Ankle monitor bracelet

Ankle monitor bracelet DEFAULT

Incarcerated at home: The rise of ankle monitors and house arrest during the pandemic

In Alameda County, young people on ankle monitors are required to charge them daily between 7 and 9 p.m. They must get permission 48 hours in advance from their probation officer to leave their house or go to non-pre-approved locations, making it difficult to attend after-school activities, pick up extra shifts at work, exercise or go to the drug store for a quick errand.

Alameda County changed its rules in April of last year to no longer charge youth with violations for small infractions of the electronic monitoring rules, said Ford, the probation officer. While he could not comment on Canal’s case, Ford added that electronic monitoring for youth in the county is court-ordered.

In other jurisdictions, the rules are even more strict. For adults in electronic monitors in Chicago, their homes are subject to warrantless searches, and wearers have to submit a written request 72 hours in advance to go anywhere other than pre-approved locations, meaning even stopping for gas can amount to a violation. Copies of the wearer’s pay stubs may need to be submitted to the sheriff’s office, too, according to a copy of the rules obtained by NBC News.

Morales, of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, said that for minor infractions of the ankle monitor rules, offenders are issued a warning, but a person can be reincarcerated for multiple violations. Morales also said the 72-hour advance request for additional movement is necessary because of the high volume of requests the department has to process from people on ankle monitors.

Pay per day

Though electronic monitoring is cheaper for municipalities and states than jail, the cost of the surveillance device is often passed on to the people wearing them. And during the pandemic, when millions of people lost their jobs and unemployment benefits were backlogged, that cost added up.

In at least 30 states, agencies require those who are placed in an electronic monitor to pay between $2 and $20 a day to wear one, not including activation fees that some counties tack on, according to Weisburd’s research. In areas like Baltimore County, Maryland, the hundreds of dollars a month people assigned to ankle monitors awaiting trial were paying as court dates continued to be delayed due to the pandemic became such a burden that the county moved to eliminate ankle monitor fees altogether.

Ankle monitors can be so expensive that some people in the system must choose between paying rent or their electronic monitor fees, according to Kilgore, with Challenging E-Carceration. Those fees are sometimes paid directly to the private companies contracted to provide the ankle monitors by law enforcement. Kilgore also wore an ankle monitor for a year as a condition of his parole.

While the cost of incarceration is higher than the cost of an ankle monitor and being on house arrest for many is a better option than being in jail, in places like Chicago, the majority of people who are on electronic monitoring are awaiting trial and have yet to be convicted. But unlike other jurisdictions, Cook County does not charge offenders.

"People are supposed to have a presumption of innocence," said Patrice James, director of community justice at the Chicago-based Shriver Center on Poverty Law. "But when you put people on electronic monitoring, you’ve not solved the incarceration problem. It just shifts the jail cell to inside our communities, inside our apartment complexes and to our residential blocks."

Technical difficulties

Like so many electronics, ankle monitors also don’t always work.

When the electronic monitor senses a violation, whether from not being charged at the right time or when someone steps outside their house at the wrong time, the company running the monitor notifies law enforcement. Then officers may be sent to the wearer’s home or work.

With the dramatic increase of people on ankle monitors during the pandemic in Chicago, local watchdogs say they’re seeing a rise in violations for small infractions. Matthew McLoughlin, an organizer with the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, said he’s also seen an increase in more false violations and technical glitches for people whose ankle monitors rely on GPS tracking.

“I was talking to a gentleman who had an escape case because he was late getting home from work and had to charge the monitor. He was in Zoom court when they told him they were filing an escape case against him,” McLoughlin said.

Still, Joseph Russo, a board member of the American Parole and Probation Association, said overall, electronic monitors can be a reliable tool for tracking offenders who need a high level of supervision and they can help link people to crimes. One of the rioters who investigators say broke into the Capitol in January was caught because he was wearing an ankle monitor.

“Some people might be deterred who know their location might be tracked. But we’re not dealing with folks who always apply rational thinking to their behaviors,” Russo said. “There’s countless news reports of people being tracked back to murders and other crimes based on their ankle bracelets.”

Growing up

Evelyn Canal now is a Dream Beyond Bars fellow with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, a nonprofit organization that provides support and advocates to end youth incarceration and criminalization in California. She’s working with the group to pass the Juvenile Justice Realignment bill, which determines what will happen to incarcerated youth in California after state facilities are closed by 2023.

