The Elusive Escape: Beating Ankle Monitors

Ankle monitors are electronic surveillance devices that track an individual's location and movements. These devices are typically worn by people who are awaiting trial, on probation, parole, or facing immigration proceedings. While ankle monitors are meant to provide an alternative to incarceration, they have been criticised for their negative impact on the wearers' lives, leading some people to attempt to remove or beat the monitor. However, this is not an easy task, as ankle monitors are designed to detect any attempts at tampering or removal, and such actions can result in legal consequences. While creating physical barriers or interfering with signals can temporarily disrupt the monitor's function, it is challenging to completely bypass its tracking capabilities.

Creating a barrier between the skin and the monitor

To beat an alcohol ankle monitor, one must understand how it works. These devices are designed to detect and measure alcohol consumption through the wearer's sweat. By creating a barrier between the skin and the monitor, such as with plastic wrap or rubber gloves, it may be possible to prevent the device from accurately reading the wearer's sweat and, thus, alcohol consumption.

However, it is important to note that tampering with or attempting to defeat a court-ordered monitoring device is illegal and can result in serious consequences. The most effective way to "beat" an alcohol ankle monitor is to prioritise sobriety and comply with the monitoring program.

Interfering with transmitted signals

• Using a Faraday cage: A Faraday cage is a closed conductive enclosure that blocks external static and non-static electric fields by channeling electric currents along and around the cage's exterior, thereby cancelling out the field's effect within the cage. By placing the ankle monitor inside a Faraday cage, you can block the transmission of signals to and from the device.
• Signal jammers: Signal jammers are devices that transmit signals on the same frequency as the ankle monitor, thereby interfering with its transmission. These devices can be purchased online or built at home with the right equipment and technical knowledge.
• GPS jamming devices: These devices are designed to disrupt GPS signals within a specific range. They are easily available in the market and can be plugged into an adaptor to use.
• Tin foil: Wrapping the ankle monitor securely with tin foil can interfere with its ability to track location. Tin foil blocks GPS tracking devices and can be used to conceal the ankle monitor.
• RollJam: RollJam is a device that can record and replay signals exchanged between the ankle monitor and the receiver. It can be used to interfere with the signals and potentially allow the individual to leave the premises without triggering an alarm.
• Spoofing the location: By dialling coordinates into a device that spoofs GPS signals, one can make the ankle monitor believe the individual is at a different location. This method has been used to hijack drones in the Middle East.
• MITM GSM signal spoofing: This technique involves intercepting and relaying the GSM signal to a different location, thereby misleading the authorities about the individual's actual location.

It is important to note that tampering with or attempting to defeat a court-ordered ankle monitor is illegal and can result in serious consequences. The methods mentioned above may provide temporary relief, but they do not guarantee success and can lead to legal repercussions.

The financial burden of wearing a monitor

The financial burden of wearing an ankle monitor can be significant, and it is often the individuals who are already facing financial challenges who bear the brunt of these costs. While ankle monitors are promoted as a more humane and cost-effective alternative to incarceration, the reality is that the cost burden is often shifted from the state to the individual. This shift can result in individuals and their families facing substantial financial strain to cover the costs of monitoring.

In the United States, the cost of electronic monitoring can range from $3 to $35 per day, and this expense is typically passed on to the person under supervision. This means that, in addition to any legal fees and court costs they may be facing, individuals must also find a way to pay for their own surveillance. For those who are unemployed or underemployed, this can be an insurmountable challenge. In some cases, individuals may have to take on additional jobs or make difficult choices, such as taking children out of daycare, just to keep up with the payments.

The financial burden of ankle monitors is further exacerbated by the fact that private companies often charge defendants hundreds of dollars a month to wear these devices. In the case of Daehaun White, a 19-year-old from St. Louis, he was required to pay $10 per day to a private company, Eastern Missouri Alternative Sentencing Services (EMASS), for his GPS monitor. This amounted to $300 upfront, plus a $50 installation fee, just to have the device attached. When he was unable to pay, he faced the risk of returning to jail.

Unfortunately, the story of Daehaun White is not unique. Across the country, defendants who have not been convicted of a crime are often placed on "offender-funded" payment plans for monitors that sometimes cost more than their bail. And, unlike bail, these fees are not refunded even if the defendant is found innocent. This places an incredible financial strain on individuals and their families, who may already be struggling financially.

