Attachment_3_-_Part_F.pdf

Guide to Judiciary Policy

Vol 8: Probation and Pretrial Services

Pt F: Federal Location Monitoring Program (Monograph 113)

Ch 1: Overview

§ 110 Purpose

§ 120 Authority

§ 130 Applicability

§ 140 Scope

§ 150 History

§ 160 Current Program

§ 110 Purpose

Part F of Volume 8, Federal Location Monitoring Program (Monograph 113), is designed to provide U.S. probation and pretrial services officers with guidance in supervising persons ordered by the U.S. district court or paroling authorities to undergo location monitoring as a condition of either probation, parole, supervised release, or pretrial release.

§ 120 Authority

Chapter 3 addresses the various authorities for the location monitoring program in the following areas:

• Pretrial release (see: § 320.10);

• Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (see: § 320.20);

• Probation (see: § 320.30);

• Supervised release (see: § 320.40);

• Parole (see: § 320.50);

• Pre-release inmates (see: § 320.60); and

• Supervision tool (see: § 330).

Last substantive revision (Transmittal GR-14) December 22, 2009

Last revised (minor technical changes) December 28, 2010 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services_Transmittals.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#320_10 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#320_20 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#320_30 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#320_40 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#320_50 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#320_60 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html#330

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 1 Page 2

§ 130 Applicability

The guidance set forth in this part applies to U.S. district court employees, specifically employees of the U.S. probation and pretrial services system, in the performance of their duties.

§ 140 Scope

The chapters in this part address the following areas:

• location monitoring program condition, restriction types, and suggested language ( Chapter 2);

• the principles of the location monitoring program ( Chapter 3);

• descriptions and considerations of location monitoring technology (Chapter 4);

• supervising the location monitoring program participant (Chapter 5); and

• managing the location monitoring program ( Chapter 6).

§ 150 History

(a) The home confinement program was first introduced in the judiciary in March 1986. In response to deficit reduction legislation, the U.S. Parole Commission and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) initiated an experimental “Curfew Parole Program.” Officers monitored the participants through random telephone calls and weekly in-person contacts. Because of limited resources and increasing responsibilities, the ability of officers to enforce curfews adequately with random telephone calls became a concern.

(b) As a result, a pilot study — a joint venture with the Bureau of Prisons and the AO initiated by the U.S. Parole Commission — was launched. On January 19, 1988, the first participant was released to curfew parole using electronic monitoring. In 1989, the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law approved the expansion of the pilot program to 12 districts and included not only prerelease inmates and parolees, but also offenders on probation and supervised release, and federal defendants on pretrial supervision. In 1991, the pilot program expanded nationally, with 63 districts participating.

http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_2_Condition_Restriction_Types_and_Suggested_Language.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_3_Program_Principles.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_4_Technology_Descriptions_and_Considerations.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_5_Supervising_Program_Participants.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_F_Federal_Location_Monitoring_Program/Ch_6_Managing_the_Location_Monitoring_Program.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 1 Page 3

(c) In 1993, the AO awarded its first national contract to provide electronic monitoring services to its defendant/offender population.

(d) The first monograph specific to home confinement/electronic monitoring was approved for publication and distribution by the Judicial Conference in 1999. This monograph, now codified here in the Guide to Judiciary Policy, continues to set forth official policies and procedures for the federal home confinement program — now the Location Monitoring Program — including guidance on managing the program. By 2007, there were more than 23,000 defendants/offenders with either a home confinement condition or a condition requiring the use of electronic monitoring.

§ 160 Current Program

(a) The previously named "home confinement program" implies that all "electronic monitoring (EM)" occurs primarily at a defendant/offender’s residence and is utilized to monitor a defendant/offender’s departure and arrival from the residence based on authorized hours. The newly named program, Location Monitoring Program (LMP), emphasizes the full array of location monitoring technologies that can provide functionality to monitor the defendant/offender’s location in the community rather than just the residence. The technology serves as one of many supervision tools that will assist an officer in verifying a defendant/offender’s compliance with any court or Parole Commission-imposed condition of release.

(b) Location monitoring technology (LMT) provides officers with broad operational considerations for purposes of mitigating defendant/offender risks, providing supervision structure, and detecting various patterns of behavior. The location monitoring program is a paradigm shift as it relates to the purpose of electronic monitoring, emphasizing an enhanced community supervision tool.

