--- title: "Electronic Monitoring Program" type: "pdf" year: "2009" canonical: "/projects/246" --- # Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) # Table of Contents - [Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)](#charlotte-mecklenburg-police-department-electronic-monitoring-program-emp) - [Scanning:](#scanning) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Response:](#response) - [Assessment:](#assessment) - [Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)](#charlotte-mecklenburg-police-department-electronic-monitoring-program-emp) - [SCANNING](#scanning) - [ANALYSIS](#analysis) - [RESPONSE](#response) - [ASSESSMENT](#assessment) - [Growth and Acceptance of EMP](#growth-and-acceptance-of-emp) - [Offender Performance Ratios](#offender-performance-ratios) - [Crime Reduction](#crime-reduction) - [Crime Correlation](#crime-correlation) - [Stakeholder and Offender Testimonials](#stakeholder-and-offender-testimonials) - [The Future of EMP in Charlotte-Mecklenburg](#the-future-of-emp-in-charlotte-mecklenburg) - [AGENCY AND OFFICER INFORMATION](#agency-and-officer-information) - [Appendix 1 CMPD Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)](#appendix-1-cmpd-electronic-monitoring-program-emp) - [Offender Crime Correlation](#offender-crime-correlation) - [Laquail Wallace](#laquail-wallace) - [Xavier Simmons](#xavier-simmons) ## Scanning: -Criminal justice system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg does not have the capacity to handle the volume of cases it receives -The system does not deter repeat offenders, many of whom reoffend while out on bond awaiting trial ## Analysis: -2006 Citizen Satisfaction Survey indicated that burglaries, drugs, theft, and robberies were greatest crime concerns for citizens -Analysis of offenders arrested in 2005-2006 identified 2,138 individuals arrested five or more times; each of these offenders had one or more charges for robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and auto theft -219 of these offenders had been arrested 10 or more times in 2005-2006 -Offenders out on bond continued to commit crimes; ## Response: -Initial police response was a robbery curfew program; curfew was labor intensive, expensive, and too easy for offenders to circumvent -CMPD recommended an electronic monitoring strategy that would use GPS technology to: - Provide offenders a structured environment through the use of curfews and territorial restrictions - Use technology to actively monitor compliance with release conditions - Use crime correlation to allow officers to identify those offenders who reoffend to get them back in jail -CMPD worked to get judges and magistrates to agree to make electronic monitoring a condition of pre-trail release for designated offenses -Pre-trial release conditions also included curfews and territorial restrictions -Every 24 hours, an automated crime correlation process overlays the movements of offenders wearing monitors with the times and locations of reported crimes -In 2008, crime data was used to connect 23 monitored offenders to 41 reported crimes; it also eliminated monitored offenders as suspects in more than 100 cases # Assessment: - Monitoring workload has continued to grow as increasing numbers of offenders are placed on electronic monitoring -Total number of monitored offenders was 415 in 2008; through May 2009, 441 offenders have been monitored $-83.6 \%$ of program participants successfully completed electronic monitoring in 2008; that number has grown to $90.4 \%$ in the first five months of 2009 -In 2008, 10.8\% of monitored offenders failed to comply with the conditions of their Release; that number has declined to $5.9 \%$ in 2009 -In 2008, 5.5\% of monitored offenders reoffended while being monitored; that number has declined to $3.7 \%$ in 2009 -Electronic monitoring targets offenders in four crime categories: robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and auto theft. There have been significant crime reductions in three of those four categories. -Offenders have said that the structure of the program has helped to change their lives # Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) ## SCANNING For years, one of the most significant recurring issues in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County has been the ineffectiveness of its criminal justice system. A lack of capacity in all parts of the system (District Attorney, courts, jails) has rendered the system ineffective in holding criminals accountable in ways that sufficiently deter them from re-offending. Cases are often not resolved in court for a year or more and the defendants, many of whom are violent and/or chronic criminals, are released on bond pending trial and are essentially free to commit additional crimes. Police officers repeatedly arrest the same offenders and often suspect those offenders in cases where they lack evidence to make an arrest. Many offenders commit their crimes in specific areas of the city and are well known to citizens in those areas. Many of these