GPS monitoring, also known as a global positioning system, is a tracking method that is supposed to be able to track a person’s precise location at any given time. Such devices have been widely used to track the whereabouts of defendants charged with certain alleged crimes while out of jail during the pretrial phase of their case. GPS tracking software allows the court to monitor a defendant’s location, which is displayed on a map in real time with recorded location data stored in the tracking unit.
GPS monitoring in Orange County was first suspended and is now eliminated via an administrative order issued by Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. due to what he said resulted from major flaws in using the devices. Orange County, FL is not alone in taking a serious look at GPS monitoring.
The Wisconsin Legislature’s budget committee recently voted to recommend scaling back a planned expansion of the state’s GPS monitoring program citing concerns over how well the technology works. The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism found in a series of reports, that offenders on GPS tracking devices reported hundreds of false alerts that often put them back in jail even though they had not committed any true violations. Dropped signals often occurred when offenders were traveling to designated sites, in buildings or during severe weather.
In contrast, California’s violent criminals and sex offenders placed on GPS monitoring, due in part to California’s “re-alignment” efforts to push state prisoners to county jails, have been cutting off the devices and committing new crimes. Over 4,000 state parolees cut off their GPS monitors last year, leading the California Senate to approve a new bill to increase penalties for paroled sex offenders who cut off their GPS devices.
Another monitoring tool that shows its limitations.
Orange County, Florida’s Monitoring Programs
Orange County Corrections had a home confinement program that used radio-frequency monitoring and was managed by Orange County Corrections staff. There was also a privately-run GPS program to monitor defendants. Both programs were initially suspended and now are terminated from providing any type of monitoring to arrested defendants pending the disposition of their case.
As Orange County’s public safety director Linda Weinberg recently stated, what remains is a, “loosely monitored program,” to provide supervision via a telephone monitoring system. Weinberg further stated, “A number of people started coming on pretrial-release supervision. Some of these people, because of the nature of their charges, are not really appropriate for pretrial-release supervision.”
The commercial bail industry, which has been tracking such releases for several years, has been providing release information to the County that shows defendants charged with serious crimes and with lengthy criminal histories continue to be released and supervised on taxpayer funds. Many of them were released and supervised under the county’s home confinement program.
Two internal investigations that focused on the actions and practices of the home confinement program, found that there were numerous violations of the jail’s policies and procedures. Practices within the home confinement program were accepted and/or condoned by the unit supervisor, all of which failed to address various warning flags. During and after the investigations, top Corrections personnel resigned while others were given disciplinary action.
The Orlando Sentinel reported that two years after the home confinement program began, the first review was in and it wasn’t good even then. The program was implemented in 1989 as a cost-saving measure to free up jail bed space. But the Orlando Sentinel’s 1991 report found that the home confinement program wasn’t following its own rules, monitoring was at times ineffective and defendants were placed on the program that should not have been.
Over two decades later the same issues resurfaced - not following the program’s policies and procedures, improperly completed audits, an overall lack of compliance with the program and fear of privatization.
Yet taxpayers have continued to pay for the program.
One of the recent scathing reports found that the home confinement supervisor, “At best created a level of acceptance in the eyes of her subordinate staff regarding the allowance of offenders to violate . . . at worst she may have even encouraged it.”
Chief Judge Belvin Perry suspended the county’s privately run GPS monitoring program after a defendant charged with domestic violence and who was on GPS monitoring, allegedly shot another man in a park on Easter. Wilfred Gregory shot the man in the head and ran; he cut off his monitor and the private GPS company failed to alert Apopka police to that fact allowing him time to get away.
Judge Perry stated that GPS monitoring, “Gives everyone a false sense of security when there is no security whatsoever.” He also said there was a lack of personnel, procedures, oversight and law enforcement response to continue using the current private GPS providers.
We agree with Judge Perry that significant changes need to be made to bring effective GPS monitoring back. All monitoring methods need to be effective. Direct oversight, legislative solutions and policies for who can and should be monitored are all important elements.
Importance of Commercial Bail
Florida Statute §903.046 lays out the purpose of bail in criminal proceedings, which is to ensure the appearance of the defendant at subsequent court proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant. Bail agents have played this critical role in our criminal justice system for centuries. Bail agents are heavily licensed and regulated by state Departments of Insurance and must be underwritten by a surety company. Bail agents are financially responsible for defendants released on bail and use no taxpayer money.
