Ankle Monitor Business: Getting Started And Staying Compliant

Ankle monitors are an increasingly popular alternative to incarceration, allowing individuals to fulfil court orders, parole conditions, or pre-trial restrictions without being confined. They are often the size of a wristwatch and use GPS technology to keep tabs on a person's whereabouts in real time.

The use of ankle monitors is not without controversy, however. In some jurisdictions, individuals are required to pay for their own ankle monitors, which can cost hundreds of dollars a month. This has led to criticisms that the system disproportionately affects poorer individuals and communities of colour.

Additionally, the constant monitoring that ankle monitors facilitate has sparked debates about personal privacy and civil liberties. The stigma attached to wearing an ankle monitor can also impede reintegration and amplify the challenges individuals face in starting anew.

Despite these concerns, ankle monitors are likely to play an increasingly prominent role in criminal justice systems worldwide.

Legally removing an ankle monitor

Ankle monitors are a source of stress and distraction for many people who wear them. While it is possible to remove an ankle monitor by cutting off the strap or disassembling the device, this is not a legal method. The proper way to remove an ankle monitor is by submitting an official request, known as a motion, to the court. Here is a step-by-step guide on how to legally remove an ankle monitor:

Step 1: Have a Legitimate Reason

First, you need to have a valid reason for wanting to remove your ankle monitor. Examples of good reasoning include job-related requirements, medical attention, severe ankle pain or injury, mental stress, and distraction. While you can submit a request without a reason, having one will increase the chances of your request being granted.

Step 2: Communicate with Your Supervision Officer

If you have a supervision officer, it is important to have them on your side. Explain your reasons for wanting to remove the ankle monitor, and they may support you during your motion hearing. It is crucial that you have a positive relationship with your supervision officer and have not violated any restrictions prior to making your request.

Step 3: Create a Motion Document

A motion is a request sent to the court asking for a change of order or lawful decision. Creating a motion document can be tricky, as courts may have specific templates, wordings, and protocols that must be followed. Consult with an attorney to assist you in drafting a motion that complies with all the necessary requirements.

Step 4: Keep Multiple Backups of Your Motion Document

Make sure to have multiple physical copies of your motion document. Send a copy to your supervision officer and prosecutor, and keep additional copies in case the court requests them or if the original gets lost. Having these backups will ensure you are prepared and organised for your hearing.

Step 5: Set Up a Hearing Date

Schedule a hearing date before submitting your motion. Each court has its own process for scheduling hearings, so consult with court staff or your attorney on how to do this. You may need to submit a form known as a Notice of Hearing, which includes the date, time, and location of the hearing.

Step 6: Submit Your Motion to the Court

Once the hearing is scheduled, bring your original motion document and copies to the court. There may be a filing fee, and the court staff will review and approve your motion.

Step 7: Send a Copy of Your Motion to the Prosecutor and Supervision Officer

Inform your prosecutor and supervision officer about your hearing schedule and send them a copy of the Notice of Hearing. While they may suggest against removing your ankle monitor, being respectful and upfront increases the chances of your request being granted.

Step 8: Attend the Court Hearing

Arrive at the court early, at least 15 minutes before the hearing is scheduled to start. Dress appropriately to give a good impression and bring all the required documents, including your case documents and compliance records.

Step 9: State Your Argument

During the hearing, you will have the opportunity to present your argument. Introduce yourself and clearly state your request, following what you stated in your motion. Avoid adding new arguments that were not mentioned in your written submission.

Step 10: Receive the Decision

The judge will consider all aspects of your case, including your charges, the suggestions of the prosecutor and supervision officer, and your reported behaviours. If your motion is granted, you will be able to coordinate with your supervision officer to remove the ankle monitor. If your request is denied, remain calm and respectful, as this can positively impact your entire case.

The cost of ankle monitors

Private companies often charge defendants hundreds of dollars a month to wear ankle monitors, and the failure to pay can result in extended supervision, additional fees, or even jail time. In some cases, individuals may be required to pay an installation fee, as well as ongoing monitoring and maintenance fees. The cost of ankle monitors can be a complex and opaque system, with little oversight on the fees charged by private companies.

The high cost of ankle monitors has sparked debates and criticisms regarding the ethics of monetizing the justice system and public safety. While ankle monitors are promoted as a humane alternative to incarceration, the associated costs can create financial challenges for individuals, potentially leading to a cycle of debt and further legal consequences.