offenders commit property crimes such as residential burglary and vehicle theft and, in recent annual surveys, the citizens of Charlotte-Mecklenburg began telling us that property crimes have become their greatest fear. Repeat offenders continue to be a focus for the local media, often because their lengthy arrest records illustrate patterns of escalating offenses and highlight glaring problems in the criminal justice system. Police officers have publicly expressed their frustration in dealing with the same offenders over and over again. City and County elected officials have made repeated requests of the state legislature to allocate more resources to the criminal justice system in Mecklenburg County, and Mayor Pat McCrory organized a caravan to the state capitol to connect elected officials with community leaders. All of these efforts had limited results. Community frustration with the criminal justice system and its limited ability to deal with repeat offenders reached a boiling point with a citizen march on City Hall early in 2008. There was a clear community consensus that the criminal justice system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg was woefully inadequate in dealing with repeat offenders. Without additional resources, the situation was unlikely to improve. # ANALYSIS To effectively address the recidivism problem, the CMPD analyzed the nature of community concerns, the composition of the offending population and the connections between the two. To understand what crimes most negatively affected life quality for Charlotte-Mecklenburg residents, staff began by reviewing the 2006 CMPD Citizen Satisfaction Survey, an annual safety and perception survey conducted by an independent research firm. That survey revealed that burglaries, drugs, theft and robberies were central crime concerns among Charlotte-Mecklenburg citizens. Connecting those crimes to individuals most responsible for committing them helped staff better understand that many offenders were committing crimes of community concern while they were released from jail and awaiting trial for a different crime. In 2006, property crimes were the largest proportion of reported crimes, accounting for 49,232 offenses, up $4.9 \%$ from 2005. Property crimes are also more likely to be "stranger" crimes meaning that the offender and victim are unknown to each other. Larcenies were the most prevalent property crime with 28,154 incidents, but there were also 13,582 burglaries reported in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, with 67% (9,103) of those being residential. Another crime of opportunity presenting a significant challenge to Charlotte-Mecklenburg is auto theft. There were 7,150 vehicle thefts reported in 2006. Offenders who steal cars are likely to have stolen multiple cars prior to ever being arrested and it is not unusual for them to confess to numerous thefts during a police interview. While stolen vehicles may be used for transportation purposes, they are also often used in drug and violent crimes such as robbery and assault. The CMPD responded to 3,207 robbery incidents in 2006. Of those, 81% (2,594) involved a weapon used or indicated by the suspect. And, while many offenders and victims in robbery crimes are acquaintances of some kind, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg it remains the foremost violent crime where no relationship exists at all. An analysis of offenders arrested in 2005-2006 identified 2,138 individuals arrested five or more times, each of whom had one or more charges for robbery, burglary, aggravated assault and auto theft. There were 945 that had two or more arrests for these specific crimes. Finally, there were 219 of these individuals that had been arrested 10 or more times in 2005-2006. Further analysis revealed "crossover" charges within the targeted offense categories. Individuals charged with auto theft also had a high frequency of arrests for robbery offenses, and the reverse was also true. The analysis indicated that there were serial offenders who traverse the spectrum of property and violent crimes. In assessing the criminal justice system response to the problem, it became apparent that pre-trial release was a circular process for the most prolific criminals. Offenders released on bond were often arrested for subsequent criminality and then released again on a new bond. In this environment, offenders released under the pre-trial release program essentially have the run of the community. While a judge may have added some restrictions, such as a territorial ban where the offender had committed his crimes, Pre-Trial Services had no real authority or process to monitor released offenders. In many cases, the trial wait was 11 to 13 months, giving the offender unlimited opportunities to re-offend. Given the lack of pre-trial monitoring, proactively reducing recidivism was not an option; police could only address it by responding to another crime and working it to an arrest conclusion. The CMPD concluded that there was a local criminal population