(c) Regardless of the type of location monitoring technology recommended or selected, the appropriate use of the technology can create supervision efficiencies by providing a better allocation of time and therefore avoid under-supervising high-risk defendants/offenders and avoid over-supervising low-risk defendants/offenders. For example, the technology allows an officer to know when defendants/offenders are in or out of their homes, which enables the officer to schedule critical home contacts that include face-to-face contacts with them.

Ch 2: Condition, Restriction Types, and Suggested Language

§ 210 Location Restrictions As Condition of Supervision

§ 220 Location Monitoring Program Components

§ 230 Recommendation Considerations

§ 240 Suggested Language

§ 250 Stand-Alone Monitoring § 250.10 Definition and Purpose

§ 250.20 Suggested Language

§ 250.30 Program Costs

§ 250.40 Court Approval Required for Changes

§ 260 Parole Condition

§ 210 Location Restrictions As Condition of Supervision

(a) Location restrictions are defined as movement restrictions on a defendant/offender’s location in the community during specific hours approved by the supervising officer.

(b) The types of conditions imposed by the releasing authority should be considered when selecting the type of location monitoring technology. For example, if a defendant/offender is placed on a curfew coupled with an employment and travel restriction and it has been determined that he/she poses a risk to community safety, global positioning systems (GPS) technology should be considered to monitor both the curfew and the employment and travel conditions. If the defendant/offender is placed on home incarceration, radio frequency (RF) technology should be considered, as the technology provides a more cost-effective solution to verifying a defendant/offender’s location in the home.

Last substantive revision (Transmittal 08-001) March 9, 2010

Last revised (minor technical changes) December 28, 2010 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services_Transmittals.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 2 Page 2

(c) A location restriction condition should be recommended or selected if a defendant/offender poses such a risk that his or her presence in the approved home needs to be verified via location monitoring technology at all times. The level of location restriction should always depend on the risk level of the defendant/offender; the higher the level of risk, the greater the need for a more restrictive location restriction.

§ 220 Location Monitoring Program Components

Similar to the prior home confinement program, the levels of restriction in the location monitoring program may range from a nighttime curfew to 24-hour home incarceration.

The degree to which defendants/offenders are permitted to leave their homes is determined case by case and depends on the purpose and the intent of the judicial officer or releasing authority. The previous “components of home confinement” will now be referred to as “location monitoring program components” because the location monitoring technology can now be utilized to monitor a defendant/offender’s location both in the home and at approved locations in the community. The following components are listed from least to most restrictive:

(a) Curfew

Curfew requires the participant to remain at home during set time periods of the day. For example, the defendant/offender is required to remain in his or her home during the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

(b) Home Detention

Home detention requires a participant to remain at home at all times except for pre-approved and scheduled absences for employment, education, religious activities, treatment, attorney visits, court appearances, court-ordered obligations, or other activities as approved by the officer.

(c) Home Incarceration

Home incarceration is the most restrictive component of the location monitoring program. It requires 24-hour-a-day lock-down except for medical necessities and court appearances or other activities specifically approved by the court.

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 2 Page 3

§ 230 Recommendation Considerations

When recommending the location monitoring program as a condition of supervision, officers should indicate both the type of technology to be utilized and the specific restrictions on a defendant/offender’s location in the community which will be monitored.

The type of technology and the defendant/offender’s location restrictions (e.g., curfew components) should be spelled out on Form AO 199B and Form PROB 7A. When considering the type of location monitoring to recommend, presentence investigation officers and officers preparing bail reports should consult with location monitoring specialists to ensure realistic and practical recommendations.

§ 240 Suggested Language

In all cases, when recommending the use of location monitoring technology as a special condition of supervision, the following language should be used:

Recommendation

The defendant/offender shall be monitored by the form of location monitoring indicated below for a period of __ months (probation only) and shall abide by all technology requirements. The participant shall pay all or part of the costs of participation in the location monitoring program as directed by the court and the pretrial services or probation officer.

• Location monitoring technology at the discretion of the officer

• Radio Frequency (RF) Monitoring

• Passive GPS Monitoring

• Active GPS Monitoring (including hybrid GPS)

• Voice Recognition

This form of location monitoring technology shall be utilized to monitor the following restriction on the defendant/offender’s movement in the community as well as other court-imposed conditions of release:

G You are restricted to your residence every day G from ________ to _______, or G as directed by the supervising officer (Curfew).

G You are restricted to your residence at all times except for employment; education;

religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities as pre-approved by the officer (Home Detention).