The mental toll of ankle monitors

Ankle monitors have been described as "a modern-day scarlet letter", and those forced to wear them have reported a range of negative mental health impacts. These include trouble sleeping, mental health problems, migraines, depression, and even thoughts of suicide.

The constant surveillance and monitoring of ankle bracelets can cause feelings of entrapment and a sense of serving a sentence before even being convicted of a crime. The devices are often bulky and hard to hide, leading to snide comments and social isolation. This can make finding and keeping a job difficult, as colleagues and clients may notice the monitor and ask questions. The financial implications of this, combined with the cost of renting and maintaining the device, can cause further stress and anxiety.

The psychological effects of ankle monitors can be long-lasting, with some reporting that the impact on their mental health was permanent, even after the monitor was removed. The constant fear of authority figures and the disruption to daily life can take a significant toll on mental well-being.

To legally remove an ankle monitor, individuals must submit an official request or motion to the court, providing a legitimate reason for its removal. This process can be challenging and often requires the assistance of a legal attorney. The financial and emotional burden of wearing an ankle monitor can be significant, impacting various aspects of an individual's life and causing long-term psychological harm.

The history of ankle monitors

In the 1970s, the use of electronic monitoring in the US criminal justice system was hindered by the end of rehabilitative sentencing, which saw those found guilty of a criminal offence sent to prison, leading to a sudden increase in the prison population. However, in the 1980s, the technology found its first commercial applications. In 1982, Arizona state district judge Jack Love convinced a former sales representative of Honeywell Information Systems, Michael T. Goss, to start a monitoring company, National Incarceration Monitor and Control Services (NIMCOS). NIMCOS built several credit card-sized transmitters that could be strapped onto an ankle, transmitting a radio signal every 60 seconds. In 1983, Judge Jack Love imposed home curfews on three offenders who had been sentenced to probation, trialling the NIMCOS electronic ankle tags on them.

In the 1990s, all 50 states employed radio-frequency (RF) technologies to varying degrees to monitor and track individuals, such as sex offenders. In 2009, an estimated 44,000 tracking monitors were deployed in the United States.

In the 2000s, the use of electronic monitoring continued to grow, with 33 states passing legislation mandating released sex offenders to wear electronic monitoring devices. In 2010, California electronically monitored high-risk gang members' violations of exclusion zones, revealing previously unknown gang networks. In 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Jones that law enforcement must obtain a probable-cause warrant to place a GPS tracker on a car.

In the 2010s, the use of electronic monitoring expanded further, with some parents turning to a Florida company to attach ankle monitors to their children. In 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter versus the United States that "police must obtain a warrant to access cell site location data from a cell phone company". In 2019, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in State of North Carolina v. Torrey Grady that states cannot subject convicted sex offenders to lifetime electronic monitoring as it violates their Fourth Amendment rights.

Today, electronic monitoring is used as a cost-effective way to send people home and free up jail space. While it has been criticised for its invasion of privacy and the stigmatisation of offenders, proponents argue that it saves money for cash-poor states and benefits offenders by allowing them to live at home and move freely.

The future of ankle monitors

Technological advancements will continue to expand the capabilities of ankle monitors. The addition of two-way communication features, improved battery life, and tamper-proof alarms demonstrates the trajectory of enhanced monitoring, surveillance, and intervention. The integration of GPS technology has enabled more precise tracking, while the development of heart rate and blood pressure detection showcases the potential for physiological monitoring.

The privatisation of the ankle monitor industry, often driven by cost-saving measures, has resulted in a for-profit system where individuals may bear the financial burden of the devices. This privatisation has also led to concerns about a lack of public oversight and transparency in decision-making, particularly regarding fee-setting and revenue generation.

Ethical and privacy concerns will continue to be central to the debate surrounding ankle monitors. While some view these devices as a necessary tool for rehabilitation and public safety, others argue that they infringe on civil liberties and amount to a form of "e-carceration". The balance between effective monitoring and the preservation of privacy and dignity will be a critical aspect of the future of ankle monitors.

As technology progresses, the potential for more intrusive forms of monitoring, such as physiological eavesdropping, algorithmic analysis, and predictive capabilities, will pose new challenges. The question of whether these advancements serve the interests of justice or encroach on individual freedoms will be central to shaping the future landscape of ankle monitors.

Frequently asked questions