She’s also working to advocate for increased funding for California’s Office of Youth and Community Restoration, which she said could have helped her when she was having trouble with her probation officers and her ankle monitor and felt there was nowhere to turn.

From a criminal justice reform perspective, Weisburd, the law professor, said there’s no empirical evidence that the technology is rehabilitative and that “more often than not people are both on monitors and are in custody because they cycle in and out on small violations.”

“Viewing electronic surveillance as an alternative to incarceration furthers and perpetuates a dangerous false binary between incarceration or monitoring and ignores an obvious third option, which is freedom,” she said.

April Glaser

April Glaser is a reporter on the tech investigations team for NBC News in San Francisco.


Ankle monitors can hold captives in invisible jails of debt, pain and bugged conversations

Increasingly, American jails are built without bars, razor wire or even guards. Instead, 21st century prisons are built from data. More and more, inmates are confined not by physical buildings but by GPS monitors, radio-frequency trackers and an array of other electronic monitoring. But make no mistake, electronic monitoring can feel every bit the prison as its brick-and-mortar counterpart.

The first time I stepped into a courtroom was because of electronic monitoring, the increasingly common form of surveillance used in lieu of posting bail or being held in jail, or as part of parole. It was in 2012, and I was a third-year Harvard law student representing a client at a courthouse in inner-city Boston. I shakily approached the lectern and delivered my argument, explaining why my client should be released from jail and put on electronic monitoring while he awaited trial. Whether through persuasion or (more likely) pity, it worked.

Not only are electronic monitoring devices being used more often, but they are also being used for increasingly minor cases.

I thought I had won, but my client’s ordeal was just beginning. His first panicked call for help came a week later. Police had showed up when his location tracker failed. And then again. And again. And again. It was a constant string of false alarms, each one of which risked a return to jail. Sometimes, it was because the power on the base station was knocked out, other times because the cellular signal was being blocked by the walls of his house.

It was torture for my client, and I don’t use that term lightly. A father in his late 50s, an immigrant with no prior charges, he was constantly terrified that he was about to be sent back behind bars until his misdemeanor case stemming from a family dispute was resolved. The day they finally took the electronic shackle off, he looked more relieved than when he was first let out of jail.


Experiences like my client’s are increasingly the norm, not the exception. At a moment when jail and prison populations are dropping, falling by 130,000 inmates since a peak in 2009, electronic monitoring is quickly expanding. Sadly, tools that began with the promise of releasing Americans from jail are now shackling many who would otherwise have been set free. And they are doing more than just tracking their movements: They are draining their bank accounts, compromising their health and even spying on them, which is why more safeguards against electronic monitoring abuses are urgently needed.

In 2005, Pew found that 53,000 Americans wore electronic monitoring devices. By 2015, the group found the number had grown to 125,000. There hasn’t been an official updated nationwide count since, but opponents of electronic monitoring believe it’s continued to soar.

The growth can also be seen in balance sheets: Electronic monitoring is one of the fastest-expanding sectors in the private prison industry. Take, for example, the Florida-based GEO Group, which reports that it alone is responsible for providing electronic monitoring devices for 100,00 people per year. Without any national guidelines or consensus, most police, probation and parole departments can set their own guidelines and choose their own brands of monitoring device, with various feature options.

Not only are electronic monitoring devices being used more often, but they are also being used for increasingly minor cases, including misdemeanors and traffic violations. So rather than simply replacing confinement, electronic monitoring is becoming the norm for many defendants who would have previously been released into probation, on bail or even on their own recognizance. This is likely part of why electronic monitoring seems to be growing faster than the reduction in the prison and jail population.


And electronic monitoring isn’t just expanding in the criminal justice system; it’s also being used to keep track of increasing numbers of undocumented immigrants. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested an additional $30 million to add 20,000 tracking units in 2020. Private immigration bond programs, meanwhile, subject thousands more to electronic monitoring even when not required by ICE as a stipulation for receiving their bond.

Electronic monitoring compromises users’ privacy in many ways beyond tracking their location. One widely used electronic monitoring anklet has a feature that can record calls and conversations without users’ consent or knowledge. These devices raise profound Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns when activated in this way, as they transform wearers into walking wiretaps — not only for capturing their own statements, but potentially those of friends and family nearby. In Chicago, a jurisdiction that consistently promotes electronic monitoring, these devices are reportedly being used to record children.