G You are restricted to your residence at all times except for medical necessities and court appearances or other activities specifically approved by the court (Home

Incarceration).

http://jnet.ao.dcn/img/assets/4644/AO_199B_0309.pdf http://jnet.ao.dcn/Forms/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services_Forms/PROB_07a.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 2 Page 4

§ 250 Stand-Alone Monitoring

§ 250.10 Definition and Purpose

Stand-alone monitoring (SAM) refers to when the releasing authority orders the use of location monitoring technology without placing the defendant/offender in the Location Monitoring Program (curfew, home detention, or home incarceration). The purpose of SAM is to use any type of location monitoring technology, primarily GPS, for supervision purposes and to monitor and enforce any other condition of supervision (e.g., employment condition or travel restrictions). Stand-alone monitoring is discouraged for high-risk defendants and offenders. Their risks would likely more effectively be addressed by including a program component such as curfew, home detention, or home incarceration.

§ 250.20 Suggested Language

Recommendation

The defendant/offender shall be monitored by the form of location monitoring indicated below for a period of __ months (probation only), which shall be utilized for purposes of verifying compliance with any court-imposed condition of supervision:

• Location monitoring technology at the discretion of the officer

• Radio Frequency (RF) Monitoring

• Passive GPS Monitoring

• Active GPS Monitoring (including hybrid GPS)

• Voice Recognition

§ 250.30 Program Costs

The participant shall pay all or part of the costs of location monitoring based on his or her ability to pay as directed by the court and pretrial services or probation officer.

§ 250.40 Court Approval Required for Changes

Once the court has ordered the defendant/offender to participate in the Location Monitoring Program or stand-alone monitoring as indicated above, the officer must first seek the court’s approval before changing from one type of location monitoring technology to another (e.g., RF to GPS or GPS to RF). The court’s approval is necessary whether changing location monitoring technology from a least restrictive technology to a more restrictive technology or vice versa, unless the court has

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 2 Page 5 previously ordered that the officer has the discretion to select the type of location monitoring technology.

§ 260 Parole Condition

The parolee shall consent to be monitored by the form of location monitoring technology as directed by the supervising officer. This form of location monitoring technology shall be utilized to monitor any restriction on the parolee’s location/movement in the community as directed by the supervising officer. The parolee shall pay the costs of participation in the location monitoring program as directed by the probation officer.

Ch 3: Program Principles

§ 310 Overview

§ 320 Authorities for the Location Monitoring Program § 320.10 Pretrial Release § 320.20 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 § 320.30 Probation § 320.40 Supervised Release § 320.50 Parole § 320.60 Pre-Release Inmates

§ 330 Authority to Utilize Location Monitoring Technology as Supervision Tool (Stand-Alone Monitoring)

§ 310 Overview

(a) Location monitoring technology provides officers with the capability to enforce and monitor a defendant/offender’s compliance with one or more conditions of release. These various types of location monitoring technologies should be considered tools that may be utilized:

(1) Monitor court or Parole Commission-imposed conditions;

(2) Manage or mitigate identified defendant/offender risks (such as the risk a defendant/offender may present to a specific person);

(3) Verify approved defendant/offender locations at home or in the community; and/or provide information about the defendant/offender’s movement in the community.

(b) The court may order a specific location monitoring technology or provide the officer the discretion to implement a particular technology to address the risk. In pretrial cases the goals are to address the risk of nonappearance and/or danger to the community. In post-conviction supervision the goal is the successful completion of the term of

Last substantive revision (Transmittal GR-14) December 22, 2009 http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services_Transmittals.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 3 Page 2 supervision, during which the offender commits no new crimes; is held accountable for victim, family, community, and other court-ordered responsibilities; and prepares for continued success through improvements in his or her conduct and condition.

(c) Location monitoring technologies have advantages and limitations. For example, while location monitoring technologies may be utilized to verify a defendant/offender's location at a specific location or area during a prescribed time, the information provided by the technology will not necessarily be sufficient to make conclusions regarding compliant and/or noncompliant behavior. The information must be corroborated through other supervision strategies such as community visits and collateral contacts.

(d) The use of location monitoring technology can be an effective sanction or action when addressing violations. However, it should only be recommended to address specific risks associated with a violation. For example, if a defendant/offender has violated conditions of supervision by failing to be at his or her employment location at the time of an officer’s visit or other attempts to verify, location monitoring can be recommended as a sanction. In this example, location monitoring is a controlling strategy and provides enhanced defendant/offender accountability.

