Email

GPS tracking benefits law enforcement in many different ways and tracking suspects is no exception. In fact, making it mandatory for someone posting bail to wear a GPS bracelet makes sense. If there is reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime, to the point that they have been arrested and posted bail, it’s logical that his or her whereabouts should be known at all times.

A recent incident in Idaho makes a strong case for GPS tracking of suspects. Rob Hall, accused of killing his wife’s attorney, posted a $1 million bond, surprising both attorneys. He had requested a public defender, leading them to believe his funds were very limited. In fact, they may have been because his mother posted bail for him.

Because they did not believe he would be able to post bail, no conditions were put on his release. Mr. Hall wasted no time showing up at his wife’s house, a problem since she was the only eyewitness to the crime and was in the process of divorcing him when the crime occurred because she feared he would become violent toward her. He is now being tracked by GPS and is allowed no contact with his wife. He must stay in his county and report daily to the sheriff’s office.

While this incident did not result in a second tragedy, it easily could have. GPS tracking allows law enforcement agencies to know where a person is at all times. It alerts them if the individual goes outside of prescribed boundaries and allows them to monitor the person’s every move. It can be used for offenders under house arrest, as well, creating an accurate and verifiable record that can be viewed in real time using computer software.

In these trying economic times, any police department would be wise to invest in GPS tracking to help their monitoring efforts as it will reduce the number of officers who need to be out patrolling as well as cut down on gas expense and wear and tear on the vehicles. While there is currently some debate as to whether warrantless GPS tracking should be allowed, police departments argue that it is no different than regular surveillance and offers tangible benefits.

The Obama Administration, coming down on the side of warrantless tracking, has asked the Supreme Court to hear a case in which a three judge panel threw out a conviction because they objected to the month long surveillance of a drug dealer. One hopes common sense will prevail.

Article Written by Kadence Vyra