Application Of The Gps Monitoring Program

June 14, 2017, Melrico Nelvis was issued Bail Conditions that placed him on the GPS monitoring program for the charge of Aggravated Assault/DV. The Bail Conditions state that Nelvis is to stay away from the home of the victim, Derrika Smith, and is not to be anywhere the victim likely to be. July 25, 2017, at 8:31 p.m. and at 8:36 p.m. Nelvis entered the home exclusion zone of the victim. Officers had made the scene and the victim was in the area, but stated she had not seen Nelvis. Regardless, the Bail Conditions state that Nelvis is to stay away from the home of the victim or anywhere the victim is likely to be. Nelvis’s actions place him in violation of the Bail Conditions that are active until his next court date on August 23,

According to the Seven Circuit court’s ruling and the Supreme Court holding is that the petitioner had previously been involved in other three related felony issues. These felonies were consequently recorded towards the end of the month of November in 1995 and they include two robbery convictions and an attempt to flee law enforcement

sexual offender in North Carolina, who was forced to wear a “satellite-based monitoring (SBM)” tacking device that would track his whereabouts for the rest of his life. Grady argues that subjection to this “SBM” was violated under his Fourth Amendment right.

As well as without the defendants’ knowledge, the tracker installed in the vehicle for 28 days. “The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. vs. Jones to determine whether the police had violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when they attached a GPS to his car without a warrant and tracked his movements.” (Andrew)

Jones filed for an appeal claiming that the warrantless use of a GPS system to monitor his whereabouts constituted an illegal search. In August (2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned his conviction stating that the search conducted was unconstitutional and violates Mr. Jones “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Electronic monitoring “ in most cases, U.S. probation and pretrial services officers use electronic monitoring in supervising people placed under home confinement (Uscourts, Home Confinement , pg 2)”. The person “wears a tamper resistant transmitter on the ankle or wrist 24 hours a day and the person must stay within 150 feet of the receiving unit to be considered in range (Uscourts, Home Confinement, pg2)”. Key events that might happen which would break the

2. Section 16913provides that a sex offender must register and keep the registration current in each jurisdiction where he or she resides, is an employee, or is a student. (Morse, 2009).

I’m James Wright the father of Autumn Wright. We paid to implement life a saving precaution to our child who is gaining strength and speed, who bolts, wanders and lacks the comprehension of the dangers of such action and has been wearing a GPS device due to the fact that she is developmentally delayed with a seizure disorder that is amplified by overheating. She bolts, wonders and could be in grave danger without assistance. Autumn has bolted from Frenchtown Elementary staff and wondered off several times from me throughout the years. The GPS device she wears is called angelsense and we purchased it for Autumn to prevent a potential tragedy of a lost special needs child.

Electronic monitoring is a device that allows Justice Officers and officials to ensure an offender is at a certain location when 65 required to be there. The use of the monitoring device is becoming more popular as a way to control and supervise offenders within the community to ensure citizens are safe. In the mid-1960 a Harvard Psychologist Robert Schwitzgebel developed the first electronic monitoring device. The device was intended to provide an inexpensive alternative for offenders than incarceration or within the justice process. Even though the device was patented in 1969 it didn’t start coming into effect until the 1980’s. It’s used by courts to track the location of offenders that are under surveillance or restricted to certain areas.

     I would recommend this program and think that adding a GPS system to electronic monitoring bracelets would be a tremendous help to society. These changes may be necessary to helping prison and jail overcrowding and having to spend millions of more dollars on building new prisons. The problem may

Sexual offenders are the most vilified type of offenders within public opinion and the criminal justice system. The American precedent cases of Jacob Wetterling, Pam Lyncher, Megan Kanka, and other notorious crimes perpetrated by sexual offenders with a prior history of conviction have demanded a response from the criminal justice system to increase public safety. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program was passed (Scholle, 2000), the first piece of legislation to advocate for the development of state-maintained registries of convicted sexual offenders. The legislation has been amended numerous times since then; in its present state, the law requires all states to maintain a registry, the mandatory registration of convicted sex offenders after release, community notification laws in place, and public access to the registry (Burchfield and Mingus, 2012; Lees and Tewksbury, 2006; Petrunik, Murphy, and Fedoroff, 2008; Scholle, 2000; Tewksbury and Lees, 2006; Wagner, 2011).

Sexual violence in the United Stated has become a significant problem over the past decade. Besides being a health problem for the individual, it is a crime that every State punishes in accordance to their laws. In an effort to decrease the incidents of sexual assault, many states and legislators have passed laws geared towards reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders. As a result, sex offenders living in the United States are subject to different laws, including sex offender registration, community notification, monitoring via a global positioning system (GPS), and loitering and internet restrictions. In addition to these boundaries, sex offenders are subject to civil

An idea that was followed through was the electric ankle brace, in which people who commit misdometers(eg. cable theft), or are on parole are on house arrest. They cannot leave at certain times and if they do, the ankle brace sends an alerts the police.

They are allowed to go to work and participate in other selected activities, but their location is known at all times. The device will also alert authorities if it is tampered with; so you cannot simply remove it (Internet). The idea of electronic monitors to track the location of prisoners first arose in the 1960's when Dr. Ralph Schwitzgebel researched, developed, and tested a device capable of doing so. These devices constantly transmit over the telephone or over radio waves (McCarthy 137). Once the prisoner completes his sentence, the device is removed. This seems to be a good idea - it allows someone to be punished but it does not put a halt to their life in general or contribute to the overpopulation of a prison.

Active- Active monitoring devices are devices that constantly signaling devices attached to the offender that constantly monitor his or her presence at a particular location. This is the most common between the two types of monitoring devices. In active monitoring, a transmitter is attached an offender's wrist or ankle. A signal is then relayed to the home telephone of the offender, which is then sent to the supervising office during the hours the offender is required to be at home. The whole point of the active electronic monitoring system is to give real-time reports to parole officers of a parolee's violation.