(e) The effective use of location monitoring technology may serve as a deterrent as the technology can establish defendant/offender accountability. The greater the need to establish defendant/offender accountability, the greater the need to utilize a technology that provides monitoring at the highest level and provides information (activity reports) that establish a defendant/offender's whereabouts at any given time. The selection of the level of monitoring and the type of technology should also depend on the defendant/offender's movement in the community and the purpose of his or her location at various locations in the community.

(f) Location monitoring technology should be dynamic in that officers should consistently evaluate the need for the technology, the level of monitoring, and the type of technology utilized or recommended. Effective management of location monitoring technology will avoid the risk of under-supervising high-risk defendants/offenders and over-supervising low-risk defendants/offenders.

(g) While keeping in mind that location monitoring is a supervision tool, there are six programmatic areas that districts should also consider when implementing and/or managing these resources:

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 3 Page 3

(1) Type of technologies that will be used — industry research, equipment strengths and weaknesses, and geographical limitations;

(2) Type of vendor services — immediate alert notification, collection of co-payments, and on-line activity and management reports;

(3) Funding and cost factors — the costs of location monitoring technology versus other methods of supervision such as random community visits and other types of collateral contacts;

(4) Staffing and organization structure — training of officers, caseload size, and back-up policies;

(5) Equipment maintenance (battery life, condition, reuse), inventory management, equipment upgrades;

(6) Operational considerations — alert processing, violations, treatment strategies, contingency planning, communication with important stakeholders, i.e., courts, prosecutors, defense bar.

§ 320 Authorities for the Location Monitoring Program

(a) The location monitoring program is authorized only as a condition of pretrial release, probation, parole, or supervised release and is not authorized as a sentence by itself. It may be imposed in the original setting of pretrial release or post-conviction supervision conditions. It also may be imposed as a modification to existing release or supervision conditions.

(b) The Bureau of Prisons does not authorize prison credit for time served in non-jail confinement, such as community treatment or home confinement, pursuant to conditions of release. See: Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995).

(c) For inmates completing the remaining portion of a custodial sentence, the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to administratively impose a period in the home confinement program under the supervision of the probation office as part of its Community Corrections Program ( 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)).

§ 320.10 Pretrial Release

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B), the court is authorized to order participation in the location monitoring program as a condition of pretrial release. Subsections (iv) and (vii) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3624.html#c http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3142.html#c_1_B

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 3 Page 4 of the statute authorize restrictions on places of abode and travel and curfew restrictions, respectively, as well as the residential restrictions applicable to the program.

§ 320.20 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

(a) The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Of 2006 (“the Act”) includes a number of provisions that will affect the judiciary, and probation and pretrial services officers in particular. Most of the Act’s provisions lack specific effective dates. Accordingly, they took effect on July 27, 2006, the date of enactment, unless immediate application of those provisions would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of Art. 1, § 9, cl. 3 of the U.S.

Constitution.

(b) Section 216 of the Act (Improvements to the Bail Reform Act to Address Sex Crimes, and Other Matters) amends 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) by requiring that a court impose electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release in any case that involves a minor victim under:

coercion),

involving the sexual exploitation of minors),

• 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) to (4) (Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography),

• 18 U.S.C. § 2260 (Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States),

about a minor), or

• 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to register).

(c) In addition to imposing an electronic monitoring condition, the section requires that a court also impose, at a minimum, the conditions specified in § 3142(c) (1) (B) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3142.html#c_1_B http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1201.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1591.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2241.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2242.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2244.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2245.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2251.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2251A.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252A.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2260.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2421.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2422.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2423.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2425.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2250.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 3 Page 5

§ 320.30 Probation

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(19), the court is authorized to impose a discretionary condition requiring that the probationer remain at his place of residence during non working hours and, if the court finds it appropriate, that compliance with this condition be monitored by telephonic or electronic signaling devices. GPS is considered a form of electronic signaling device. The statute specifies that the home detention and home incarceration components of the program will be used only as an alternative to incarceration.

§ 320.40 Supervised Release

The statutory authority for the use of the location monitoring program as a special condition of supervised release is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), which permits the court to impose the same discretionary conditions that are authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3563 for probation, including subsection (b)(19), which requires that supervised releasees remain at their place of residence during non-working hours and authorizes monitoring compliance with this condition by telephonic or electronic signaling devices, if the court finds it appropriate. GPS is considered a form of an electronic signaling device. The statute specifies that the home detention and home incarceration components of the program will be used only as an alternative to incarceration.

