GPS monitoring proves costly in price and life

GPS ankle monitors are allegedly intended to provide a community-safe alternative to incarceration and deter further criminal behavior. However national studies suggest this penal practice is a costly, ineffective way to accomplish the former. A local murder case proves the practice sometimes fails at the latter.

According to information from the Jefferson County Probation Department, monitoring companies based in Liberty and San Antonio – not law enforcement officers – are the first people to know about any movement-related offenses committed by those under GPS surveillance. That includes a local man who, despite wearing a GPS ankle monitor for robbery, murdered another man in his home at 1 a.m. last July.

“If we make a recommendation to the courts for GPS in whatever sense, then the actual company is monitoring them,” explained Probation Department Director Jerry Johnson, “and we are sent daily – or however else it’s set up for the client – reports if any violations have been detected or anything.”

Essentially, local officers learn about GPS violations at least a day after they occur.

“Probation, the difficulty we’re in is a lot of people think we’re supervising someone 24/7,” he said. “And while we are, you don’t have a probation officer for every one person that is on probation.

“The supervisory capacity is limited.”

Murdering while
monitored

Beaumont resident Jacorry Jamard Green, 21, was already being watched via a GPS ankle monitor, according to a grand jury indictment charging the man with murder.

According to a probable cause affidavit signed by Beaumont Police Department (BPD) Detective James Robichaux, officers were dispatched to a residence on Woodlawn Drive at about 1:21 a.m. July 11, 2021, in reference to a victim of a shooting. Upon arrival, officers found 30-year-old Tyler Womack suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. Beaumont EMS arrived and pronounced Womack dead at the scene.

A Crime Stoppers tip revealed Green was involved in the murder and that the motive was robbery. It’s unclear if officers were able to use Green’s GPS monitor to find the wanted man, and Johnson was unable to confirm due to the case pending trial.

On July 13, 2021, two days after the murder, officers located Green in a vehicle with two other subjects in the 900 block of W. Florida Avenue. Officers arrested Green and found a handgun in his possession believed to be stolen from the murder scene. As of press time, Green was listed on the Jefferson County inmate roster with bond set at $1,520,000.

“The parameters can be more strict, depending on certain cases, and less strict on others,” Johnson told The Examiner, explaining that he couldn’t speak about any case in particular. “They’re still being monitored.”

For customers being tracked via GPS specifically, Johnson said the monitoring companies should have access to the wearer’s whereabouts at any given time.

Monitoring the monitor

More imperfections were highlighted in a study conducted by George Washington University professor Kate Weisbund. While the practice lacks reliable oversight, according to the study, it also includes numerous ambiguous rules and jeopardizes employment and financial security.

“The nature and number of rules and restrictions imposed on people wearing monitors may lead to reincarceration for technical and rule violations that often have nothing to do with public safety,” the 2021 study reads. “For example, failure to keep the device charged, or failure to charge it for a particular amount of time, could land a person back in jail. The rules are often vague, overly broad, and open to interpretation.

“Most jurisdictions require people on monitors to pay expensive user fees for the surveillance devices. The combination of monitoring fees, court costs and other expenses such as phone and internet service to maintain contact with supervising agents can run between $2,800 and $5,000 per year.”

“Everyone is looking for ways of getting people out of custody, which obviously is a good thing,” Weisburd said. “But what’s happening in some jurisdictions in the adult system is that more and more people are being released on monitors as a response to decarceration.”

The study goes on to say local governments should eliminate reliance on private surveillance companies, but Johnson told The Examiner the county simply doesn’t have the wherewithal to complete the task in-house.

“We have specialized caseloads, so you may have a specialized caseload where one officer has 60 people,” he said. “On a regular caseload, you may have one officer for 125. On misdemeanors, it can be one officer for a lot more. Our field has changed over time, whereas over-supervising someone has proven to have a negative impact.

“If you were placed on probation, it’s a misdemeanor case, you have no history, and (we’re) not picking up on a lot of risk factors, if I were to start throwing every resource known to man I had at you based on my gut, you might not succeed on probation. You may cause more harm than good.”

When asked how often people on probation are arrested for violations in Jefferson County, Johnson said, “We have a pretty good success rate, but we do get calls daily asking why we aren’t doing anything about some person.

“It’s imperfect.”