Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel presents GPS monitoring capabilities and raises standards, cost and oversight questions
Summary
Providers and criminal-justice officials briefed the committee on GPS electronic monitoring, victim notification technology created under the Debbie and Marie Domestic Violence Protection Act, monitoring center practices, and remaining gaps including funding and 24/7 monitoring standards.
A panel of GPS and electronic-monitoring vendors, a district attorney representative and the Tennessee Sheriff's Association briefed the Senate Judiciary Committee on monitoring technology, victim-notification features and gaps in oversight and funding.
Cody Page, chief operating officer of ProntoTrack, described device features including real-time tracking, geofencing, tamper detection, battery alerts and the ability for some devices to roam across cellular networks or upload via Wi‑Fi. Page said victim-notification systems enabled by last year's law notify victims and supervising authorities when an offender approaches a predefined proximity, and that monitoring centers can trigger immediate calls to 911.
Jill Schroeder of Buddy Electronic Monitoring described a victim device that a survivor carries so zones can float around both the victim and the offender. She said device design considers comfort, waterproofing and wireless charging to improve compliance. Leonard Belmaris, president of Tennessee AMS, said the Deborah/Debbie and Marie Domestic Violence Protection Act shifted monitoring from a reactive evidence tool to an active safety tool by adding victim notifications and requiring monitoring centers to be used in some cases.
Mike Donovan, deputy executive director for legal services and policy at the Tennessee District Attorney's General Conference, told the committee the conference supported last year's legislation and that the technology supports victim-witness coordinators and prosecutors by creating timely evidence and enabling motions to revoke bond or seek arrest when violations occur. He confirmed the statute permits immediate arrest in violation-of-condition cases, removing the need to return to court before an arrest in specified circumstances.
Committee members, including Senator Taylor and others, pressed vendors and witnesses on how monitoring is handled in practice. Vendors described an exception-based workflow: devices log violations against pre-set zones or conditions, the vendor's monitoring system generates alerts and a monitoring operator follows locally agreed protocols (for example, contacting probation or dispatch 911). Vendors and witnesses said practices vary by county and by contract; several witnesses said they work with roughly eight to ten counties in the state, and that rollout of victim devices has been slower due to procurement (RFPs) and coordination with local partners.
Panelists and the Tennessee Sheriff's Association raised two persistent issues: (1) statutory language bars use of the indigent monitoring fund for these devices (witnesses said the statute places cost on defendants), and (2) regulatory oversight and minimum service standards for monitoring providers are limited, leaving program and service expectations to county contracting processes. Sheriff's Association representative Jimmy Musick said housing a person in jail is typically more expensive than monitoring, and several senators urged attention to funding and regulatory gaps. Witnesses offered to share examples of state-level standards and device-minimum specifications used elsewhere.
Committee members requested additional information on county coverage, costs and licensing or oversight options to improve monitoring consistency across jurisdictions.
