The present invention relates to a system and method for electronically monitoring individuals for compliance with a protective order issued by a court of law, or other governmental authority.
A protective order, sometimes referred to as a "protection order" or "court order of protection" may be defined as any injunction issued by a court (or other authority) for the purpose of preventing acts or threatened acts of violence or harassment. A protective order refers to and is inclusive of both temporary and final orders issued by civil and criminal courts. Other terms frequently used to connotate a protective order include: emergency protective order, temporary restraining order, permanent restraining order, and no-contact order, or orders of protection. The present invention has applicability to all such types of protective orders, or orders of protection, regardless of what term or title may be applied thereto.
A protective order is typically issued to prevent a first individual from contacting a second individual in order to protect the second individual from acts or threatened acts of violence or harassment or other harm (hereafter "abuse") that the first individual may commit against the second individual. Such protective orders are issued by a court having appropriate jurisdiction over the first individual whenever the first person has a history of abusing the second individual, or whenever other factors are present that indicate the second individual is at risk of being abused by the first individual.
The most common application of the present invention is in the domestic relations field, and more particularly the present invention finds primary applicability in monitoring compliance with no-contact orders in the domestic violence environment. Domestic violence is normally defined as including any harmful physical contact, or threat thereof, between family or household members, or unmarried couples, including destruction of property, which physical contact or threat thereof is used as a method of coercion, control, revenge, or punishment. Thus, for many applications of the present invention, the first individual is typically a spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other" of the second individual. However, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to monitoring compliance with no-contact orders in the domestic violence environment. The present invention may also be used to monitor protective orders that have been issued in any instance or situation where a first person shows a continuing propensity to abuse, e.g., to harass, bother, annoy, threaten, batter, interfere with, or otherwise impinge on the rights or privacy of, a second person. Hence, although the present invention will hereafter be described in terms of monitoring compliance with no-contact orders in a domestic violence environment, it should be recognized that the invention is not limited to such an application.
Thus, by way of example and not limitation, whenever there is a history or risk of domestic violence, it is not uncommon for a court of law, or other governmental authority, to issue a restraining order that prevents one person (e.g., a spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other"), hereafter the "abuser", from making contact with another person (e.g., the first person's spouse, ex-spouse, or significant "other"), hereafter the "victim". Such orders, frequently referred to as "no-contact orders", but also referred to broadly herein as simply "protective orders", are thus issued because the victim may be at risk of abuse or harassment, and the protective order offers some measure of protection, at least theoretically, for the victim, or for the victim's property.
Unfortunately, in practice, a protective order is just a document, or "piece of paper", that offers no protection to the victim unless it is honored by the abuser; or unless it is enforced. Disadvantageously, the abuser may be of a character and disposition to pay little, if any, heed to the protective order. That is, many, if not most, abusers will simply ignore the protective order and continue in their abusing ways until such time as the protective order is enforced. Enforcement of the protective order, unfortunately, rarely occurs due to a variety or problems, including, but not limited to, victim reluctance to contact police, victim fear of abuser reprisal, and lack of evidence. As a result, protective orders are rarely enforced, and are essentially "toothless", i.e., seldom does an abuser suffer consequences from violating a protective order. Hence, it is clear that what is needed is a more effective way to monitor compliance with a protective order, and more particularly a more effective way to monitor an abuser so as to assume his or her continuing compliance with the protective order, and to assure that when an abuser does violate a protective order, the abuser suffers some meaningful consequences.
In order to protect the civil rights of an abuser, a violation of a protective order can only be established through the existence of credible evidence of a violation, or at least evidence that establishes "probable cause" that a violation has or will likely occur. Such evidence has heretofore usually taken the form of testimony, from the victim if available, or from other witnesses (such as neighbors, police officers, case workers, or others) who may have observed the violation, or who may have observed behavior in the abuser which would lead a reasonable person to conclude there is probable cause that a violation has or will occur. Unfortunately, as indicated above, despite the imposition of a protective order, some abusers ignore the protective order and continue to make their abusing contact with the victim. When such violations of the protective order occur, the victim may suffer serious harm, even death. Further, if the victim survives, the victim may be afraid to testify against the abuser in fear of reprisals that the abuser may inflict. Hence, the violation of the protective order is typically not reported, and the court or other governmental authority that imposed the order is not made aware of its violation. Thus, in effect, the violation of the protective order goes undetected and unpunished. What is needed, therefore, is a more secure and reliable way to monitor compliance with a protective order, one that does not require the cooperation and testimony of the victim, or other witnesses who must be on hand when the violation occurs.