Electronic monitoring inflicts a high price that goes beyond constitutional concerns. Americans are not only being forced to wear government tracking devices in record numbers, they are also often forced to pay for the privilege, on top of their bail. One driver who was arrested after failing to signal reported being forced to pay $300 a month for a device rental fee on top of a $179.50 setup charge. The first month’s costs added up to more than half of his $900-a-month disability check. For many, electronic monitoring can become a debt trap.

The first electronic monitors to come on the scene a half-century ago took the form of bulky, single-purpose devices, such as anklets that secured a location transponder to the wearer’s leg with a “tamper-proof” band. These devices, similar varieties of which are still in use, have caused an array of medical complications, including everything from cuts and bruises and impaired circulation to electric shocks, hair loss, headaches and difficulty breathing. These devices are also highly visible, opening up wearers to discrimination by employers, law enforcement and members of the public. More than 1 in 5 of those on electronic monitoring report being fired or suspended from at least one job as a result.

Some firms are now turning to a new type of electronic surveillance device: smartphones. These firms sell apps and software that employ the same sort of location tracking that Silicon Valley has used for years to follow our movements and target us with ads.

The problems posed by electronic monitoring will only increase as the technology becomes cheaper and more powerful.

While some believe these systems remove the stigma of highly visible tracking devices, others are fearful about unintended privacy impacts. For example, many of these apps record users’ biometric information, and the companies that develop them don’t generally provide details on how that data is saved or shared with law enforcement. Already, a majority of states use some form of smartphone tracking, and the number of apps and the variety of tracking tools will likely only grow in the coming years.

The problems posed by electronic monitoring will only increase as the technology becomes cheaper and more powerful. If we let the movement to reform prisons become a movement for virtual prisons, the consequences could be dire for those involved in the criminal justice and immigration enforcement systems. The solution at this point isn’t a complete ban — not while it remains the only way out of confinement for so many — but we can’t allow unregulated growth to continue.

Albert Fox Cahn

Albert Fox Cahn is the founder and executive director of The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), a New York-based civil rights and privacy group. He is a fellow at the Engelberg Center for Innovation Law & Policy at N.Y.U. School of Law and writes the Surveillance and the City column for the Gotham Gazette.

  1. Smallville on amazon prime
  2. Fill rite pump
  3. Netgear 71 default password
  4. 2000 dodge caravan price

Electronic tagging

Form of surveillance

Electronic tagging is a form of surveillance that uses an electronic device affixed to a person.

In some jurisdictions, an electronic tag fitted above the ankle is used for people as part of their bail or probation conditions. It is also used in healthcare settings and in immigration contexts. Electronic tagging can be used in combination with the global positioning system (GPS). For short-range monitoring of a person that wears an electronic tag, radio frequency technology is used.


The electronic monitoring of humans found its first commercial applications in the 1980s. Portable transceivers that could record the location of volunteers were first developed by a group of researchers at Harvard University in the early 1960s. The researchers cited the psychological perspective of B. F. Skinner as underpinning for their academic project. The portable electronic tag was called behavior transmitter-reinforcer and could transmit data two-ways between a base station and a volunteer who simulated a young adult offender. Messages were supposed to be sent to the tag, so as to provide positive reinforcement to the young offender and thus assist in rehabilitation. The head of this research project was Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel and his twin brother collaborator, Robert Schwitzgebel (family name later shortened to Gable).[1][2] The main base-station antenna was mounted on the roof of the Old Cambridge Baptist Church; the minister was the dean of the Harvard Divinity School.[2][3]

Reviewers of the prototype electronic tagging strategy were skeptical. In 1966, the Harvard Law Review ridiculed the electronic tags as Schwitzgebel Machine and a myth emerged, according to which the prototype electronic tagging project used brain implants and transmitted verbal instructions to volunteers. The editor of a well-known U.S. government publication, Federal Probation, rejected a manuscript submitted by Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel, and included a letter which read in part: "I get the impression from your article that we are going to make automatons out of our parolees and that the parole officer of the future will be an expert in telemetry, sitting at his large computer, receiving calls day and night, and telling his parolees what to do in all situations and circumstances [...] Perhaps we should also be thinking about using electronic devices to rear our children. Since they do not have built-in consciences to tell them right from wrong, all they would have to do is to push the 'mother' button, and she would take over the responsibility for decision-making."[4]Laurence Tribe in 1973 published information on the failed attempts by those involved in the project to find a commercial application for electronic tagging.[5]

