RadioBanter - Stupid Scanner Question.

Wow! Excellent article. And, BTW - to the original poster - I didn't think
your question was stupid at all! In fact, I was wondering the same thing
myself a while back.

Thanks for the info!
Mike T.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:51:33 -0500, in rec.radio.scanner "D. Brown"
wrote:

Does anyone know what frequency Tethers operate on, the kind that they
use
for people who are under house-arrest? Would be interesting to know if
any
of the neighbors are a smooth criminal.

Thanks in advance.

State and federal correction agencies are staggering under the cost of
incarcerating the nation's 1.6 million inmates -- more than all personnel
on
active duty in the U.S. armed forces. And the number is growing. The
Bureau of
Justice Statistics estimates that by the year 2005 the prison population
will be
3.5 million. If the underlying causes are not addressed, that number could
be
even higher.

Since the Supreme Court ruled that federal prisons cannot exceed 125
percent
capacity, and state prisons 117 percent -- limits reached by most in the
1980s
-- the criminal justice system has been forced to release increasing
numbers of
inmates before their sentences are up to make room for dangerous
criminals. In
the past, those on early release were generally placed in house-arrest
programs,
and their presence in the home electronically monitored. Nonviolent,
low-risk
offenders, allowed out to work at day jobs, had to be "clocked in" at
hours
prescribed by the supervising agency.

ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Monitoring programs are considerably cheaper than incarceration. They also
enable working offenders to begin paying restitution to victims and
reimbursing
the state for the cost of monitoring. Also, since 68 percent of
incarcerated
first-timers end up back inside, placing them in monitoring programs
instead of
in cells with habitual criminals may help reduce recidivism among this
group.

Conventional house-arrest electronic monitoring systems use a miniature
transmitter locked around the offender's ankle. The device communicates
with a
modem attached to the telephone. When the individual comes home, the
transmitter
instructs the modem to send a "time-in" message to a central monitoring
facility. If the subject goes beyond, say, 150 feet from the house, the
modem
automatically transmits a "time-out" message. The information is relayed
to the
supervising agency, where it goes into a database of case files.
Correction or
parole officers can bring up a file at any time to see if the subject is
abiding
by the prescribed home-confinement hours.

However, conventional house-arrest monitoring does not track the movements
of
individuals outside the home. "The problem with these systems," said
former
Florida governor and U.S. drug czar Bob Martinez, "is that if you're not
home,
no one knows where you are." With growing pressure to put more offenders
on
electronic monitoring, the need is a system that enables supervising
agencies to
know where the offender is at all times.

GPS TRACKING
Pro Tech Monitoring Inc., a company headed by Martinez, developed the
Satellite
Monitoring and Remote Tracking (SMART) system, which combines GIS, GPS,
cellular
phone and Internet technologies for 24-hour tracking. The person under
supervision wears a 3.5-ounce, tamper-proof ankle bracelet electronically
"leashed" to a small, portable tracking device (PTD) carried in a waist
pack,
handbag or briefcase. The PTD contains the microprocessor, GPS receiver
and
cellular/land-line communication system.

According to Martinez, the rules of behavior can be programmed into each
device
from a desktop PC. Constraints can include boundaries set up by geography
and
time -- where the subject is supposed to be at specific hours of the day
and
night, routes to and from work or rehabilitation classes, restricted areas
of
the community and the distance in feet the individual may be from the
device.
This can be up to 1,000 feet, depending on the type of work the person
does. If
the specified distance is exceeded for more than a few minutes, the device
notifies the control center of the violation. The police are then directed
to
apprehend the person.

If a guideline is violated, the device warns the subject with an alarm, a
digitized voice and a liquid crystal display message. A violation not
corrected
within the required time, usually minutes, triggers a call to the control
center
via cellular phone. When the subject is home, the device automatically
switches
communications from cellular to the home telephone. "The device is like a
warden
looking down on you to be sure that you comply," said Martinez.