§ 320.50 Parole

For persons incarcerated for offenses committed before November 1, 1987, the U.S.

Parole Commission may require participation in the location monitoring program as a special condition of supervision under 18 U.S.C. § 4209 (repealed). This statute, however, specifies that the home detention and home incarceration component of the program will be used only as an alternative to incarceration.

§ 320.60 Pre-Release Inmates

The authority to place a prerelease inmate in the location monitoring program is established by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). Under this statute, the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to assure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a reasonable part, not to exceed 6 months, or the last 10 percent of the term to be served (whichever is less) under conditions that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for reentry into the community. The U.S. probation system offers assistance to a prisoner during such prerelease custody (Crime Control Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789, 4913 (Nov. 29, 1990)).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3563.html#b_19 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3583.html#d http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3563.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3563.html#b_19 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3624.html#c

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 3 Page 6

§ 330 Authority to Utilize Location Monitoring Technology as Supervision Tool (Stand-Alone Monitoring)

Location monitoring technology may be used as a “stand-alone” supervision tool for purposes of monitoring and/or enforcing other conditions of supervision. The authority to use location monitoring do so is established by the discretionary conditions of probation and pretrial services as defined below:

(a) Probation

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(22), the offender must “satisfy such other conditions as the court may impose.”

(b) Pretrial Services

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xiv), the defendant must “satisfy any other condition that is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required and to assure the safety of any other person and the community.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3563.html#b_22 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3142.html#c_1_B_xiv

Ch 4: Technology Descriptions and Considerations

§ 410 Types of Location Monitoring Technology (LMT) § 410.10 Voice Verification Systems § 410.20 Radio Frequency (RF) § 410.30 Global Positioning System (GPS) Satellite § 410.40 Considering Technology’s Purposes § 410.50 Summary of Technology Types

§ 415 Appropriate Use of Location Monitoring Technology

§ 418 Using Technology in Low-Risk Cases

§ 420 Using Technology to Verify Program Components

§ 425 Planning for GPS Condition and Implementation § 425.10 Exclusion Zones § 425.20 Inclusion Zones § 425.30 Zone Application

§ 430 Recommended Best Practices for Using Exclusion Zones

§ 435 Recommended Best Practices for Using Inclusion Zones

§ 440 Using Exclusion and Inclusion Zones as Supervision Tool

§ 445 Background Assessment

§ 450 Home Telephone Service and Residence Assessment § 450.10 Minimum Requirements § 450.20 General Supervision Practices

§ 455 Telephone Service for Indigent Participants

Last revised (Transmittal 08-021) September 6, 2013 http://jnet.ao.dcn/policy-guidance/guide-judiciary-policy/transmittals?field_guide_volume_tid=3590&=Apply

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 2

§ 410 Types of Location Monitoring Technology (LMT)

There are three primary types of location monitoring technology:

§ 410.10 Voice Verification Systems

Voice verification systems can be used to place or receive random telephone calls to defendants/offenders to verify their presence at an approved location, which is typically their home.

§ 410.20 Radio Frequency (RF)

(a) The location monitoring program may incorporate an electronic monitoring system that includes monitoring equipment and 24-hour electronic surveillance designed to alert an officer when a participant leaves a specific location (usually the residence), returns home late (or leaves early) from a pre-approved schedule, or tampers with the electronic monitoring equipment. While subject to electronic monitoring, the participant wears a non-removable, waterproof, and shock-resistant transmitting device around the wrist or ankle 24 hours a day.

(b) The ankle is the preferred location, and installing the transmitter on a wrist should only be an option for verified medical reasons. The transmitter emits a radio frequency signal that a monitoring unit connected to the home telephone detects. When the transmitter comes within the signal range of the monitoring unit, the monitoring unit uses the telephone line to call a central monitoring computer to show the participant is in range or at home. The transmitter and monitoring unit work in combination to detect and report the times participants enter and exit their homes.

(c) The location monitoring equipment only reports when a participant enters or leaves the equipment’s range — not where the participant has gone or how far the participant has traveled. The range of the monitoring unit in the federal program may be adjustable. In other words, the participant must stay within a designated area / feet or in any lower adjusted range of the monitoring unit in the residence to be considered in range or at home.