In the U.S., the 1970s saw an end of rehabilitative sentencing, including for example discretionary parole release. Those found guilty of a criminal offense were sent to prison, leading to sudden increase in the prison population. Probation became more common, as judges saw the potential of electronic tagging, leading to an increasing emphasis on surveillance. Advances in computer-aided technology made offender monitoring feasible and affordable. After all, the Schwitzgebel prototype had been built out of surplus missile tracking equipment.[6] A collection of early electronic monitoring equipment is housed at the National Museum of Psychology in Akron, Ohio.[7]

The attempt to monitor offenders became moribund until, 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).[8] The NIMCOS company built several credit card-sized transmitters that could be strapped onto an ankle.[9] The electronic ankle tag transmitted a radio signal every 60 seconds, which could be picked up by a receiver that was no more than 45 metres (148 ft) away from the electronic tag. The receiver could be connected to a telephone, so that the data from the electronic ankle tag could be sent to a mainframe computer. The design aim of the electronic tag was the reporting of a potential home detention breach.[10] In 1983, judge Jack Love in a state district court imposed home curfew on three offenders who had been sentenced to probation. The home detention was a probation condition and entailed 30 days of electronic monitoring at home.[11] The NIMCOS electronic ankle tag was trialed on those three probationers, two of which re-offended. Thus, while the goal of home confinement was satisfied, the aim of reducing crime through probation was not.[12]


Medical and health[edit]

The use of electronic monitoring in medical practice, especially as it relates to the tagging of the elderly and people with dementia, has generated controversy and media attention.[13] Elderly people in care homes can be tagged with the same electronic monitors used to keep track of young offenders. For people suffering from dementia, electronic monitoring might be beneficially used to prevent them from wandering away.[13] The controversy regarding medical use relates to two arguments, one about the safety of the patients and the other about their privacy and human rights.[14] At over 40%, there is a high prevalence of wandering among patients with dementia. Of the several methods deployed to keep them from wandering, it is reported that 44% of wanderers with dementia have been kept behind closed doors at some point.[15] Other solutions have included constant surveillance, use of makeshift alarms and, the use of various drugs that carry the risk of adverse effects.[14]


Smartphones feature location-based apps to use information from global positioning system (GPS) networks to determine the phone's approximate location.[16]


A company in Japan has created GPS-enabled uniforms and backpacks.[17] School children in distress would be able to hit a button, immediately summoning a security agent to their location.


Public transit vehicles are outfitted with electronic monitoring devices that communicate with GPS systems, tracking their location. App developers have integrated this technology with mobile-phone apps. Now, passengers are able to receive accurate public transit timetables.[18]


An ankle monitor used for electronic tagging in Massachusetts.

The use of ankle bracelets, or other electronic monitoring devices, have proven to be effective in research studies and possibly deter crime.[19]

Several factors have been identified as necessary to render electronic monitoring effective: appropriately selecting offenders, robust and appropriate technology, fitting tags promptly, responding to breaches promptly, and communication between the criminal justice system and contractors. The Quaker Council for European Affairs thinks that for electronic monitoring to be effective, it should serve to halt a developing criminal career.[20]

The National Audit Office in England and Wales commissioned a survey to examine the experiences of electronically monitored offenders and the members of their family. The survey revealed that there was common agreement among survey respondents that electronic monitoring was a more effective punitive measure than fines, and that it was generally more effective than community service. An interviewed offender is credited with saying: "You learn more about other crimes [in prison] and I think it gives you a taste to do other crimes because you've sat listening to other people."[21]

In 2006, Kathy Padgett, William Bales, and Thomas Bloomberg conducted an evaluation of 75,661 Florida offenders placed on home detention from 1998 to 2002,[19] in which only a small percentage of these offenders was made to wear an electronic monitoring device. Offenders with electronic tagging were compared to those on home detention without. The factors thought to influence the success or failure of community supervision, including type of electronic monitoring device used and criminal history, were measured.[22] The results showed that offenders who wore electronic tags were both 91.2 percent less likely to abscond and 94.7 percent less likely to commit new offenses, than unmonitored offenders.[22]