To make matters worse, many local judges do not conduct hearings on a defendant's ability to pay for private supervision before assigning it. This means that judges often overestimate the financial means of poor individuals, further contributing to the financial burden. Additionally, without judicial oversight, defendants are vulnerable to private supervision companies that set their own rates and charge interest when payments cannot be made upfront.

The financial burden of wearing an ankle monitor goes beyond the cost of the device itself. There are also social stigmas associated with wearing these devices, which can make it difficult for individuals to find or maintain employment. The devices are often bulky and hard to hide, leading to snide comments and cutting jokes from others. This was the case for White, who found it challenging to land a job due to the visible presence of his monitor.

In conclusion, while ankle monitors may be touted as a more humane alternative to incarceration, the financial burden they place on individuals cannot be overlooked. For many, the cost of monitoring is a significant challenge that can lead to further financial hardship and even the risk of reincarceration. It is essential to consider the financial implications of these devices and explore more equitable solutions that do not place an undue burden on those who can least afford it.

The social stigma of wearing a monitor

Ankle monitors are often bulky and difficult to conceal, making it hard for wearers to hide their potential involvement with the justice system. This can lead to a social stigma, with wearers being presumed to be dangerous criminals. The monitors act as a modern form of shaming, reminiscent of the metal masks medieval women convicted of being "nags" or "scolds" were forced to wear and the yellow armbands employed by the Nazis.

The stigma associated with ankle monitors can have negative social consequences for wearers. For example, a wearer quoted in a Cornell article expressed worry that their friends would spot the monitor and leave them. The wearer tried to push the monitor up into their jeans, but this caused physical discomfort, with their feet going numb. This illustrates how the design of ankle monitors, which has remained largely unchanged for 30 years, can impact the social lives of those who wear them.

The social stigma of ankle monitors can also affect the mental health of wearers. Research has shown that the stigma, social isolation, and stress associated with being monitored can exacerbate depression and anxiety. This was evident in the experience of Shannan Davis, a 43-year-old Native American woman who shared her story with the ACLU. Davis, who was on an ankle monitor as a condition of her temporary release from jail, felt that the monitor made it difficult for her to reintegrate into society. She was restricted in her movements and struggled with the financial burden of paying for the monitor, which further contributed to her stress.

Additionally, ankle monitors can lead to social isolation by limiting wearers' ability to connect with their families and communities. Matthew Brown, a 34-year-old man from Maricopa County, Arizona, shared with the ACLU that he had lost touch with his family in Mexico due to being unable to travel there while on an ankle monitor. He had missed important family events and felt disconnected and negatively judged by others because of his monitor.

The social stigma of wearing an ankle monitor can create significant challenges for individuals trying to rebuild their lives after involvement with the justice system. It can lead to social isolation, mental health issues, and difficulties in finding employment and forming social bonds. While ankle monitors are intended as an alternative to incarceration, the stigma associated with them can create its own set of challenges and barriers for those trying to reintegrate into society.

The limitations on movement

Ankle monitors are typically used to track the location of individuals awaiting trial, on probation or parole, or facing immigration proceedings. They employ GPS tracking systems to record the wearer's location and can also be used to limit how long a person can stay outside and where they can go.

The restrictions on movement can significantly impact an individual's ability to work, attend school, or participate in social activities. Shannan Davis, a 43-year-old Native American woman, shared that due to the conditions of her bond, she was not allowed to leave the recovery house she was staying in. She couldn't join group outings with the other girls or go to the store with them, experiencing social isolation as a result of her ankle monitor.

Additionally, Matthew Brown, a 34-year-old man from Maricopa County, Arizona, has been on an ankle monitor for three years pending trial. He shared that the ankle monitor has caused him to lose touch with his family in Mexico, as he is unable to attend family events or visit them due to his restricted movement.

Overall, the limitations on movement imposed by ankle monitors can vary depending on individual cases and the conditions set by the court or parole officer. While the primary purpose of these monitors is to track an individual's location, the restrictions on movement can have significant impacts on various aspects of daily life, including work, education, social activities, and finances.

Frequently asked questions