One in four GPS devices on criminals in L.A. County were faulty

One in every four GPS devices used to track serious criminals released in Los Angeles County has proved to be faulty, according to a probation department audit — allowing violent felons to roam undetected for days or, in some cases, weeks.

The problems included batteries that wouldn’t hold a charge and defective electronics that generated excessive false alarms. One felon, county officials said, had to have his GPS monitor replaced 11 times over a year; for five days during the 45-day audit period, his whereabouts were unknown. Full Article

Related: Audit: GPS monitoring in L.A. County

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Very interesting. What about the GPS devices on the nonviolent, non-dangerous people who are forced to wear them. I bet they are just as worthless!

Strange that the failure rate of the GPS tracking devices is higher than the recidivism rate of most of the people they’re on! Go figure…

Clearly, the public needs a more effective way of analyzing these emotionally charged laws before implementation, and not waiting for system failure before anything is done. How about requiring a “social impact report” before implementing experimental laws. It could be patterned on the environmental impact reports required by the State for projects having potential impact on the environment. Base decisions on science. Such reports could require:
…A cost benefit analysis, including social cost and an independent analysis of benefits, if any.
…Alternatives to the project that could achieve the same goals in a different way, say spending the money on rehabilitation, instead.
…Identifying any social and capital costs that can’t be lessened. Geez, you mean we need a permanent staff to keep these devises working?
…Negative effects on other programs. How many more murders go unsolved as your time is spent tracking faulty devises.
…Cumulative effects to society.
…A public input period when groups such as carsol, victims groups, law enforcement can submit comments, reports and analysis.
The present political system of referendums and rushed legislation, while appearing democratic, is not giving the public the information needed to make rational choices, and pushes concerns for constitutionality onto the courts, and it leaves the task of fixing the system onto those who benefit financially from the product. Doesn’t everyone, including the future generations these laws are claimed to protect, deserve a more a more deliberate and thoughtful approach. An endangered bird, thankfully, gets that consideration. How about humans?

Technology continues to improve. I’ve been wearing the same model of GPS bracelet for five years. The same ones they had since Jessica’s law passed. Likely the same ones they’ll have in five years. Probably a Contract. I’d think NSA can track someone with an “IPhone 5” more accurately than my parole agent can track me.

Are GPS bracelets harming the people who wear them? I wore one for many years. Actually, it was several of them, they kept failing:

When I was on parole, I had to wear one. In fact, in three years of parole, I wore four different ones. All four had problems. So, if my count is right, that means four in four devices are faulty, not one in four.

American Taxpayers Association, etc., etc., where is the outside analysis of this government waste of our taxes? Not politically correct?

Does anyone have any more information who all has to wear a GPS ankle bracelet? my BF is on probation for a non-violent, no contact, no minors involved criminal act and was told to wear one for the entire three years of probation. He was classified as “High Risk” due to a prior about 13 years ago. Can anyone explain this?