On the Trail, on the Computer, By Satellite

One afternoon in Los Angeles, Robert Dowd, pretrial services officer for the Central District of California, wanted to know the whereabouts of a defendant who was under his supervision. He didn't call the defendant's home, he didn't even hop in his car and go looking for him. Instead, he turned to his computer, opened a software program, and in a matter of minutes the cross-hairs on a map on his computer screen pinpointed the defendant—in his attorney's office.

Dowd and a few other pretrial services and probation officers like him are using the Global Positioning System (GPS) to track defendants/offenders. GPS uses a network of 24 satellites to map the location of a portable field monitoring unit, which is carried by the defendant/offender and linked by radio frequency to a tamper-resistant ankle transmitter worn by the defendant/offender. Tracking with GPS is continuous. Districts presently using GPS are the pretrial services offices in the District of New Jersey, the Central District of California, and the Northern District of Texas, and the probation office of the Eastern District of New York.

In 1998, the District of New Jersey was the first district in the country to make use of GPS. According to pretrial services officer Michael Fitzpatrick, the value of GPS is that it quickly and accurately verifies the location of a defendant/offender. Recently the New Jersey district court—possibly for the first time in a federal court—determined solely on the basis of GPS that a defendant had violated a condition of release.

Defendants/offenders can be tracked nearly anywhere in the world with the Global Positioning System, which can pinpoint their location within 30 meters, and notify officers if they enter exclusion zones.

"The defendant claimed he was in one place," said Fitzpatrick, "but GPS said he was in another. That was enough to convince the judge."

In 1998, Judge Alfred M. Wolin (D. N.J.), in U.S. vs. Daniel Malloy, examined the reliability of GPS when considering an order to modify a condition of bail that called for home arrest and electronic monitoring. Noting that "Courts must endeavor to impose the least restrictive bail conditions that will assure both the defendant's appearance at trials as well as the public's safety," Wolin asked the district's pretrial services officers to investigate the tracking system. Subsequently, Wolin concluded "the Court is satisfied that the combination of the satellite-tracking system and the current bail conditions placates the interest that Malloy will appear at trial because the satellite tracking system provides a sufficient level of control over Malloy's whereabouts. In addition, the Court finds comfort in the fact that Malloy is being granted the privilege of leaving his house for limited activities."

The portable tracking unit carried by defendants/offenders is about the size of a medium-sized purse, and weighs approximately five pounds. On top is an LCD read-out that can relay messages to the defendant/offender. "The unit once was cumbersome, weighing nearly 10 pounds," Fitzpatrick said. "That's down to five pounds. And it relies on cellular coverage, which is getting better all the time."

New systems are increasing their accuracy. GPS now can locate a defendant/offender within 30 meters, a considerable improvement over old technology that could only narrow the location to somewhere within the area of a football field. In addition, it creates a permanent log of where the defendant/offender has been—24 hours a day. GPS also can tell officers when a defendant/offender enters an area prohibited under terms of his or her release.

The pretrial services office in the Central District of California has used GPS for just three months, but Dowd already is a convert to the technology. "I tested the system by entering myself as a defendant, and set up an exclusion zone around a local park," he said. "When I entered the park, the unit beeped, and it flashed a message saying I was in violation."

Exclusion zones set up as off-limits for defendants/offenders could be a park, a victim's neighborhood, a bar, or any other area.

Dowd also can track a defendant in real time on his computer screen. "If he's wearing the unit, you'll see a dot moving, and it's easy to tell the difference between walking and driving. We could probably tell you how fast he was going on the highway. And we can tell within three to five minutes how long a defendant stops at any location."

The cost of GPS tracking is less than incarceration, which may run over $50 per day. And GPS is becoming less expensive every day. In 1998, the cost of using GPS tracking on an offender was $40 a day. Today it's between $8 and $12 a day. In thoses courts currently trying GPS, defendants/offenders pay for the use of GPS, not the court.

The beauty of GPS, of course, is that it monitors defendants/offenders day and night, raising the defendant's/offender's level of responsibility for his or her own actions, which in turn protects the community.

"GPS tracking takes the responsibility from us, the pretrial services and probation officers, to confirm where the defendant is or has been," said Dowd. "It's like having someone follow defendants around day and night, checking on them. We don't have to rely on their word for their activities. We have a permanent, reliable record."

GPS tracking has been used in cases where the defendant could not have a telephone in the house, which rules out electronic monitoring. And it has been used to track and verify that an defendant, with court permission, was spending his days at his lawyer's office. In fact, given the appropriate computer maps, an officer using GPS could track a defendant/offender anywhere in the world.

The next generation of tracking units promise to be even better, shrinking to the size of a two-way pager that the defendant/offender wears on his or her belt. When the defendant/offender puts the unit in a charger at night, it also would download every point he or she has been that day—at a projected cost of around $4.50 a day.

The Administrative Office Federal Corrections and Supervision Division keeps an eye on this and other emerging technologies and their potential benefits for supervision in the field. "We convened a Technology Review Panel to assess and report on the capabilities of emerging technologies," said Division head John M. Hughes, "and the division will continue to explore what's out there." However, the Review Panel's ultimate assessment was that technology is no substitute for good supervision. "They are rather tools," noted the report, "that may enhance or automate part of the monitoring component of a complete supervision plan."