U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Where no WAN Has Gone Before: Satellite Tracking of Sexual Offenders is Becoming Law Enforcement's Rising Star

NCJ Number
216487
Journal
Law Enforcement Technology Volume: 33 Issue: 11 Dated: November 2006 Pages: 20,22,26
Author(s)
Douglas Page
Date Published
November 2006
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article describes the features of GPS (global positioning system) satellite tracking systems for offenders under supervision, along with their benefits and limitations.
Abstract
There are two types of monitoring systems: radio frequency (RF) tracking and GPS tracking. RF tracking, which has been used for offender supervision for some 20 years, can tell monitors whether or not the subject is at home. The GPS system, which has been available for offender supervision only within the past 5 years, has the ability to track subjects at all times and can pinpoint their location on survey maps within 2 meters. GPS subjects must wear two pieces of equipment: a tag around the ankle and a tracking device at waist height. The tag indicates that the device is being worn by the subject and is in close proximity to the tracking device. The tracking device calculates the offender's location and relays it to the monitoring agency. Although one-piece devices are available, the two-piece system is more sensitive because it is worn at waist level. The downside of the two-piece system is that the device can be left on the charger cradle, although manufacturers have provided built-in alarms that sound when the subject moves more than 25 feet from the unit. Currently, the number of agencies using RF monitoring far outnumbers those using GPS tracking; however, momentum toward the use of GPS tracking is building as legislation is enacted to promote the use of GPS systems. GPS tracking not only improves the deterrent effect of tracking by increasing scrutiny of subjects' activity, but enables the monitoring of subjects who are prohibited from being in certain areas, such as near schools or the neighborhood of a previous victim.