We guarantee the appearance of the defendant in court. A defendant can’t ignore us or his/her compliance with the bail contract or they go back to jail. A defendant can’t, “cut us off” like they can a GPS monitor because we know where to find them. If there is a "false alert," we can often facilitate corrective action with the courts. Our limitations are few but our responsibility great. We have arrest powers and will and do use them - even when the time limit to recoup any of our money has passed. It is the principle of the bail contract and its accountability.
We are the most accountable system to taxpayers and the courts.
Many states have pre-determined bail schedules depending on the specific crime. If a defendant doesn’t obtain release by paying bail immediately after booking, a judge may make a bail decision at a separate hearing known as a “first appearance hearing.” In making a bail decision, the judge must consider the seriousness of the alleged crime committed, the defendant’s prior criminal history, their danger to the community if released and ties to family, employment and the community.
Defendants released on a commercial bail bond must pay a bail agent a small non-refundable fee, usually ten percent of the total bond, to cover the risk and associated monitoring of that defendant. Bail agents utilize third-party indemnitors on the bond who are an added incentive for the defendant to appear at all required court hearings and refrain from any criminal activity or the indemnitor could lose collateral they have pledged for the defendant. Bail agents take detailed information on the defendant to ascertain their risk level and what safeguards need to be added to the bail contract for release.
For higher risk defendants, GPS monitoring can be another effective layer of supervision on top of supervision through a bail agent. Both the GPS monitoring company and the bail agent should work closely together to ensure accountability of the defendant and safety of the community. In some instances, judges will set a higher bond for defendants charged with more serious crimes as should be the case.
The commercial bail industry will continue to seek ways to be part of the solution in using limited tax dollars wisely while working with criminal justice partners to enhance public safety. As the Chief Assistant Public Defender stated recently, “We do need to find another way to do it. GPS is not the problem. The vendor is the problem.”
Let a centuries-old “vendor” continue their effective and efficient methods for ensuring accountability in our criminal justice system. Engage the commercial bail industry in future discussions for win-win scenarios.
We all benefit in the end.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Government: is it eliminating private business?
Unfortunately a fact of life is that government can always out-do private business because the government has the benefit of taxpayer monies. Government can step in the way of a private industry that has centuries of success and efficiency. Too many times what was originally meant to become a program that would ultimately save taxpayer dollars becomes a huge bureaucracy that is unwieldy and inefficient. And the term “profit-making industry,” becomes something that is wrong.
Take the taxpayer-funded pretrial services system.
Originally established to help the poor, non-violent offender seek release from jail because they could not afford financial release, today such programs are competing with the private commercial bail industry by releasing hundreds of defendants each week, many of whom are charged with violent and dangerous offenses with criminal histories and who are not indigent. Such programs have grown in size and scope to the point that they are directly competing for the same clients as the private sector at the taxpayers’ expense.
Like so many government programs, taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs tend to proliferate into something that had a finite and noble purpose in the beginning but today have lost their focus. If someone is arrested for an alleged crime and they have the resources to post a bond for their release, why would we use taxpayer funds to release them instead? While the truly poor or indigent defendant who committed a non-violent offense languishes in jail. Who could benefit from government assistance the most? Today it seems like an affront to someone who has been accused of a crime to actually feel any kind of inconvenience for their release from jail while the victims of the alleged crimes are given little to no assistance. And a for-profit industry in the criminal justice system, which is highly regulated and licensed, has become maligned and is told it is an insult for taking a small non-refundable premium to secure the release of someone from jail without using any taxpayer funds.
There becomes a problem with credibility when proponents are pushing a government release program from jail for everyone regardless of whether an individual can afford to pay for their own release.
If non-violent, low-risk offenders can be given a notice to appear, be released on their own recognizance, or released under a taxpayer-funded supervision program, the financial burden to the taxpayer is decreased by saving dollars for daily jail beds. However, any supervision program must be efficient and effective. But advocating for the creation or enhancement of taxpayer-funded programs for the release of risker and more dangerous offenders, often using fear and conjecture with elected officials, is fundamentally wrong.