The electronic monitoring of a person, on whom an electronic tag is fitted, does not physically restrain this person from leaving a certain area, nor does it prevent this person from re-offending — the primary aim of probation. Furthermore, the public perception of home detention is that it is a form of lenient punishment.[23]

As early as 1988, the Penal Affairs Committee of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), wrote a briefing in its Green Paper strongly opposing the adoption of electronic monitoring in England and Wales. The Committee noted all the claims made in favor of electronic monitoring but insisted that all such claims could be ‘either demolished or rendered invalid' by arguments against it. The major argument or criticism against it was that on the basis of past experience, electronic monitoring would not absolutely be used on people at risk of custody, but on people who would otherwise have been granted probation or community service. This would lead to a widening of the net of control rather than reducing prison population; it would undermine constructive and supportive interventions. The Penal Committee concluded that the degrading monitoring of fellow human beings, electronically, was morally wrong and unacceptable.[24]

In the US in 1990, Ronald Corbett and Gary T. Marx criticized the use of electronic monitoring in a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore. In the paper, which was later published in the Justice Quarterly, the authors described ‘the new surveillance' technology as sharing some ethos and the information-gathering techniques found in maximum-security prisons thereby allowing them to diffuse into the broader society. They remarked that ‘we appear to be moving toward, rather than away from, becoming a "maximum-security society".[25] The authors acknowledged the data mining capacity of electronic monitoring devices when they stated that "data in many different forms, from widely separated geographical areas, organizations, and time periods, can easily be merged and analyzed".[25]

In 2013, it was reported that many electronic monitoring programs throughout the US were not staffed appropriately.[26] George Drake, a consultant who worked on improving the systems said "Many times when an agency is budgeted for electronic-monitoring equipment, it is only budgeted for the devices themselves". He added that the situation was ‘like buying a hammer and expecting a house to be built. It's simply a tool, and it requires a professional to use that tool and run the program.' Drake warned that programs can get out of control if officials don't develop stringent protocols for how to respond to alerts and don't manage how alerts are generated: "I see agencies with so many alerts that they can't deal with them," Drake said. "They end up just throwing their hands up and saying they can't keep up with them." In Colorado, a review of alert and event data, obtained from the Colorado Department of Corrections under an open-records request, was conducted by matching the names of parolees who appeared in that data with those who appeared in jail arrest records. The data revealed that 212 parole officers were saddled with the duty of responding to nearly 90,000 alerts and notification generated by electronic monitoring devices in the six months reviewed.[26]

Notable instances[edit]

  • English professional footballerJermaine Pennant played a Premier League match in 2005 while wearing an electronic tag; he had received the tag for drunk-driving and driving while disqualified.[27]
  • Lindsay Lohan failed to appear at a mandatory hearing, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. The judge ordered Lohan to wear a SCRAM bracelet, an electronic device that monitors the bloodstream for alcohol and drugs and alerts authorities if prohibited substances are consumed.[28]
  • Roman Polanski, one of the most famous fugitives from American justice in the world, was arrested in Switzerland. The terms of his release included $4.5 million bail, house arrest wearing an ankle bracelet at his chalet, known as Milky Way, in the Swiss ski resort of Gstaad, after having spent sixty-seven days in a Zurich detention centre.[29]
  • Bernard Madoff, the financier accused in a $50 billion fraud case before trial was ordered under house arrest, with electronic monitoring, and posting $10 million bail against his $7 million Manhattan apartment, and against his wife's homes in Montauk, NY, and Palm Beach, FL.[30]
  • Dr. Dre (Andre Young), American rapper and record producer, was arrested in 1992 for assaulting record producer Damon Thomas and later pleaded guilty to assault on a police officer, eventually serving house arrest and wearing a police monitoring ankle bracelet.[31]


United Kingdom[edit]

Those subject to electronic monitoring may be given curfews as part of Bail conditions, sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in England and Wales (with separate legislation applying in Scotland). Alternatively offenders may be released from a prison on a Home Detention Curfew. Released prisoners under home detention allowed out during curfew hours only for:

  • A wedding or funeral (service only) of a close relative
  • A job interview
  • Acting as a witness in court
  • Emergencies.[32]

Additionally, electronic monitoring may be used for those subject to a curfew given under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (previously known as Control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005[33])

Since electronically monitored curfews were rolled out throughout England and Wales their use has increased sharply, from 9,000 cases in 1999-2000 to 53,000 in 2004-05. In 2004-05, the Home Office spent £102.3 million on the electronic monitoring of curfews and electronically monitored curfews are considered cheaper than custody.[34]

