> Harkins said that since last October, she has seen 30-40 people ordered back into custody based on these progress reports. When asked what can be done to improve CCSO’s EM program, Harkins said that the sheriff’s office needs to “properly and fully” investigate alleged violations before writing reports or taking actions.
To be explicit: yes, many, many, many people were reinarcerated because of faulty GPS.
I'm talking about the class of problem. It happens in normal weather conditions and things like this exacerbate the problem.
Really not sure what the hostility's about.
But maybe you posted the wrong one to begin with.
Let’s all be friends and nice to each other.
A single 33 foot anomaly is already within the geofence buffer zones used. In dense urban areas the geofence buffer allowance may be 10X that already.
Yes, yes I am. You really need to realize just how unbelievably fucking arbitrary the criminal courts are. At every level. They're not tech people.
To answer your question, I have examples of motions by prosecutors to suspend people from the EM program where they specifically cite specific data points just barely out of their homes, where video footage provably shows they were inside the whole time. They're not mine to share.
Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go.
Looking forward!
> motions by prosecutors
Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)...
Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?
Something about this just doesn't seem very plausible, especially if this kind of thing is happening more than once in a blue moon. Either the video evidence is not as convincing as we're being led to assume (thus leaving more doubt in the judge's mind than ours, even if the person is innocent), or there should be some other explanation.
So you could find an example easily but you don't want to? Or you're suggesting court watching in general and not to find an example?
"I have an example I won't share" is better than nothing, I guess. But you were being snarky before you even said that much, when you were just linking your article and not saying if examples existed at all.
I'm curious why they're not yours to share, though. Did someone give them to you under private circumstances, or can people get there from public information but you think you shouldn't spread the word?
A lot of this stuff is hard to talk about because it's about real people in real pending (at the time) cases.. and I'm also not a criminal defense attorney by any means. There's a reason the first article I posted had their identity completely removed. There's weird liability and believe me I want to say more.
Very honestly, I wish I could have done more reporting on how fucked up those devices were. I put a lot of time and effort into reporting that couldn't make it to print, largely because I was doing freelance work at the time. The first offer I got for that piece was $50. Wasn't sustainable.
Do you have any questions about these EM programs?
Not really sure what it has to do with tech though. That’s a problem with how certain humans behave, not ancillary technology.
You and I have very divergent views of the type of person likely to be charged or prosecuted for a crime or indeed to participate in a diversion program that involves GPS trackers, my friend.
Meaning an error like this harms innocent people wrongly accused more than the stereotypically hardened repeat offenders you imagine to be undeserving of your sympathy and presumed guilty.
Non-violent, first-time offenders don't get ankle monitors. But thank you for highlighting my point.
Like, actual lol mate.
Yours (inferred) is "Too Much : Zero".
Given that those are terminal values it would challenging for literally-any-other-view not to diverge from yours, on this.