GPS Tracking Gets Cautious Endorsement
Report says electronic monitoring of offenders must be more reliable
By CHRISTIAN NOLAN
Global positioning systems can be “very valuable tools” for monitoring the whereabouts of sex offenders and other people on probation, but they should not be a substitute for personal supervision by Connecticut probation officers.
Those are among the findings of a state Judicial Branch report, which also called into question the performance of a Florida-based company the state has hired to monitor offenders using GPS technology. The report said the state should open its own monitoring center to enhance supervision of offenders.
“The confidence [in GPS monitoring] has to be there. The reliability has to be there,” said Thomas Siconolfi, the executive director of administrative services for the Judical Branch. “Or people will lose faith in it and that’s unfortunate.”
Siconolfi, who authored the report, cautioned state officials about relying too heavily on electronic monitoring. “The foreseeable future is still GPS and probation officers, but it starts with the probation officers. Never slack off person-to-person supervision because of [GPS],” Siconolfi told the Law Tribune.
The report was prompted by a summertime controversy involving a GPS tracking device that gave a false report about the whereabouts of a released rapist.
Southbury residents and state officials were upset when convicted serial rapist David Pollitt decided to move into the community last year and live with his sister after finishing his prison term. He was outfitted with an electronic device that allowed Pro Tech Monitoring of Odessa, Fla., to monitor his whereabouts with satellite technology.
One afternoon, at a time when Pollitt claims he was working in his sister’s yard, state probation workers received an alert from Pro Tech, which reported that Pollitt had left the yard for 15 minutes, in violation of his probation.
He was arrested soon thereafter, but charges were dropped within a couple of days. The GPS contractor acknowledged the signal was weak that day and that the employee who had confirmed to state probation officials that Pollitt had left the yard was a sales representative and not a monitoring specialist.
Even though other states that use GPS monitoring of offenders have reported thousands of false alerts, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal expressed shock and outrage at the faulty reading and demanded an investigation. Last week, the state Judicial Branch issued a 31-page report detailing everything that is both good and bad with their GPS tracking system.
In the end, Judicial Branch officials determined that the technology should still be used but with recommended changes, some of which are already in place.
“GPS, and electronic monitoring in general, can be very valuable tools that assist probation officers in supervising and monitoring offenders in the community,” wrote Siconolfi. “GPS provides a means to verify an offender's present location and movements to a degree that was not possible just a few years ago.”
His report continued: “Despite its technological sophistication, GPS is not a substitute for direct supervision by probation officers. Rather, GPS is a complementary tool that helps officers do a better job of supervising probationers. National experts have assessed the GPS monitoring technology we use in Connecticut, and they indicate that our technology is consistent with and comparable to the systems in use throughout the country.”
‘Secondary’ Probation Officers
The state now uses GPS devices to monitor about 30 released sex offenders and an additional 200 people on probation for various crimes. Siconolfi’s report recommends the continued use of GPS monitoring, but it says that two probation officers should be assigned to each offender being tracked with GPS to get 24-hour a day coverage.
Officials say they will have the capacity to assign “secondary” probation officers to these cases when the state hires 27 new officers; the additions were authorized by the General Assembly earlier this year.
Next, Siconolfi recommends that a state operated monitoring center be opened, at a minimum from 3 p.m. to 8 a.m. weekdays and all weekend long, to supplement Pro Tech’s services. “I think that’s absolutely necessary,” said William Carbone, director of court support services, which oversees the probation department. “We have to have 24/7 capability to respond and right now we don’t.”
Carbone acknowledged that false alerts “happen all the time.” Just as cell phones often get poor reception in some areas, GPS readings are affected by hilly terrain, bad weather, low batteries and even where the offender is carrying the tracking device. Carbone noted that on the day in question, Pollitt had his device in his pocket, rather than attached to his belt, as it should have been.
Carbone said that a Connecticut monitoring center would be in better position to determine whether unusual readings were being caused by technical difficulties or actual cases of an offender being somewhere he or she shouldn’t be. As it stands, he said, probation officers are often awaken in the middle of the night by Pro Tech for reports that turn out to be faulty. “These are the same officers that have to go to work in the morning,” Carbone said.
The cost of a monitoring center is estimated at $200,000 to $400,000 a year. Siconolfi is hopeful that policymakers would support such an investment, and he intends to take it up with legislative leaders before the start of the General Assembly’s next session.
Qualified Trackers
The GPS study also addresses the performance of Pro Tech, a subcontractor for California-based G4S Justice Services Inc., which has a $950,000-a-year contract with the Judicial Branch. Siconolfi said when he found that the worker who confirmed the Pollitt report was a sales representative, he told Pro Tech that was “intolerable.” He said Pro Tech has been informed that only qualified employees can analyze the GPS tracking data before notifying state officials.
“If you don’t get good information from them, the whole thing is a house of cards,” Siconolfi said.
Carbone said the state would evaluate Pro Tech’s service quarterly and would consider contracting with another GPS company. According to the report, there are perhaps six GPS vendors nationwide, all of which obtain data from the same network of 27 satellites operated by the Department of Defense. Because the GPS data all comes from the same source, the efficiency of the different GPS venders boils down to their ability to analyze data and the quality of devices placed on the offenders.
After seeing the study, Blumenthal still seemed upset at the events leading up to Pollitt’s mistaken arrest in September.
“This report reveals disturbing flaws in our state's criminal GPS tracking system -- most notably the failure by a state contractor to accurately interpret and report the whereabouts of a dangerous convicted criminal,” Blumenthal said in a prepared statement. “I have grave concerns about the state's continued reliance on Pro Tech Monitoring to provide this vital public safety service.”
Blumenthal went on to voice concerns about the accuracy of GPS information for offenders living where “hills, foliage and other factors may inhibit satellite service.”
Meanwhile Pollitt’s lawyer, Ioannis A. “John” Kaloidis, said the report reveals “nothing new.”
“It’s all stuff we knew ahead of time,” Kaloidis said. “Mr. Pollitt could’ve told you the system doesn’t work properly but they didn’t want to hear it from him.” Kaloidis said Pollitt took detailed notes of various false alerts caused by poor reception.
But even Kaloidis said GPS monitoring has its place, as long as all the report’s recommendations are implemented. “It is a useful tool but it’s not a perfect science and it’s not 100 percent foolproof,” he said.•
HOME