with chronic arrest histories. A significant amount of felonious recidivism was occurring while those offenders were awaiting trial on prior charges, and the crimes committed were primary community concerns. The CMPD responded by developing a program that enhances its own effectiveness, bolsters the local criminal justice system, and clearly serves the crime and safety interests of the community. # RESPONSE In 2006, the CMPD developed a program called Dusk 2 Dawn Robbery Curfew to restrict nighttime movement of robbery suspects released on bond while awaiting trial. Officers asked judges to make the curfew a condition of pre-trial release. Once the offender was released, two officers in the patrol division where the offender lived would periodically conduct curfew checks, which took 15-30 minutes to complete at an average cost of $\$ 50$. The program had limited effectiveness because checks were sporadic and dependant upon patrol division workload, and some offenders would violate curfew after being checked. In addition, a physical check is a fairly intrusive compliance measure affecting the larger family. In early 2007, CMPD undertook its repeat offender analysis and recommended an electronic monitoring strategy as a better way of tracking these offenders and boosting our overall response to repeat offenders. Being a leader in applying technology to crime reduction and prevention, the CMPD saw tremendous opportunities in using GPS technology to accomplish three major objectives in reducing crime and felonious recidivism: first, provide pre-trial released offenders a structured environment through the use of curfews and territorial restrictions; secondly, utilize monitoring technology to actively ensure compliance with release conditions; and thirdly, enable officers to quickly identify those who re-offend by matching their tracked locations with reported crimes in the department's records management system. Crime correlation would allow officers to rapidly identify re-offending criminals and get them back into jail quickly, reducing the likelihood of continued criminal behavior. It also would help detectives eliminate them as suspects in offenses they could not have committed, sparing the offender and detectives the unnecessary time and frustration associated with an empty lead. CMPD staff worked with department attorneys to verify that an electronic monitoring program with crime correlation, curfews and territorial restrictions was legally feasible. Staff evaluated and selected a monitoring company that provided an advanced web-based and user-friendly interface, and waterproof monitors with long battery life. CMPD also began working with magistrates and judges to make the monitors a condition of pre-trial release for chronic or dangerous offenders. Many judges and magistrates were initially skeptical, but CMPD and District Attorney staffs worked together through multiple program presentations to demonstrate the potential value of the program -something that benefited the community and offenders alike, as well as all agencies in the local criminal justice system. They agreed to work with CMPD and the District Attorney to prioritize offenders and make monitors a condition of release. Electronic monitoring orders would be issued in conjunction with curfews, usually from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and territorial restrictions prohibiting the offender from entering designated areas of the city. Based on the offender analysis, CMPD sought restrictions for all robbery offenders released on bond as well as chronic burglary, auto theft, and aggravated assault offenders, particularly those with a history of serious or escalating domestic violence. Once the local criminal justice system had accepted the concept of police conducting electronic monitoring, CMPD began seeking funds for the program. In 2007, the department received a $\$ 20,000$ grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to begin its Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The department contracted with OmniLink to provide the equipment and monitors at a cost of $\$ 5.35$ per day. A few violent offenders such as rapists or accused batterers are monitored more closely than the majority of offenders at a cost of almost $\$ 7.00$ per day. Justice Department funds covered the cost of monitoring only a small number of people. The program also won the support of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Foundation, a non-profit CMPD support organization, which contributed $\$ 114,000$ to expand the program sufficiently to properly evaluate it for effectiveness. Once the department began to monitor a growing number of offenders with demonstrable results, a previously skeptical City Council appropriated $\$ 255,000$ for the program in 2008 and the Mecklenburg County Commission added an additional $\$ 225,000$ in February 2009. Those funds will cover the cost of monitoring 250 people concurrently through June 2010. The EMP is a very straightforward program. CMPD or prosecutors