Some people need some type of intervention to get them back on the right path. Taxpayer-funded programs can monitor certain types of interventions such as drug testing and adherence to anger management classes etc. But if you are a defendant with a serious drug habit or someone who has a lengthy criminal history, how effective are these interventions at the end of the day in making sure you show up for court and refrain from future criminal activity. They aren’t.
The private commercial bail industry on the other hand must guarantee that you appear at all required court hearings or the bail agent is financially liable for the full amount of the bond – not just the small refundable premium earned. No other release system has such financial responsibility. Significant revenue is also generated for counties and states for every bail bond written in the form of licensing fees, losses and premium taxes. But such accountability means little to those who seek more of your tax dollars.
Proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems are now seeking stories on pretrial injustice to further their cause. They want stories on how the current bail system in America has failed – failed for people arrested for a crime in the criminal justice system. Stories about a time when money caused the unnecessary incarceration of an individual . . . when a simple risk assessment or preventative detention would have prevented future crime . . . when jails became overcrowded due to unnecessary pretrial incarceration . . . any example of policies or procedures that lead to unsafe, unfair or inefficient pretrial policies.
Pictures of defendants are being used as marketing strategies for more taxpayer dollars to be used to create and grow taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs. Defendants don’t need to “languish” in jail if their offense and criminal history is one that a judge believes will warrant release on their own recognizance, or a promise to appear at all court hearings. Judges don’t have to order release under a taxpayer-funded program for such defendants, particularly when supervision is minimal and the authority to find and bring someone back to jail for non-appearance is non-existent. If they want a guarantee that defendant will appear for court based on their offense and criminal history, they know they can rely on the private commercial bail industry.
Government vs. private industry: At the end of the day the question we should all ask ourselves when using limited taxpayer dollars in the criminal justice system is this: do we want a private entity, a small business, individual bail agents who are financially responsible for guaranteeing defendants attend all required court hearings until disposition of their case, to continue to assume this critical role at no taxpayer expense . . . or do we want to put that responsibility on government and the taxpayers?
You decide.
Take the taxpayer-funded pretrial services system.
Originally established to help the poor, non-violent offender seek release from jail because they could not afford financial release, today such programs are competing with the private commercial bail industry by releasing hundreds of defendants each week, many of whom are charged with violent and dangerous offenses with criminal histories and who are not indigent. Such programs have grown in size and scope to the point that they are directly competing for the same clients as the private sector at the taxpayers’ expense.
Like so many government programs, taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs tend to proliferate into something that had a finite and noble purpose in the beginning but today have lost their focus. If someone is arrested for an alleged crime and they have the resources to post a bond for their release, why would we use taxpayer funds to release them instead? While the truly poor or indigent defendant who committed a non-violent offense languishes in jail. Who could benefit from government assistance the most? Today it seems like an affront to someone who has been accused of a crime to actually feel any kind of inconvenience for their release from jail while the victims of the alleged crimes are given little to no assistance. And a for-profit industry in the criminal justice system, which is highly regulated and licensed, has become maligned and is told it is an insult for taking a small non-refundable premium to secure the release of someone from jail without using any taxpayer funds.
There becomes a problem with credibility when proponents are pushing a government release program from jail for everyone regardless of whether an individual can afford to pay for their own release.
If non-violent, low-risk offenders can be given a notice to appear, be released on their own recognizance, or released under a taxpayer-funded supervision program, the financial burden to the taxpayer is decreased by saving dollars for daily jail beds. However, any supervision program must be efficient and effective. But advocating for the creation or enhancement of taxpayer-funded programs for the release of risker and more dangerous offenders, often using fear and conjecture with elected officials, is fundamentally wrong.
Some people need some type of intervention to get them back on the right path. Taxpayer-funded programs can monitor certain types of interventions such as drug testing and adherence to anger management classes etc. But if you are a defendant with a serious drug habit or someone who has a lengthy criminal history, how effective are these interventions at the end of the day in making sure you show up for court and refrain from future criminal activity. They aren’t.
The private commercial bail industry on the other hand must guarantee that you appear at all required court hearings or the bail agent is financially liable for the full amount of the bond – not just the small refundable premium earned. No other release system has such financial responsibility. Significant revenue is also generated for counties and states for every bail bond written in the form of licensing fees, losses and premium taxes. But such accountability means little to those who seek more of your tax dollars.
Proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems are now seeking stories on pretrial injustice to further their cause. They want stories on how the current bail system in America has failed – failed for people arrested for a crime in the criminal justice system. Stories about a time when money caused the unnecessary incarceration of an individual . . . when a simple risk assessment or preventative detention would have prevented future crime . . . when jails became overcrowded due to unnecessary pretrial incarceration . . . any example of policies or procedures that lead to unsafe, unfair or inefficient pretrial policies.
Pictures of defendants are being used as marketing strategies for more taxpayer dollars to be used to create and grow taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs. Defendants don’t need to “languish” in jail if their offense and criminal history is one that a judge believes will warrant release on their own recognizance, or a promise to appear at all court hearings. Judges don’t have to order release under a taxpayer-funded program for such defendants, particularly when supervision is minimal and the authority to find and bring someone back to jail for non-appearance is non-existent. If they want a guarantee that defendant will appear for court based on their offense and criminal history, they know they can rely on the private commercial bail industry.
Government vs. private industry: At the end of the day the question we should all ask ourselves when using limited taxpayer dollars in the criminal justice system is this: do we want a private entity, a small business, individual bail agents who are financially responsible for guaranteeing defendants attend all required court hearings until disposition of their case, to continue to assume this critical role at no taxpayer expense . . . or do we want to put that responsibility on government and the taxpayers?
You decide.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Who Should be Next? Orange County’s Home Confinement Debacle Continues to Force Key Resignations
Garnett Ahern, former supervisor of the Orange County Jail’s Home Confinement program, will be retiring officially May 25, 2013 even though disciplinary action is still pending against her and other employees for not informing the court of the multitude of curfew violations one defendant racked up while being monitored by the program – he is now charged with the alleged murder of Alex Zaldivar who was scheduled to testify against him for a previous burglary and home invasion offense.
Ms. Ahern was found by two internal Orange County reports to have violated policy and procedures regarding the operation of the Home Confinement program and co-workers stated she had pressured them to avoid reporting to the court defendants’ violations of program conditions.
Specifically one report stated, “At best, Ms. Ahern created a level of acceptance in the eyes of her subordinate staff regarding the allowance of offenders to violate . . . at worst she may have even encouraged it.” Ahern denied the accusations.
Both internal reports found glaring errors in the monitoring of defendants on home confinement to include improperly completed audits and compliance with program conditions.
Many are pointing fingers as to who is to blame.
Last week Commissioner Fred Brummer and Alex Zaldivar’s dad Rafael, both called for Deputy County Administrator and Public Safety Director Linda Weinberg to be fired.
According to one of the internal reports, the jail’s PIO called Weinberg on September 11 or 12, 2012 shortly after Alex Zaldivar’s death and amid sudden media interest regarding the arrest of Bessman Okafor and what appeared to be an ongoing investigation. Okafor was supposed to be supervised by Home Confinement staff but it was later learned that he had 109 curfew violations that could have had his pretrial release revoked, but a judge was never informed of the curfew violations. On the night Alex Zaldivar was murdered and two others seriously injured, Okafor was found to have had a lengthy curfew violation that later corresponded to the time of the murder.
According to statements by the jail’s PIO, Weinberg suggested the PIO contact OPD, who had launched a homicide taskforce and were looking at Okafor as a person of interest, regarding the release of any records on Okafor that might impede their investigation.
Weinberg, per the internal report, asked for no detail or information regarding the substance of the media requests or why they were being made regarding Okafor or of any issues she should be made aware of. Despite the ongoing media inquiries, Weinberg stated she was not made aware of any issues regarding the Home Confinement program until earlier this year.
Perhaps she should have asked.
Commissioner Brummer agrees. He said in an interview with Channel 9 that, “bells should have gone off,” when the jail’s PIO initially called Weinberg regarding the media interest and OPD investigation.
In speaking of Weinberg, Brummer stated, "That person has to be a good manager. Has to ask the questions, listen to concerns; has to make sure the manager of the corrections division is managing."
Okafor's Home Confinement case manager, Meg Hughes, stated in internal reports that, "We were told we were going to 'work with people' and 'keep our numbers' up so violations for drugs or 'stuff like that' we didn't violate them."