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 3

§ 410.30 Global Positioning System (GPS) Satellite

While subject to GPS monitoring, the defendant/offender’s location is detected via GPS satellites that transmit signals to location monitoring equipment on the ground. GPS receivers receive satellite signals; they do not transmit. GPS receivers require an unobstructed view of the sky, so they are used only outdoors and they often do not perform well within forested areas or near tall buildings. GPS operations depend on a very accurate time reference, which is provided by atomic clocks. Each GPS satellite transmits data that indicates its location and current time. All GPS satellites synchronize operations so that these repeating signals are transmitted at the same instant. The signals move at the speed of light to the GPS receiver. The distance of the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions.

§ 410.40 Considering Technology’s Purposes

(a) The concept behind LMT emphasizes the use of the technology as a multi-purpose tool. Those purposes can be as follows:

(1) Verify approved defendant/offender locations at home or in the community; and/or provide information about the defendant/offender’s movement in the community;

(2) Manage or mitigate risks, including detecting behavioral patterns based on travel and location; or

(3) Enforce and monitor court-ordered conditions of supervision.

(b) Therefore, selections and recommendations for the type of LMT should always consider the purpose for its use and how the technology will mitigate risks in pretrial services and post-conviction violation cases and fulfill sentencing objectives in post-conviction cases.

§ 410.50 Summary of Technology Types

The chart below serves as a guide for officers when considering LMT as a condition of supervision. Both the need for the technology and the type recommended should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This chart provides a description of the types of LMTs, considerations for appropriate use, and limitations to its functionality.

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 4

§ 410.50 Summary of Technology Types

Technology Type Selection Considerations Limitations

(a) Voice Verification System – Automated systems place and/or receive calls to verify presence.

• to verify home confinement or curfew without traditional electronic monitoring (EM) equipment (i.e., no transmitter, receivers, tether)

• a cost-effective solution for monitoring home incarceration and curfew compliance

• medical or physical condition that prohibits traditional EM equipment

• some physical or environmental factors may affect the voice recognition system (i.e., colds, noise, barking)

(b) Radio Frequency (RF) Technology – Defendant/offender’s presence is verified at an authorized location using a transmitter and receiver; 24 hour electronic surveillance designed to alert an officer when a participant leaves a specific location (usually the residence), returns home late (or leaves early) from a pre-approved schedule, or tampers with the monitoring equipment.

• no need for surveillance component

• a cost-effective solution for monitoring home incarceration and curfew compliance

• only monitors when the transmitter is in range of the receiver (i.e., home, employment)

• violations can’t be detected when the participant is out of range of the receiver

• size of home, presence of mirrors

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 5

§ 410.50 Summary of Technology Types

Technology Type Selection Considerations Limitations

(c) GPS (Passive) – Records a participant's location from the time of departure from the residence until return. While home, the participant is required to dock the GPS monitor. The information pertaining to defendant/offender movement is downloaded to the vendor's management system, which includes a mapping system.

• no identified third-party risk (i.e., the defendant/offender does not pose a threat of harm to another person or the community)

• type of cellular service offered in particular area

• form of surveillance, but not in “real-time”

• satellite and cellular service can be affected by wind, weather, structures, and foliage

• this information can only be retrieved when the participant returns to his or her residence.

(d) GPS (Active) – Includes hybrid LMT, which can move between active and passive systems without an equipment change. Active GPS allows continuous monitoring of a defendant/ offender’s movements, through an active tracking device, which may contain a GPS receiver, a cellular modem, a radio frequency receiver/dialer, or motion sensor.

• identified third-party risk (see: Guide, Vol 8C and Vol 8E; OGC Opinion on GPS Satellite Tracking)

• immediate need to be notified of exclusion/ inclusion zone violation

• land line not required

• have ability to immediately determine whereabouts;

• (1) as form of surveillance per Guide, Vol 8C and Vol 8E;

• (2) history of crime of violence/sex offense, a sexually violent predator, or it has been determined that offender poses threat of harm to a particular person or community

• requires cellular coverage at all times

• satellite and cellular service can be affected by wind, weather, structures, and foliage

• must be monitored closely by supervising officer, including the requirement to consistently respond to and investigate all key alerts

§ 415 Appropriate Use of Location Monitoring Technology

There are many misconceptions about what LMT can and cannot do. The technology does not allow officers to intercept bad behavior before it happens. However, it does http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_C.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_E_Supervision_of_Federal_Offenders.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Legal_Opinions_and_Articles/Supervision/Opinion_Global_Posit_System_Satell_Tracking.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Legal_Opinions_and_Articles/Supervision/Opinion_Global_Posit_System_Satell_Tracking.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_C.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_C.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Vol_8_Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Part_E_Supervision_of_Federal_Offenders.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 6 provide officers with a wealth of information about patterns of behavior that can be used to address a defendant/offender’s accountability and improve supervision.