request that a particular offender be placed on electronic monitoring; increasingly, judges and magistrates are doing so without being asked. When a magistrate or judge establishes the secured bond for a defendant, he or she adds electronic monitoring, a curfew and/or territorial restrictions as additional conditions of release. The defendant is returned to jail until bond is satisfied. If the defendant satisfies his bond, prior to his release he is visited by an officer from CMPD's Electronic Monitoring Unit (consisting of one sergeant and four police officers). The defendant is shown a 10 -minute video fully explaining the program. The EMP officer explains the specific restrictions placed on the offender and the offender's responsibilities, which include charging the monitor for two continuous hours each night. While unusual for electronic monitoring programs, this effort is undertaken to educate offenders on successfully navigating their conditions of release and understanding just how police will know and respond if they violate any curfew, restriction or commit another crime. The officer gives the defendant a program reference guide along with information on agencies that can provide assistance with continuing education, jobs, life skills, chemical dependency and other issues that may help the defendant get his or her life back on track. EMP Officers have also personally worked to help a number of offenders connect to these resources. Once the monitor is attached and activated, it transmits a signal to a monitoring station at a ping rate determined by CMPD, but based upon the criminal history and threat potential of the offender. Monitors can be set to transmit location data as often as every 30 seconds and can be reset at anytime by an EMP officer. CMPD is immediately notified if the wearer goes inside a restricted zone, does not remain in a curfew zone during curfew hours, fails to recharge the battery, and/or tampers with or cuts off a monitor. Members of the Electronic Monitoring Unit receive text and e-mail alerts and respond themselves or call for an on-duty patrol officer assistance, depending on the circumstances. The crime correlation process is one way that CMPD officers effectively, yet unobtrusively, track offender movement. CMPD is one of the first police agencies in the country, if not the first, to use monitoring data to actively correlate offender tracks to crime location data. Every 24 hours, an automated process correlates the movement of people wearing monitors with the times and locations of reported crimes. The system automatically produces a report identifying monitored defendants who were at or near the scene of a reported crime, reporting the actual distances of each GPS ping from the geocoded crime location. The alert is e-mailed to the Electronic Monitoring Unit as well as to detectives and supervisors in the patrol division where the crime occurred. The information identifies the monitored person, the crime address and type, and the person's distance from the crime location. Further, the CMPD enhanced its records management system to attach this information within applicable crime reports to promote access throughout the organization. Finally, CMPD has trained over 250 supervisors, officers and detectives to use the tracking software - something they can access from computers in the office or in patrol vehicles. Accessibility to data, a focus on repeat offenders and sustained results have generated significant organizational momentum and support for this program. Crime correlations have been very useful in making arrests. For example, in March 2009, detectives learned a gang member monitored on a larceny from auto charge was at the scene of an armed robbery. Detectives conducted a photo lineup and the victim identified him. He was charged with the robbery and arrested. In 2008, crime correlation data was used to connect 23 people to 41 crimes. One of the offenders identified through the data had stolen a car from the parking lot of a check cashing business. The next day, an officer spotted the car on the side of a road and saw a defendant wearing an electronic monitor walking toward the car with a gas can. The crime correlation data showed that the defendant had been in the parking lot at the time the car was stolen and was still with the car a day later. Appendix 1 provides visual descriptions of the sequencing involved in connecting this and other offenders to crimes. Word of the accuracy of the location data has spread on the street and throughout the jail. More and more defendants on electronic monitoring now understand how closely they are supervised. Conversely, the location data can be used to eliminate monitored offenders as suspects in crimes. In 2008, monitored offenders were eliminated as suspects in more than 100 cases, which benefits them and detectives who do not spend unnecessary time following up on unproductive leads. # ASSESSMENT CMPD considers the EMP to be a great success in meeting its overall goal of reducing crime by preventing