Charging Ankle Monitors: To Remove Or Not?

Ankle monitors are often used as an alternative to jail time for first-time and non-violent offenders. They are a cost-effective way to monitor an individual's location and, in some cases, alcohol consumption. While ankle monitors are typically associated with house arrest, alcohol monitoring, or bail, they have also been used in high schools to monitor truant students. In terms of charging, it is recommended that the wearer charges the device for two hours every night. However, it is unclear whether the ankle monitor needs to be removed for charging.

Defendants are letting ankle monitor batteries die

The issue has sparked criticism of the electronic monitoring program, with concerns raised about public safety and the effectiveness of the devices. According to Char-Meck Court Watch, the program, coupled with a more lenient bail policy, is giving people charged with violent crimes the opportunity to avoid jail time. This concern is echoed by Lucille Puckett, who highlights the failure of the system, stating that defendants are either cutting off their monitors or letting the batteries die.

Maj. Nelson Bowling, who leads a team of seven CMPD officers tasked with monitoring defendants 24/7, expressed his frustration with the situation. He stated that while the program is beneficial when used appropriately, some defendants fail to take it seriously, leading to dead batteries and cut devices. Officers are doing their best to address the issue, making phone calls or even visiting defendants in person when batteries are running low. However, they acknowledge the limitations of the technology, noting that the devices can only reveal a person's previous location, not their future actions.

The situation has also brought to light the challenges faced by judicial officials, who must balance public safety with the presumption of innocence and the constitutional prohibition of excessive bail. While ankle monitors are intended to provide an alternative to incarceration, particularly for first-time and non-violent offenders, the recent trends highlight the need for improved measures to ensure the effective use of such technology in the criminal justice system.

Police re-arresting those who let ankle monitor batteries die

Police in Charlotte, North Carolina, have re-arrested people who let their ankle monitor batteries die. In one instance, Clifton Grier was re-arrested more than a week after his electronic monitor died. Grier, who was originally charged with robbery and theft, now faces new charges, including resisting an officer. In another case, a teenager was charged with rape and robbery just days after his ankle monitor battery died.

According to Maj. Nelson Bowling of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD), defendants are required to charge their ankle monitor batteries for two hours every night. If the batteries run low, the CMPD will try to get the person's attention, sometimes even visiting them in person. If the defendant cannot be reached, the police will immediately start looking for them.

Ankle monitors are meant to be worn 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and are used to track the location of individuals to ensure they are complying with the terms of their release. While they are presented as an alternative to incarceration, critics argue that they are a form of incarceration themselves, depriving people of their liberties and introducing new ways for them to end up back in prison.

In the United States, the use of GPS ankle monitors has been on the rise, increasing by 140% between 2005 and 2015. While some argue that they are useful for monitoring sex and drug offenders, critics point out that they can add an administrative burden on probation and parole officers, who have to deal with numerous alerts, errors, and false positives. Additionally, there is not much rigorous research to suggest that they are effective at preventing people from absconding, re-offending, or keeping the public safe.

Judges maintain they use risk assessments to determine house arrest

Judges maintain that they use risk assessments and the facts of each case to determine who they release on electronic monitoring. Risk assessments are a process or a tool used by the court to decide whether someone is too dangerous to release or a "flight risk". There are two types of assessments: clinical and algorithmic. In a clinical assessment, a psychologist or clinician evaluates an individual. These assessments can be time-consuming, requiring informal evaluations, interviews, and investigations of various factors of a defendant's life. An alternative method is an "algorithmic risk assessment", which uses data, statistics, and social science to categorize a person's risk level.

Judges use risk assessments to inform decisions about pretrial detention, bail, sentence length, and more. They are particularly useful in determining whether a defendant is a flight risk or a danger to public safety. If a defendant is deemed to be a flight risk or a danger, they will be sent to jail. If not, they are usually allowed to go home.

Risk assessments are becoming increasingly popular as a way to reduce pretrial jailing and limit the abuses of money bail. Over 60 jurisdictions, including several states, now employ a risk assessment, and 25% of people in the US live in a jurisdiction that uses this method. However, critics argue that risk assessments perpetuate racial bias and may increase pretrial detention.

Ultimately, while risk assessments can provide valuable information to judges, they are just one tool in the criminal justice decision-making process and should be used with caution and in conjunction with other factors.

CMPD officers keep tabs on defendants 24/7

In Charlotte, North Carolina, a team of seven CMPD officers is tasked with keeping tabs on defendants 24/7. This comes as a growing number of people on the electronic monitoring program have been cutting off their ankle monitors or letting their batteries die.

Maj. Nelson Bowling, of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police, said that while the ankle monitors are a great program, they are only good when they're on. Defendants are required to charge the ankle monitor batteries for two hours every night. If the batteries run low, CMPD makes an effort to get the person's attention, sometimes even visiting them in person.

"Most of the time we can simply resolve it with a phone call and say, 'Hey, your battery's going dead. You need to charge it,' " Maj. Bowling said.

However, not every defendant takes it seriously. If they cannot be contacted, then officers are immediately on the lookout for them.

So far this year, 80 defendants have cut their electronic monitoring devices, according to CMPD, which is slightly more than the number this time last year. 18 of those people are still at large.

Ankle monitors are cheaper than prison

Ankle monitors are a cheaper alternative to prison, but they come with a host of drawbacks that can severely impact the lives of those wearing them.

Firstly, ankle monitors are often touted as a more humane option than incarceration, allowing individuals to remain in their communities, maintain their jobs, and support their families. This is especially important for those who are the sole providers for their families or who may be in danger if incarcerated. Ankle monitors are also less expensive than traditional imprisonment, saving taxpayers money.

However, despite these advantages, ankle monitors can be highly restrictive and invasive. For example, they must be charged daily, which can be inconvenient and cause anxiety for the wearer if they are out and about. Additionally, the devices can be uncomfortable and cause skin irritation. The stigma associated with wearing an ankle monitor can lead to public humiliation and social isolation, as many assume that the wearer is a dangerous criminal.

Moreover, ankle monitors come with significant financial costs for the wearer, with setup fees and daily charges that can quickly add up, especially for those who are already financially vulnerable. This can create a cycle of debt and unemployment, as employers may be reluctant to hire someone with an ankle monitor. In some states, failure to pay these fees can result in a return to prison.

The extensive tracking data generated by ankle monitors is also a cause for concern. While it is primarily owned by law enforcement agencies, it is unclear where all the data goes, raising questions about privacy and data ownership.

In conclusion, while ankle monitors may be cheaper than prison, they impose a different set of challenges on the wearer, impacting their physical and mental health, finances, and social life. Therefore, while they can be a viable option for low-risk offenders, they should be used with discretion, considering the offender's risk of reoffending and the nature of the crime.

Frequently asked questions