Typically, offenders are fitted with an electronic tag around their ankle which sends a regular signal to a receiver unit installed in their home. Some systems are connected to a landline in the case where a GSM is not available, whilst most arrangements utilize the mobile phone system to communicate with the monitoring company. If the tag is not functioning or within range of the base station during curfew hours, or if the base is disconnected from the power supply, or the base station is moved then the monitoring company are alerted, who in turn, notify the appropriate authority such as the police, the National Probation Service or the prison the person was released from.[35]

In 2012, the Policy Exchange think tank examined the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales and made comparisons with technologies and models seen in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. The report was critical of the Ministry of Justice's model of a fully privatized service - which gave little scope for police or probation services to make use of electronic monitoring. The report, Future of Corrections, also criticized the cost of the service, highlighting an apparent differential between what the UK taxpayer was charged and what could be found in the United States.[36]

Subsequently, there were a number of scandals in relation to electronic monitoring in England and Wales, with a criminal investigation opened by the Serious Fraud Office into the activities of Serco and G4S.[37] As a result of the investigation, Serco agreed to repay £68.5 million to the taxpayer and G4S agreed to repay £109 million.[38] The duopoly were subsequently stripped of their contract, with Capita taking over the contract. In 2017, another criminal investigation saw police make a number of arrests in relation to allegations that at least 32 criminals on tag had paid up to £400 to Capita employees in order to have 'loose' tags fitted, allowing them to remove their tags.[39]

The monitoring of sex offenders via electronic tagging is currently in debate due to certain rights offenders have in England and Wales.[40]

Electronic tagging has begun being used on psychiatric patients, prompting concern from mental health advocates who state that the practice is demeaning.[41]

Australia and New Zealand[edit]

In Australia and New Zealand the existing law permits the use of electronic monitoring as condition for bail, probation or parole. But, according to the 2004 Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia the surveillance must be proportionate to the risk of re-offense. It is also required that, the surveillance of the offender is minimally intrusive for other people who live at the premises. Electronic tagging of a person is part of different electronic monitoring systems in Australia. Correctional agency statistics are collected in Australia for so called "restricted movement orders". In South Australia, a drive-by facility allows the monitorer to drive past a building in which the tagged person is supposed to be.[42] In New Zealand, the electronic tagging of offenders began 1999, when home detention could be imposed instead of imprisonment.[43]


In August 2010, Brazil awarded a GPS Offender Monitoring contract to kick start its monitoring of offenders and management of the Brazilian governments early release programme[44]

South Africa[edit]

Electronic monitoring as a pilot project was started in March 2012, involving 150 offenders, mostly prisoners serving life terms. The project was rolled out to reduce the South Africa's prison population. It consequently would also reduce the taxpayer's burden on correctional facilities.[45] South Africa locks up more people than any other country on the continent.[45]

See also[edit]


