Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Supervision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff describes alcohol‑monitoring program for probation; devices to be grant‑funded and used by judge order
Summary
Sheriff Tucker briefed commissioners on a 36‑month alcohol monitoring contract that would use grant‑funded wearable alcohol monitors. The county owns the devices, three units are available now, and the office said costs are only charged as devices are used.
Sheriff Tucker and county staff described an alcohol‑monitoring program to the Duchesne County Commission on March 17 that would place wearable alcohol‑detection devices on selected probationers or pretrial defendants by judge order.
According to the sheriff’s presentation, the devices are part of a 36‑month contract, the county will own the units, and initial acquisition was covered by a grant so the county does not incur device charges until a device is assigned. The sheriff said the county currently has three alcohol‑monitoring units available.
The sheriff described how the devices work: they are worn on the ankle (or as a bracelet that can be configured in different ways) and send alerts if the unit detects alcohol. “If they go through the alcohol, then it’ll send us an alert,” the sheriff said. The presenter noted judges must order the devices for an individual to be placed on the program.
Staff answered questions about cost and program administration. A county officer stated the per‑day monitoring fee is “a dollar 5 a day,” as presented at the meeting; staff also said GPS ankle monitors used in other pretrial programs carry higher expenses and that for some pretrial releases the county collects an upfront $250 fee from a defendant before release, when authorized by a judge. The sheriff’s office said the program is intended to provide an alternative to more expensive, restrictive options such as jail for some defendants while allowing judges an additional supervision tool.
Commissioners discussed inventory management and the tradeoffs between county cost and supervising defendants in the community versus jail. No formal contract approval vote appears in the transcript excerpt; the item was described and commissioners heard the briefing.