Electronic monitoring systems are known in the art for monitoring an individual for compliance with a sentence to remain under house arrest at a specified location, or to at least be at a specified location during certain hours of the day. Such systems are commonly referred to as electronic house arrest monitoring (EHAM) systems. Currently available EHAM systems fulfill a valuable need in that they allow a relatively large number of individuals who have been sentenced to remain under house arrest, or who are under parole or probation requirements to remain at certain locations at specified times, to be electronically monitored for compliance with whatever restrictions have been imposed. Such electronic monitoring can advantageously be carried out at a fraction of the cost of incarceration of the monitored individuals; and also at a much reduced cost over conventional probation/parole monitoring procedures. One type of EHAM system known in the art, referred to as an "active" monitoring system, generates and transmits radio wave signals as part of the monitoring process. Such an active EHAM system is described, e.g., in U.S. Pat. No. 4,918,432, issued to Pauley et al., which patent is incorporated herein by reference. In the Pauley et al. active EHAM system, each individual being monitored is fitted with an electronic bracelet or anklet. Such bracelet or anklet, referred to in the referenced patent as a "tag", includes a transmitter that periodically transmits a identifying radio wave signal (unique to each tag, and hence to each individual) over a short range (e.g., 150 feet). A field monitoring device (FMD) is installed at each location where the monitored individual(s) is supposed to be. If the monitored individual(s) is present at the FMD location, a receiver circuit within the FMD receives the unique identifying signal. The FMD processing circuits can thus determine that a specific individual is present at the location of the FMD when the signal is received. This information (which may be considered as "presence data") is stored within the FMD memory circuits for subsequent downloading to a central monitoring location. A computer, or central processing unit (CPU), located at the central monitoring location periodically or randomly polls the various FMD locations through an established telecommunicative link, e.g., through standard telephone lines, in order to prepare reports indicating the presence or absence of the individuals at the specified locations. Such reports are then used by the agency charged with the responsibility for monitoring the individuals to ascertain whether or not such monitored individuals are in compliance with whatever restrictions have been imposed.
An important feature of the Pauley et al. EHAM system is the ability of the tag to detect any attempts to tamper with it, e.g., attempts to remove the tag from the monitored individual. If a tamper event is detected, such occurrence is signaled to the FMD in the next identifying signal that is transmitted; and the FMD, in turn, includes the ability to establish telecommunicative contact with the central CPU in order to report such tamper event. All data sent from the FMD to the central CPU includes address-identifying data that identifies the specific location where the FMD is located.
Other active EHAM systems known in the art also include the ability to detect tamper events, such as U.S. Pat. No. 4,777,477, issued to Watson, wherein any attempt to cut or break the strap that attaches the tag to the individual is detected and signaled to a local receiver. The '477 Watson patent is also incorporated herein by reference.
Still additional active EHAM systems known in the art include the ability to adaptively change the monitoring configuration to best suit the needs of the agency responsible for carrying out the monitoring function. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,952,928 issued to Carroll et al., also incorporated herein by reference. The Carroll et al. system advantageously includes the ability to sense and monitor various physiological data of the monitored individual, such as heart rate, blood pressure, body position (horizontal or vertical), and the like, so that such data can be analyzed at the central monitoring location to determine if the monitored individual is complying with other restrictions, such as abstinence from drugs or alcohol.
An article appearing in the Evansville, Ind., Courier and Press, dated Aug. 10, 1988, indicates that a judge used an electronic monitor to protect a victim from a man accused of abuse in a divorce case by using a reverse application of the conventional EHAM system, such as is described above. That is, a man was fitted with an ankle bracelet (tag) of the type used in a conventional EHAM system. The monitor (FMD), instead of warning officials when the tagged individual left the home, was "recalibrated to ignore the husband's location unless he approached the home". In this way, the FMD would alarm if the husband was in the vicinity or entered the victim's home.