recidivism through objectives of creating structured environments for released offenders, actively monitoring compliance with that structure, and quickly identifying those who feloniously re-offend for investigation, arrest and prosecution. There are a variety of ways to assess program efficacy, including: comparing offenders who successfully complete their monitoring periods against those who violate release conditions or re-offend; successfully applying technologies in the crime correlation process; identifying the number of offenders excluded as suspects in crimes; comparative crime counts among focus crimes; and, capturing program testimonials from non-police parties. # Growth and Acceptance of EMP The number of monitored offenders fluctuates daily as offenders are released on bond or their cases are resolved in court, but the monitoring workload continues to grow. Table 1 describes this growth in concurrent and total offenders in the EMP, as well as the actual counts for violations of release conditions and recidivism while being monitored. The highest number of concurrently monitored offenders in 2008 was 189; in 2009, that number has reached 233. The total number of monitored offenders continues to grow, from 415 in all of 2008 to 441 from January through May 31, 2009. This growth in EMP reflects a deeper acceptance among all criminal justice stakeholder groups. | Electronic Monitoring Overview | | | | :-- | --: | --: | | | $\mathbf{2 0 0 8}$ | $\mathbf{2 0 0 9}^{*}$ | | Peak Active Offenders (concurrent) | 189 | 233 | | Total Offenders Monitored | 415 | 441 | | Failure to Comply with EMP Conditions | 45 | 26 | | Offenders Committing Crimes Under | 23 | 16 | | EMP | 41 | 24 | | Crime Resolved Using EM Data | | | ## Offender Performance Ratios Performance ratios are perhaps the most significant indicators of the program's success. As Table 2 below indicates, $83.6 \%$ of the 2008 program participants successfully completed pre-trial monitoring and that percentage has increased to $90.4 \%$ in 2009. Table 2 also demonstrates that a low percentage of offenders fail to comply with their release conditions, with $10.8 \%$ of 2008 program participants and $5.9 \%$ of 2009 participants. Another critical measure of program efficacy lies in the assessment of recidivism while being monitored. In this area, the percentages are lowest of all categories, with $5.5 \%$ of 2008 participants feloniously re-offending and $3.7 \%$ in 2009 through May $31^{\text {st }}$. | Key Offender Performance Ratios | | | | :-- | --: | --: | | | $\mathbf{2 0 0 8}$ | $\mathbf{2 0 0 9}^{*}$ | | Successfully Completes Monitoring | $83.6 \%$ | $90.4 \%$ | | Fails to Comply w/Release Conditions | $10.8 \%$ | $5.9 \%$ | | Recidivates While Being Monitored | $5.5 \%$ | $3.7 \%$ | | Table 2 | $*=$ YTD through May 31, 2009 | | This assessment indicates that reinforced structure for offenders is helping reduce recidivism. It also indicates that a majority of monitored offenders are now meeting the conditions of their pre-trial release, helping reduce crime and hopefully fear in the neighborhoods where they previously offended. # Crime Reduction To be sure, electronic monitoring was not the only strategy the CMPD employed to reduce crime. Outside of individual offender case studies, it would be nearly impossible to directly attribute crime reduction to the Electronic Monitoring Program. Nevertheless, it factored prominently in an intensely focused organizational effort to identify, arrest and prosecute repeat offenders to impact crime and reduce neighborhood fear. And, particularly since burglaries and robberies traditionally are serial offenses, CMPD has developed confidence that concurrently tracking and restricting the movements of over 150 known robbers and chronic burglars is resulting in fewer repeat offenses. As Table 3 demonstrates, in 2008 there were significant reductions in all but one category of EMP targeted crimes. Index crimes have continued to decline at an even sharper rate in the first five months of 2009. | Crime Reductions | | | | | :-- | --: | --: | --: | | | 2007 Total | 2008 Total | \% Change | | Robbery | 3191 | 2984 | $-6.5 \%$ | | Burglary | 12948 | 11933 | $-7.8 \%$ | | Aggravated Assault | 3684 | 3731 | $1.8 \%$ | | Auto Theft | 6019 | 5266 | $-12.5 \%$ | Table 3 Offender case examples can serve as another indicator of program success. One offender, 29 year old Laquail Wallace, has an arrest history dating back 11 years that involves all of the EMP focus crimes. Prior to his arrest in 2002 for a home invasion robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault, Wallace had been arrested on five felonies, including aggravated assault and possession of two stolen vehicles. He was incarcerated for these crimes and was released in 2007. From the time of his release until he was placed on electronic monitoring on September $12^{\text {th }} 2008$, Wallace had been arrested eight times and charged with six felonies and 11 misdemeanors. The felony charges included robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling. Seven days later, on September $19^{\text {th }}$, he committed a burglary that was identified through the EMP crime correlation process within 24 hours of the break-in being reported (depicted in Appendix 1). Based upon his prior history and the density and alignment of Wallace's GPS data points with the victim's house, the District Attorney authorized charges for burglary and Wallace was arrested on September $22^{\text {nd }}$. Beyond the data points associating Wallace with the crime location, detectives had no other information that would have led them to Wallace. Wallace again bonded out of jail on pre-trial release on November $1^{\text {st }}$. On December $16^{\text {th }}$, officers stopped him in the vicinity of a reported burglary and connected him to the crime through stolen property and crime correlation to the scene. Wallace was again arrested and charged with burglary. Declared a habitual felon, Wallace pled guilty to these two burglaries in May 2009 and was incarcerated for 80-105 months. Given Wallace's propensity and frequency for serious and violent crime, it is clear that his incarceration for nearly 6-9 years is helping to reduce crime and will spare countless citizens from future victimization. # Crime Correlation One of the critical components of the program is its ability to leverage existing technology to rapidly identify perpetrators of crime and make officers and detectives more efficient in their investigations of reported crime. The process runs each day and has proven effective in identifying or excluding suspected perpetrators of crime. In 2008, it led to the rapid identification and arrest of 23 offenders in 41 criminal acts. Through the end of May 2009, 16 offenders were identified, investigated and arrested for 24 criminal acts. While $52 \%$ of offenders are monitored for having committed violent crimes, crimes committed while on electronic monitoring are disproportionately less severe property crimes ( $67 \%$ ). Finally, in 2008 the Electronic Monitoring Unit cleared 104 monitored offenders from suspicion in crime - a small number of whom had even been implicated through eyewitness testimony. This is a clear example of how the EMP serves as an important benefit even for the offenders themselves. # Stakeholder and Offender Testimonials Although anecdotal as an assessment mechanism, stakeholder and offender testimonials offer an unusual perspective into the value of a program. The fact that many prosecutors and defense attorneys, judges, offenders and offender families have all described the value of the CMPD Electronic Monitoring Program speaks volumes about its conception, implementation and effectiveness. The following are comments and perspectives representative of many stakeholders and offenders engaged with the electronic monitoring program: Offender. A number of offenders have asked to remain on the monitor after case adjudication because the supervision has helped to change their lives. One 27 year-old robbery offender monitored for seven months says the EMP has done more to change his life than six years in prison. He says, "After prison, they just put you back out in the street. This gives me responsibility. This thing has changed my whole life. This is the longest I've stayed out of trouble in 14 years. It's the first time I've had a real job. I stay at home instead of on the street. I spend more time with my son." Another monitored offender was a member of a local gang. He requested to retain the monitor after his case was adjudicated because 'it is the only thing keeping [him] from the gang' - in this case, the EMP served as an important element in his exit strategy from a gang life that resisted his departure. Defense Attorney. One local defense attorney shared her perspective that the EMP typically is beneficial to her clients, most of whom are accused of robbery. She says judges are more likely to reduce a bond when they know the person will be monitored upon release from jail. And, she noted that a client who is monitored for months without violating the program's conditions is looked upon more favorably at sentencing if found guilty. Judge. A resident judge recently commented that he believes it is especially beneficial to electronically monitor offenders who have committed a violent crime. "I think it provides some measure of security to the victim," he said. "It gives us the ability to know where these folks are - we want to keep track of them. And it forces them to at least recognize that someone is watching them." # The Future of EMP in Charlotte-Mecklenburg The EMP will continue to be a vital part of CMPD's crime reduction efforts. The department has recently added larceny from vehicle to the list of felony crimes for which monitoring is requested. The department is also beginning to expand the program to offenders whose cases have been adjudicated and have been placed on probation. The CMPD continues its outreach to the North Carolina Division of Community Corrections (the probation and