From a desktop PC, a parole officer or case supervisor can access a file
at the
central control Web site, and trace past movements or track an
individual's
movements in realtime on a computerized map. The file allows the agency to
see
if the person is showing up for work on time, going to rehabilitation
classes
every week, or has been at or near the scene of a crime. Pro Tech inventor
Hoyt
Layson Jr. said the system can also be used as an investigative tool.
"Imagine
being able to go into a 7-Eleven with a list of mug shots of subjects that
were
in the area at the time of the crime."

RESTRAINING ORDERS
According to Martinez, SMART is particularly effective in cases involving
domestic violence. If, for example, an abusive husband or boyfriend under
court
restraint comes within so many miles of where his wife or girlfriend lives
or
works, he is immediately warned of imminent arrest unless he leaves the
area. At
the same time, the victim is warned to get to a safer place. If the
warning is
ignored or the PTD ditched, police in the area are directed to apprehend
the
person.

What happens if the offender tries to take the system apart? "Turn one
screw,"
said Martinez, "and the unit automatically sends a 'help' message to
headquarters."

TESTING BEGINS
SMART will be tested this year in Florida and Pennsylvania. Bureau Chief
Richard
Nimer of the Florida Department of Corrections said the agency will begin
trial
runs in Tallahassee, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Orlando, Pensacola
and
Jacksonville. "We'll put it on ourselves -- those of us on the
implementation
team, probably a few of the judges, maybe the state attorney -- wear it
for
awhile and make sure that it articulates where we've been. After that
we'll
start off with low-risk offenders. If it works properly, we'll move on to
high-risk types."

Nimer said there is no shortage of eligibles for electronic monitoring in
Florida. "Our community control program is the largest in the nation --
we've
got over 15,000 on house arrest; of that, only about 1,000 are
electronically
monitored. Then we've got another 140,000 on state-felony probation. The
vast
majority of our caseloads have not been supervised using electronic
monitoring.
With GPS, however, we'll have a type of supervision that we've never had
before.
We envision using this as a tool to enhance personal supervision of these
offenders."

He added that plea agreements involving sex offenders and pedophiles often
result in putting them on the community control program. "When witnesses
are
unwilling to testify, or the charges are not sound," Nimer said, "the
courts
will accept plea agreements. Out of all the cases disposed of in felony
court in
the state of Florida, only 3 percent go to trial. At times you end up with
high-risk types on supervision that you would rather see in prison. If
they are
on supervision, ultimately, they're the ones we want to pinpoint for
electronic
monitoring.

"This approach is the opposite of that taken by most jurisdictions. They
try to
find a group of people who don't pose a risk that are going to be
successful on
the program. We want electronic monitoring on the worst of the worst,
because
they are going to cause the most problems. For example, we haven't used
electronic monitoring on nonviolent drug offenders. We've used it on sex
offenders and pedophiles because we believe they pose a greater threat to
the
community."

Nimer said departments of corrections and local law enforcement can work
out
partnerships based on the new system. "The dispatcher of the local
sheriff's
office can be notified when a violation occurs. The message will pop up on
the
mapping software in their office showing the location of the device. The
dispatcher can then direct a [patrol car] already in the field to pick up
the
person."

He acknowledged that the new technology is a more expensive alternative
than
traditional electronic monitoring, but felt communities will be getting
greater
protection because GPS has far more capabilities. "The new system is going
to
cost us $12 to $18 a day, per offender, excluding staff expenses, but we
expect
that to drop in time as the company recovers R&D costs."

PENNSYLVANIA
Lackawanna County, Pa., will begin field testing SMART, using office staff
and
volunteers, then do a six-month trial with low- to medium-risk defendants
who
are already in the criminal justice system. District Attorney Michael J.
Barrasse said the system will eventually be used in certain bail
situations, and
with parolees and various work-release individuals "to ensure we know
where they
are, and whether or not they are complying with their conditions of
release.

