false indications of proximity to crimes.

3010.4.  (a) The department, operating a system of continuous
electronic monitoring pursuant to this section, shall establish
prohibitions against unauthorized access to, and use of, information
by private or public entities as may be deemed appropriate.
Unauthorized access to, and use of, electronic signals includes
signals transmitted in any fashion by equipment utilized for
continuous electronic monitoring.
   (b) Devices used pursuant to this article shall not be used to
eavesdrop or record any conversation, except a conversation between
the participant and the person supervising the participant that is to
be used solely for the purposes of voice identification.

3010.5.  (a) The department shall have the sole discretion to decide
which persons shall be supervised using continuous electronic
monitoring administered by the department. No individual shall be
required to participate in continuous electronic monitoring
authorized by this article for any period of time longer than the
term of parole.
   (b) The department shall establish written guidelines that
identify those persons on parole subject to continuous electronic
monitoring authorized by this article. These guidelines shall include
the need for enhancing monitoring in comparison to other persons not
subject to the enhanced monitoring and the public safety needs that
will be served by the enhanced monitoring.

3010.6.  A parole officer may revoke, in his or her discretion, the
continuous monitoring of any individual.

3010.7.  Whenever a parole officer supervising an individual has
reasonable cause to believe that the individual is not complying with
the rules or conditions set forth for the use of continuous
electronic monitoring as a supervision tool, the officer supervising
the individual may, without a warrant of arrest, take the individual
into custody for a violation of parole.

3010.8.  (a)  The department may charge persons on parole for the
costs of any form of supervision that utilizes continuous electronic
monitoring devices that monitor the whereabouts of the person
pursuant to this article.  Inability to pay all or a portion of the
costs of continuous electronic monitoring authorized by this article
shall not preclude use of continuous electronic monitoring and
eligibility for parole shall not be enhanced by reason of ability to
pay.
   (b) Any person released on parole pursuant to subdivision (a) may
be required to pay for that monitoring upon a finding of the ability
to pay those costs. However, the department shall waive any or all of
that payment upon a finding of an inability to pay. The department
shall consider any remaining amounts the person has been ordered to
pay in fines, assessments and restitution fines, fees, and orders,
and shall give priority to the payment of those items before
requiring that the person pay for the continuous electronic
monitoring.

3010.9.  It is the intent of the Legislature that continuous
electronic monitoring established pursuant to this article maintain
the highest public confidence, credibility, and public safety. In the
furtherance of these standards, the following shall apply:
   (a) The department may administer continuous electronic monitoring
pursuant to written contracts and appropriate public or private
agencies or entities to provide specified supervision services. No
public or private agency or entity may operate a continuous
electronic monitoring system as authorized by this section without a
written contract with the department. No public or private agency or
entity entering into a contract may itself employ any person who is a
participant in continuous electronic monitoring surveillance.
   (b) The department shall comply with Section 1090 of the
Government Code in the consideration, making, and execution of
contracts pursuant to this section.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Authorities act in response to a state law aimed at cutting the prison population. But a Sacramento County judge orders that county to halt releases, ruling the law does not apply to county jails.

More than 300 inmates have been released in Orange County in the last few weeks and about 200 in Sacramento County, including a man who allegedly assaulted a woman hours after getting early release from jail.

A Sacramento County judge Wednesday ordered a temporary halt in that county’s early releases, saying the legislation applies only to state prisons and not to county jails. The judge sided with the deputy sheriff’s union, which filed suit against the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to block the releases.

Officials in Sacramento, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and other counties have said their legal counsels advised them that the law did apply to county jails, and they created release plans when the law took effect in January.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department takes the opposite position and has not released any inmates early because of the law. L.A. County requires that most male inmates serve 80% of their sentence, and officials said they won’t reduce that requirement because of the new law.

“We have no plans to release anyone from county jail based on what the state is doing,” said Steve Whitmore, a sheriff’s spokesman. “We don’t think it applies to us.”

The legislation, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year, was designed to reduce the state prison population in the wake of the state’s financial crisis and court rulings over prison overcrowding.

Officials have said the law would reduce the prison population by 6,500 “low- level” offenders from state prisons over the next year (those would include inmates incarcerated for nonviolent crimes such as theft and drug possession).

The state prison system has not yet released prisoners early under the terms of the law.

The law changes the formula by which prisoners receive time off for good behavior, speeding the process under which they can be released.

David Tennessan, chief deputy of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, said his agency has had no choice but to release 200 inmates in recent weeks. But the agency has not done so happily, he said.

“It was misguided,” Tennessan said, adding that he expects Ventura County to ultimately release at least 600 inmates.

In San Bernardino County, 648 inmates have been released so far, according to the Sheriff’s Department.

In Riverside County, more than 170 inmates have been released, officials said.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post