parole department) to foster their engagement in this program for EMP offenders who plead guilty and are sentenced to probation. Over the next two years, the goal is to expand the program in some capacity throughout the 11-county Metropolitan Statistical Area. Eventually, crime correlations can occur in multiple records management systems through a data sharing initiative funded by COPS and implemented by CMPD. And, while the EMP increasingly emerges as a vital part of managing priority offenders in Mecklenburg County and the region, it is also being replicated in Savannah, New Orleans and Memphis. # AGENCY AND OFFICER INFORMATION | Key Project Team Members: | Deputy Chief Ken Miller | | :-- | :-- | | | Sergeant David Scheppegrell | Project Contact: Deputy Chief Ken Miller Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 601 East Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 704-432-0429 (office) 704-575-8961 (mobile) 704-336-5714 (fax) kmiller@cmpd.org # Appendix 1 CMPD Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) ## Offender Crime Correlation Unique to electronic monitoring programs across the country, the CMPD established an automated routine that matches time and location of GPS data points to crime incidents in the CMPD records management system. A database routine runs a daily scan of both datasets and creates a unique alert to the Electronic Monitoring Unit, which may directly investigate the lead or work with a detective or other officer to investigate further. The following are actual EMP examples that provide a visual understanding of how these technologies come together to assist police in connecting offenders to crimes. These offenders are two of the twenty-three arrested in 2008 for crimes identified through this technology. ## Laquail Wallace This monitored offender committed a burglary at 12000 Swallow Lane, which was reported to have occurred between 8am-12:30pm on September $19^{\text {th }}$. On September $20^{\text {th }}$ at 7:33am, an alert was automatically created and emailed to Electronic Monitoring Unit staff. Staff examined the Wallace GPS track and worked with detectives to charge Wallace in the crime. A warrant was issued for burglary and Wallace was arrested on September $22^{\text {nd }}$. | COMPLAINT \#: 20080919124500 | | | | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | DATE / TIME REPORTED 9/19/2008 1245 | | | ADDRESS: 12000 SWALLOW LN | | | | INCIDENT TYPE: Residential Burglary | | | BEAT: 2113 | | | | DATE / TIME FROM: 20080919 0800 | | | DATE / TIME TO: 200809191230 | | | | INVESTIGATOR CODE \#: 001609 | | | CASE STATUS: Open | | | | PID: $\quad$ OFFENDER NAME: $\quad$ STATUS: $\quad$ DATE ADDED: $\quad$ DATE UPDATED: | | | | | | | 234067 Wallace, Laquail | | Investigative Lead | | 9/20/2008 7:33:21 AM | | | DESC: | | | | | | | ORGANIZATION: Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Dept. | | | | | | | DATE / TIME: DISTANCE IN FEET: | | | | | | | 9/19/2008 10:18:04 AM | | 43.28 | | | | | 9/19/2008 10:21:20 AM | | 34.42 | | | | | 9/19/2008 10:24:36 AM | | 14.88 | | | | | 9/19/2008 10:27:50 AM | | 14.88 | | | | This is an automated burglary alert from the comparative scan of CMPD crime records and GPS location points. ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-0.jpeg) The Omnilink track shows multiple Wallace GPS pings at the victim's residence during the 4.5 hour burglary offense period. ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-1.jpeg) Official Charlotte parcel map and photo of the victim's residence, tying it to the Wallace GPS track. # Xavier Simmons This monitored offender had stolen a car from the parking lot of a check cashing business. The next day, an officer spotted the car on the side of a major road and this offender walking toward the car with a gas can. The officer observed the electronic monitor on Simmons and knew the vehicle was stolen. He detained Simmons and summoned assistance from the Electronic Monitoring Unit. The crime correlation was immediately conducted and demonstrated that Simmons had been in the parking lot at the time of the auto theft and was in and around the vehicle when it ran out of gas in the roadway. Simmons was arrested and charged with the theft of the automobile. ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-2.jpeg) Omnilink track of Simmons' position at the check cashing location at the time of the auto theft. ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-3.jpeg) Official Charlotte parcel map and photo of the auto theft location. ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-4.jpeg) Omnilink track of Simmons northerly path after he had left the auto theft location. ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-5.jpeg) Simmons walking away from the roadway location of where the vehicle ran out of gas. ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-44/img-6.jpeg) Simmons walking from area where the vehicle ran out of gas, to a gas station at Sharon Amity and back again, where officers intercepted and arrested him.