"At this point, however, the county is looking at the system more as a
tool to
provide post-sentence protection for the victim, where the offender is
classified as low- to medium-risk" said Barrasse. "One of the strong
points of
the system is its ability to track the abuser as well as the person who
needs
protection. If they're both traveling, and their zones happen to cross,
his
alarm will go off. If he gets closer and violates a second zone, both his
and
the victim's alarms will go off, along with the police being notified, and
our
assistant DA who is on call -- the victim is no longer in the dark."

And if the offender ditches the device? "All of these monitors have one
failing
-- if somebody snaps and ditches the PTD, or snips it off, you may know
where
that person was last, but you don't know where they're going to. With this
system, though, both the supervising agency and the victim are going to
know the
offender has broken contact with the device. This allows the victim to
move to a
safe place until the offender is relocated."

DEAD ZONES
Since Lackawanna County is in the northeast corner of Pennsylvania, near
the
Pocono Mountains, one of the objectives of testing will be to determine
the
effects of the mountains on operating the system and other areas where
satellite
signals are blocked. Since even geodetic-grade GPS receivers with
sophisticated
antennas on tall masts are subject to occasional signal blocking by
mountains,
hills, forests, trees with heavy canopies, and tall buildings,
jurisdictions may
have to work around these limitations, possibly by requiring the subject
to
notify the control center before entering buildings or going into areas
known to
block satellite signals. "We are not overly concerned about this,"
Barrasse
said, "for the simple fact that we would only lose contact with the device
for a
few seconds."

Another factor may be accuracy. With selective availability (SA), a
feature
imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that diminishes GPS
accuracy for
non-military uses, GPS-derived coordinates have an accuracy of about 300
feet,
although measurements made over 30 minutes or more from a fixed position
can
average out to about 50 feet. Without SA, raw GPS is accurate to 60 feet.
Since
the president has given the DOD 10 years to remove SA, it is likely to be
around
for a while. On the other hand, if GPS monitoring systems incorporate
differential correction signals, as broadcast by the Coast Guard or other
agencies, differential GPS accuracy will be better than 15 feet. But,
Layson
said, "Jurisdictions are not interested in knowing which chair the
offender is
in, they're interested in his movements through the community."

Authorities in Florida and Pennsylvania have discussed the feasibility of
the
system with experts as well as with judicial, law enforcement and
corrections
representatives nationwide. "We have talked with a number of district
attorneys," said Barrasse, "throughout the state and on the national
level. Law
enforcement and district attorneys' offices around the country are looking
to
see if this is going to be an effective tool."

OUTLOOK
As research and development progress in this field, monitoring systems
will get
smaller with each generation. Barrasse definitely believes this is the
direction
GPS-based monitoring systems are heading. "I don't think we're so far away
from
this becoming a more advanced system similar to heart monitors -- not
right now,
but down the road."

Martinez agreed. "Obviously, our devices will get smaller as batteries
become
smaller and more cost effective. Some of our visionary engineers say we
can
probably have the system down to where it would all be in the ankle
bracelet. I
don't see that for the next couple of years, but I do see it being the
size of a
typical Motorola cellular [phone] in the near future."

Higher-risk individuals will eventually be placed on this new GPS-based
monitoring system if testing in Florida and Pennsylvania show the system
is
consistently reliable and offenders would rather carry the device, follow
rules,
and have a measure of freedom than be in prison.

As for the voluntary aspect of the system, with 1.4 percent of America's
population in jail by 2005, a self-contained, tamper-proof ankle bracelet
is
inevitable. Scientists say that identification implants are already
possible.
Can monitoring implants be far behind?

Bill McGarigle is a freelance writer specializing in communication and
information technology. E-mail:

*

[ May Table of Contents]

Home | News | Publications | Conferences | GovCenter | Media | Search |
Subscribe
©Copyright e.Republic, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement
Questions or
Comments?