Others, desiring to better protect the victim from spousal abuse using a similar reverse application of a conventional EHAM system, have recently proposed legislation that would establish a Spousal Offender Surveillance Pilot Program. Under the proposed Pilot program, a defendant eligible for probation, who has a history of domestic violence or other conduct which leads a judge to believe the spouse or former spouse of the defendant may be in physical danger, may require the defendant, as a condition of probation, to wear an appropriate electronic surveillance or monitoring device. Such device is defined in the proposed legislation as "a tracking unit or transmitting system worn by the defendant which would set off an alarm in the home of the spouse or former spouse or upon their person if the defendant comes within a specified distance of the spouse's or former spouse's home or person." See proposed SB 1122 (Presley) as introduced before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, State of California, April 1991.
Unfortunately, using a reverse application of an EHAM system to monitor an abuser in this manner suffers from several drawbacks. In the first place, an EHAM system assumes that the person being monitored (the "offender") is cooperative and wants the EHAM system to work. That is, the offender has agreed to wear the transmitting tag and remain in a specified location(s) under house arrest in proximity to an FMD, or equivalent device, because by doing so, the offender avoids being locked up in a jail or prison. Hence, it is in the best interest of the offender to comply fully with the use restrictions associated with the tag and FMD in order to avoid incarceration. Also, the offender is (by virtue of the fact that he or she has been allowed to remain under house arrest, as opposed to being incarcerated in a jail or prison) generally not considered to be a violent person. Disadvantageously, neither of these assumptions is accurate for the typical abuser. That is, the typical abuser has not agreed to remain at a specified location, but will be moving freely about. Moreover, the typical abuser is by definition a violent person who may go to great lengths in order to "defeat" the system so that he or she can carry out his or her abusing tactics and activities. Accordingly, what is needed is an electronic monitoring surveillance system or method that can perform its surveillance or monitoring function even with uncooperative individuals who may be freely moving about, and who may be actively trying to defeat the system.
Still further, using an EHAM system in reverse (as proposed in the prior art) to monitor the whereabouts of an abuser may not provide adequate notice to the victim and/or the governmental authorities of the abuser's approach. This is because the range of the transmitting tag worn by the abuser is limited to only a few hundred feet (due to the size and power limitations of the transmitting tag). Thus, the reversed EHAM system provides only minimal advance warning to the victim that the abuser is in the vicinity. Hence, an FMD, or equivalent receiving device in the victim's home, or carried by the victim, is not able to receive the signal transmitted by the transmitting tag, and hence is not able to detect the abuser and notify the victim of such detected presence, until the abuser has effectively already made contact with the victim. The victim may thus not have sufficient warning to take the necessary steps to prevent further abuse. Moreover, even if the authorities are notified of the presence of the abuser at the victim's house, they may not be able to respond in sufficient time to prevent further abuse because by the time they receive such notification, the abusing activity may have already begun.
Furthermore, the electronic notice provided by a reversed EHAM system, regardless of whether it is received in sufficient time to prevent or warn the victim concerning the abuser's approach, would still not be sufficient to conclusively establish a violation of the protective order. That is, the receipt of an electronic signal from the FMD, by itself, would not provide the necessary evidence needed in a court proceeding in order to conclusively establish that a protective order has been violated. It may provide some evidence that could, when considered with other evidence, suggest the abuser was in violation of the protective order, but in most legal proceedings it could not conclusively establish such violation. All it would provide is an indication that a signal was received by the victim's FMD (or equivalent receiving device) that was the same or similar to a signal that should have been generated by a transmitting tag attached to the abuser. Corroborating evidence would still be required to conclusively establish that the abuser was, in fact, in contact with the victim, and not merely someone who had taken the abuser's tag, or someone who had a tag that functioned the same as the abuser's tag, or any other number of possibilities. What is needed, therefore, is an electronic monitoring system that automatically generates the requisite evidence of a protective order violation whenever the abuser does in fact violate such order.