  1. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN .
  2. ^ abRobert S. Gable, Ralph Kirkland Gable, "Remaking the electronic tracking of offenders into a 'persuasive technology'", Journal of Technology in Human Services, 2016, vol. 34, pp. 13-31
  3. ^Robert S. Gable, "The ankle bracelet is history: An informal review of the birth and death of a monitoring technology", The Journal of Offender Monitoring, 2015, vol. 27, pp. 4-8.
  4. ^Evjen, V.H., 1966, Nov.16. Letter to R.Schwitzgebel from Victor H Evjen, Assistant Chief of Probation, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Washington, D.C.
  5. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 96. ISBN .
  6. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 97. ISBN .
  7. ^National Museum of Psychology, Center for the History of Psychology, University of Akron, 73 S. College St, Akron, OH 44325,
  8. ^ Cassidy, J. District judge tests electronic monitor, Albuquerque Journal, 1983, March 18, p. A1
  9. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 97. ISBN .
  10. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 98. ISBN .
  11. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. pp. 97–98. ISBN .
  12. ^Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 98. ISBN .
  13. ^ ab"Electronic tagging for Alzheimer's". BBC News. 27 September 2002.
  14. ^ abJulian C Hughes and Stephen J Louw, ‘Electronic Tagging of People with Dementia who Wander: Ethical Considerations are Possibly more Important than Practical Benefits' (2002) 325(7369) British Medical Journal 847﹘848 <PubMed>
  15. ^McShane R et al, ‘Getting Lost in Dementia: A Longitudinal Study of a Behavioral Symptom' (1998) 5 International Psychogeriatrics 239﹘245
  16. ^"IOS 6: Understanding Location Services".
  17. ^Katz, Leslie. "GPS-enabled school uniforms hit Japan". Retrieved 14 April 2005.
  18. ^Shakibaei, Bambui. "Real time GPS locations on transport apps". Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  19. ^ abStuart S Yeh (2010). "Cost-benefit analysis of reducing crime through electronic monitoring of parolees and probationers". Journal of Criminal Justice. 1090–1096.
  20. ^"Quaker Council for European Affairs (2010). "Investigating Alternatives to Imprisonment""(PDF).
  21. ^"The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders - National Audit Office (NAO) Report". National Audit Office.
  22. ^ abKathy Padgett, William Bales and Thomas Blomberg (2006) "Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effectiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring" Criminology and Public Policy, pages 61 - 91 .
  23. ^Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN .
  24. ^. Penal Affairs Committee. 1988. pp. 13–19.
  25. ^ abRonald Corbett and Gary T. Marx, ‘Critique: No Soul In The New Machine: Technofallacies In The Electronic Monitoring Movement' (1991) Justice Quarterly
  26. ^ ab"Electronic monitoring of Colorado parolees has pitfalls". The Denver Post. 8 June 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  27. ^"'Tagged' footballer Pennant freed". BBC News. 31 March 2005.
  28. ^Molly Carney, Correction through Omniscience: Electronic Monitoring and the Escalation of Crime Control, 40 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol'y 279 (2012)
  29. ^Toobin, Jeffrey. "The Celebrity Defense". The New Yorker. Retrieved 14 December 2014.
  30. ^Lapidos, Juliet. "How do you qualify for house arrest?". Retrieved 15 January 2009.
  31. ^"Dr. Dre: Biography | Rolling Stone Music". 28 December 2010.
  32. ^"Home Detention Curfew (HDC)". Prisoners' Families Helpline. 10 December 2010. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  33. ^"Q&A: TPims explained". 4 November 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  34. ^"The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders - National Audit Office (NAO) Report". National Audit Office. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  35. ^"8.6.2 Electronic Monitoring of Offenders". Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  36. ^Roy Geoghegan & Chris Miller (1 October 2012). Future of Corrections: Exploring the Use of Electronic Monitoring. Policy Exchange. ISBN .CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  37. ^"G4S and Serco investigation". Serious Fraud Office. 4 November 2013.
  38. ^Ian Dunt (15 February 2017). "MoJ paid G4S & Serco millions for electronic tagging during fraud investigation".
  39. ^"Criminals 'paid £400' for loose electronic tags". Sky News. 15 February 2017.
  40. ^Electronic tagging of offenders raises rights concerns, The Guardian, 12 August 2010
  41. ^GPS tracking mental health patients - human rights concerns, BMH UK, 22 June 2010
  42. ^Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives. Routledge. p. 84. ISBN .
  43. ^Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives. Routledge. p. 82. ISBN .
  44. ^SecureAlert Signs First-Ever GPS Offender Monitoring Contract in Brazil, TMCnet, 23 August 2010
  45. ^ abDept. of Correctional services: Rep of South Africa, South Africa's first ever Electronic of a Remand Detainee, 15/04/2014.

Do you want an apricot. We've got a whole bag of them here. The ladies moved a little and showed me a place on the rug next to them. I sat down with pleasure - - it's always nice to sit next to pretty women in wet swimsuits, even if not my age. I politely put my hand into the bag and took out a couple of apricots.

Bracelet ankle monitor

"Is there anything left here?" - She asked and put her hand on the rearing member. In complete darkness, Eya slowly climbed onto her son, pressing her hot cunt against his. Stomach, and then sat down on her son's elastic member.

House arrest hack beat an ankle monitor

His fingers entered either the pussy or the. Pop. But through what I rocked, he could not penetrate deep into me.

You will also be interested:

I dont know how long it went, but I didnt know My panties were pulled, and I got ready to take a hot member. How good are you, - said Vitya delightedly, looking at my charm. He fondled his dick with his hand. Well, come on, Vitya, don't be slow. - I really wanted to feel his dick inside my hole.

19050 19051 19052 19053 19054