In a recent felony rape case in Utah, a 21-year-old defendant, a former college athlete, was ordered to wear a GPS ankle monitor as a condition of his release on bail. This specific order, issued by a 5th District Court judge, mandates the device for at least 60 days while the legal process unfolds. It is a tangible example of a broader trend: courts nationwide are increasingly relying on electronic monitoring (EM) to manage defendants awaiting trial, particularly in cases involving serious charges.
The Expanding Role of Electronic Monitoring in Pre-Trial Justice
The use of electronic monitoring as a condition of pre-trial release has grown steadily over the past two decades. Rather than incarceration, judges often turn to EM to address concerns about flight risk and public safety, especially in felony cases. A 2017 Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicated that GPS monitoring was being used for over 125,000 individuals under correctional supervision on any given day, a figure that includes both pre-trial and post-conviction populations.
Proponents argue that GPS ankle bracelets offer a critical middle ground between detention and unconditional release. They allow defendants to maintain employment, support families, and consult with legal counsel more freely than if incarcerated, while still providing a mechanism for supervision. For courts, the technology provides near real-time location data, creating exclusion zones (areas defendants cannot enter, like a victim’s residence) and inclusion zones (areas they must remain within, such as their home), offering a layer of accountability previously unavailable outside of secure detention.
However, the deployment of electronic monitoring is not without its challenges. Critics point to potential for technical malfunctions, the burden of monitoring fees often passed to defendants, and the expansion of surveillance into individuals’ lives before conviction. The accuracy of GPS data, though vastly improved, can still be affected by environmental factors, and the sheer volume of alerts generated by a large monitored population can strain probation and parole resources.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Real-World Impact
For defendants, an ankle monitor can be a lifeline, offering an alternative to weeks or months spent in jail prior to trial. This can be particularly significant for those from marginalized communities, where cash bail can be an insurmountable barrier. However, the presence of the device itself can be stigmatizing, affecting employment prospects and social interactions. Defendants also face the constant awareness of being tracked, which can impact mental well-being.
From the judicial perspective, the decision to impose EM involves a careful balancing act. Judges weigh the severity of the charges, the defendant’s criminal history, community ties, and potential risk to public safety. As Washington County Deputy Attorney Ryan Shaum noted in the Utah case regarding potential victim testimony, court proceedings demand careful management, and EM orders are one tool in a broader strategy to ensure public trust and safety during complex legal processes.
Law enforcement and correctional agencies, responsible for implementing and overseeing EM programs, face operational complexities. This includes ensuring proper device functionality, responding to tamper alerts or zone violations, and providing timely data to the courts. The efficacy of EM programs often hinges on adequate staffing and robust technical support from vendors.
A Competitive Field and Future Outlook
The electronic monitoring sector has a robust array of established players. BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of GEO Group, remains a dominant provider in the U.S. SCRAM Systems is well-known for its continuous alcohol monitoring ankle devices. Attenti, now part of Allied Universal, extends its services globally, operating programs in over 30 countries. Beyond these major enterprises, smaller vendors continue to innovate, offering specialized solutions. Examples include Buddi in the UK, and manufacturers developing compact one-piece GPS designs, such as the CO-EYE series, which integrates optical-fiber tamper detection and a rapid three-second snap-on installation.
The future of electronic monitoring points toward greater technological sophistication and integration within broader criminal justice information systems. Anticipated advancements include enhanced battery life, smaller and less intrusive designs, and more refined analytics that can potentially predict risk factors with greater accuracy. This will allow for more targeted and responsive supervision, moving beyond simple location tracking to a more comprehensive risk management tool.
As the legal system continues to explore alternatives to incarceration, electronic monitoring will likely remain a fixture in both pre-trial supervision and post-conviction offender management. The technology’s ongoing evolution promises more effective tools for accountability and public safety, while also prompting continued debate about its ethical implications and equitable application.
Source: Here’s the latest on the former BYU receiver felony rape case