§ 418 Using Technology in Low-Risk Cases

The least invasive and most cost-effective LMT should be recommended based on the nature of the offense, criminal history, and Risk Prediction Index (RPI) score. For example, voice recognition monitoring should be considered for low-risk curfew cases involving white collar crimes as it is a cost-effective monitoring technology. As a resource strategy, offices should consider assigning lower-risk defendants and offenders monitored via voice recognition to line officers in order to allow location monitoring specialists to focus on higher-risk defendants and offenders being monitored via RF or GPS technology.

§ 420 Using Technology to Verify Program Components

(a) RF technology remains the most effective monitoring technology to verify a defendant/offender's location with a condition requiring him or her to be physically present at home during specified hours. RF technology can be used in conjunction with GPS technology for those defendants/offenders who require location monitoring in the community in addition to verifying their presence in their homes. RF technology is more effective for verifying a defendant/offender's location within the home (smaller range of movement) compared to the use of a GPS inclusion zone, which verifies presence within a larger range of movement.

(b) A range test can help the officer determine if a defendant/offender’s movement within a particular area will generate an “out of range” alert. A range test should be conducted on any defendant/offender with a location monitoring component who lives in a large home, an area of dense housing or in a housing complex or multi-unit building. The range the equipment allows may let the defendant/offender move undetected into unauthorized areas (such as other apartments or porches). A range test will help the officer configure the proper range of the unit and ensure timely notification of unauthorized events. Range tests are also important for proper placement of home base units, to minimize home base unit “motion” alerts.

Excluding sex offenders, range tests may be waived by a supervisor on low risk cases where range is not an issue. In such instances, the basis for this waiver should be documented in the case file.

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 7

§ 425 Planning for GPS Condition and Implementation

§ 425.10 Exclusion Zones

Often referred to as hot zones/spots, exclusion zones are geographical areas that a participant may not enter (e.g., schools, parks). The areas are set up by the officer using the vendor mapping software. If the tracking device enters an area that is off limits, an alert is generated and the officer is notified.

§ 425.20 Inclusion Zones

Inclusion zones are geographical areas in which a participant’s presence is required during prescribed times. These areas are also set up by the officer using the vendor mapping software. If the tracking device is not detected in the designated geographical area as required, an alert is generated and the officer is notified.

§ 425.30 Zone Application

(a) If there is a recommendation of GPS, including the use of inclusion and exclusion zone technology, officers should be selective in zone application. For example, in supervising a sex offender who is prohibited from all schools and parks, it may be unrealistic and unmanageable to create zones around every school and park in some areas. In these instances, there may be too many schools located close together, causing the zones to overlap, and the defendant/offender could not travel without entering numerous zones, thus generating numerous key alerts to the officer.

(b) Instead, officers should consider recommending and/or establishing zones for specific locations such as a victim’s residence or a specific school or park that is close in proximity to a defendant/offender's home (exclusion zones) or a travel route to a work location (inclusion zone). Officers should consistently consult with location monitoring specialists when recommending a condition requiring GPS to ensure that the objectives of GPS are practical and realistic, particularly regarding the use of GPS zone technology.

§ 430 Recommended Best Practices for Using Exclusion Zones

(a) Officers should use exclusion zones to manage defendant/offender risk.

Once these zones are established and an alert is generated, officers need to consider their legal duty to respond and/or notify identified and potential victims. It is noted, however, that unless a specific zone is ordered by the

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 8 court, officers’ use of zones as a supervision tool to enforce court-ordered conditions cannot be the basis of a violation.

(b) For example, if an officer places an exclusion zone around the residence of a co-defendant/felon (standard condition ordered by the court) to determine if there is any contact and the officer is notified that the defendant/offender penetrated the zone, the officer may choose to go to the residence, or when confronted, the defendant/offender may admit his or her presence at the co-defendant’s residence. The allegation of non compliance would be that the defendant/offender had a felonious contact without the pretrial services/probation officer’s permission, not that the defendant/offender violated or penetrated the exclusion zone.