Not holding individuals accountable for their behavior never works – not in the criminal justice system or in life in general. Particularly when millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a supervision program for defendants charged with dangerous and violent offenses such as Okafor. Individuals charged with monitoring such defendants must also be held accountable for doing their jobs effectively just as the private commercial bail industry is accountable for guaranteeing a defendant's appearance in court.
Too many were found not to be doing so in this case and tragically Alex Zaldivar was murdered.
Leadership starts at the top. Already the Chief of Corrections and his Deputy have submitted their resignations as well as Ms. Ahern who managed the program. All have done so immense intense scrutiny of the Home Confinement program and before any formal termination took place. Disciplinary action will continue with other staff affiliated with the case of Mr. Okafor.
County Commissioners are wise to continue to ask for answers from high ranking staff and others regarding the truth and functioning of the Home Confinement program and other taxpayer-funded supervision programs.
As taxpayers, we expect nothing less.
Ms. Ahern was found by two internal Orange County reports to have violated policy and procedures regarding the operation of the Home Confinement program and co-workers stated she had pressured them to avoid reporting to the court defendants’ violations of program conditions.
Specifically one report stated, “At best, Ms. Ahern created a level of acceptance in the eyes of her subordinate staff regarding the allowance of offenders to violate . . . at worst she may have even encouraged it.” Ahern denied the accusations.
Both internal reports found glaring errors in the monitoring of defendants on home confinement to include improperly completed audits and compliance with program conditions.
Many are pointing fingers as to who is to blame.
Last week Commissioner Fred Brummer and Alex Zaldivar’s dad Rafael, both called for Deputy County Administrator and Public Safety Director Linda Weinberg to be fired.
According to one of the internal reports, the jail’s PIO called Weinberg on September 11 or 12, 2012 shortly after Alex Zaldivar’s death and amid sudden media interest regarding the arrest of Bessman Okafor and what appeared to be an ongoing investigation. Okafor was supposed to be supervised by Home Confinement staff but it was later learned that he had 109 curfew violations that could have had his pretrial release revoked, but a judge was never informed of the curfew violations. On the night Alex Zaldivar was murdered and two others seriously injured, Okafor was found to have had a lengthy curfew violation that later corresponded to the time of the murder.
According to statements by the jail’s PIO, Weinberg suggested the PIO contact OPD, who had launched a homicide taskforce and were looking at Okafor as a person of interest, regarding the release of any records on Okafor that might impede their investigation.
Weinberg, per the internal report, asked for no detail or information regarding the substance of the media requests or why they were being made regarding Okafor or of any issues she should be made aware of. Despite the ongoing media inquiries, Weinberg stated she was not made aware of any issues regarding the Home Confinement program until earlier this year.
Perhaps she should have asked.
Commissioner Brummer agrees. He said in an interview with Channel 9 that, “bells should have gone off,” when the jail’s PIO initially called Weinberg regarding the media interest and OPD investigation.
In speaking of Weinberg, Brummer stated, "That person has to be a good manager. Has to ask the questions, listen to concerns; has to make sure the manager of the corrections division is managing."
Okafor's Home Confinement case manager, Meg Hughes, stated in internal reports that, "We were told we were going to 'work with people' and 'keep our numbers' up so violations for drugs or 'stuff like that' we didn't violate them."
Not holding individuals accountable for their behavior never works – not in the criminal justice system or in life in general. Particularly when millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a supervision program for defendants charged with dangerous and violent offenses such as Okafor. Individuals charged with monitoring such defendants must also be held accountable for doing their jobs effectively just as the private commercial bail industry is accountable for guaranteeing a defendant's appearance in court.
Too many were found not to be doing so in this case and tragically Alex Zaldivar was murdered.
Leadership starts at the top. Already the Chief of Corrections and his Deputy have submitted their resignations as well as Ms. Ahern who managed the program. All have done so immense intense scrutiny of the Home Confinement program and before any formal termination took place. Disciplinary action will continue with other staff affiliated with the case of Mr. Okafor.
County Commissioners are wise to continue to ask for answers from high ranking staff and others regarding the truth and functioning of the Home Confinement program and other taxpayer-funded supervision programs.
As taxpayers, we expect nothing less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