(c) GPS exclusion zones are the most effective LMT for detecting the presence of a defendant/offender in a location with an identified third-party risk. A third-party risk is identified as a “reasonably foreseeable” risk of physical or financial harm to a specifically identified third party or parties.

This means that the circumstances of the relationship between the defendant/offender and the third party suggest the defendant/offender may act in a criminal or antisocial manner similar or related to past conduct. Further, the risk must involve a specifically identified individual, which means that risk to an undefined group (such as the general public) or to a broad class of individuals (such as all children in the neighborhood) does not give rise to a duty to warn. See: OGC Opinion on GPS Satellite Tracking.

§ 435 Recommended Best Practices for Using Inclusion Zones

Inclusion zones should be used to confirm and verify a defendant/offender’s presence at a required location:

§ 440 Using Exclusion and Inclusion Zones as Supervision Tool

Exclusion and inclusion zones may be used to monitor other conditions (i.e., prohibited associations and “stay away” restrictions) as well as to obtain new information through the course of supervision that can detect a defendant/offender’s movement and location patterns. However, officers may only want to be notified of zone alerts when a http://jnet.ao.dcn/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Legal_Opinions_and_Articles/Supervision/Opinion_Global_Posit_System_Satell_Tracking.html http://jnet.ao.dcn/Probation_and_Pretrial_Services/Legal_Opinions_and_Articles/Supervision/Opinion_Global_Posit_System_Satell_Tracking.html

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 9 defendant/offender enters an established prohibited zone where a potential third-party risk exists, but not necessarily when a defendant/offender enters an area where zones are established specifically for purposes of tracking patterns in travel and location and there is no indication of a third-party risk.

§ 445 Background Assessment

(a) Assessing the participant’s background for purposes of placement in the location monitoring program should include:

(1) Prior criminal record;

(2) History of violence;

(3) Medical, mental conditions, and special health needs;

(4) Prior supervision failures and community risk;

(5) Participant’s willingness to participate in the program, including history of any noncompliance with previously court-imposed programs;

(6) Extent of a participant’s cooperation with law enforcement; and

(7) Physical health, including any medical or physical condition that may be an obstacle to program compliance.

(b) Officers should make assessments case by case to determine whether the increased level of surveillance and assistance the location monitoring program provides will address any of the identified risks that a participant poses to community safety. While a participant’s medical or mental health condition and needs often can be addressed through supervision activities in the supervision plan, a history of violence may present risks that may not be addressed by placement in the location monitoring program alone.

§ 450 Home Telephone Service and Residence Assessment

§ 450.10 Minimum Requirements

(a) Assessment of the telephone service in the residence should include:

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 10

(1) Verifying that the telephone line does not have special features that would prevent the effective use of LMT;

(2) If active telephone service doesn’t exist, considering a cellular unit;

(3) Verifying the willingness of the home telephone subscriber to allow the connection and use of the monitoring equipment and to remove any telephone special features;

(4) Determining if the type of telephone service allows the monitoring equipment to function properly (e.g., digital phone service does not work with certain equipment); and

(5) Verifying the removal of any special devices, services, and features. The telephone line used for location monitoring should not have the following features/packages unless specifically approved in advance by the officer: call forwarding, call waiting, caller ID, three-way calling services, fax machine, cordless telephone, computer modem, cable Internet/digital lines (DSL), Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), burglar alarm, or an answering machine. In some instances, it may be prudent to require participants to install a separate telephone line for monitoring.

(b) Assessment of the residence should include:

(1) Identifying other occupants in the residence that may pose domestic and/or third-party risk issues, such as those with histories of domestic violence or sex offenses;

(2) Determining if the residence meets minimum requirements to allow monitoring equipment to function properly (e.g., electricity, telephone service);

(3) Determining if the residence location allows for proper functioning of equipment (i.e., for active GPS, is there cellular service, or does foliage interfere with GPS acquisition?).

§ 450.20 General Supervision Practices

General supervision practices should continue to be used when assessing the residence, which includes determining if officer safety issues are present, such as weapons on the premises. It may be necessary for the officer to recommend to the

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8F, Ch. 4 Page 11 court the imposition of additional conditions of supervision, the authority for which may be found under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b) and (c).

§ 455 Telephone Service for Indigent Participants

(a) Before using government funds to purchase telephone services for indigent participants, officers should explore the use of other available technology, such as cellular units. Appropriated funds may be used to provide telephone service in the residences of indigent defendants and offenders during their participation in the location monitoring program.

Use of public…