Community Corrections Technology-National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center<\/strong><\/p>\n DC Public Safety Radio<\/b><\/p>\n http:\/\/media.csosa.gov<\/b><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Radio show at\u00a0http:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/audio\/2014\/05\/community-corrections-technology-national-law-enforcement-corrections-technology-center\/<\/a><\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> From the Nation\u2019s Capital, this is DC Public Safety. I\u2019m your host Leonard Sipes. Back at our microphone is Joe Russo, Director of Corrections, Technology, Center of Excellence at the University of Denver, which is part of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, www.justnet<\/span>, j-u-s-t-n-e-t.org, talking about community corrections technology. Joe, welcome back to DC Public Safety.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Thank you Len, always great to be with you.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Well it\u2019s always a pleasure to be with you Joe because you\u2019re one of the most popular programs that we have. Everybody is really interested in corrections technology, what it could be, what it really means to the rest of us. You\u2019re on the cutting edge of it. So we have a variety of topics to talk about today. We\u2019re talking about offender tracking and realistic expectations. We\u2019re talking about correctional officer mobility, parole and probation agent mobility, virtual offices, the use of tablets, keeping our folks in the field and technology and driving restrictions. Those are the three topics. So why don\u2019t you kick it off talking about GPS offender tracking, satellite tracking and realistic expectations.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Absolutely. Yeah, I wanted to talk about this topic because, you know, over the last year or two there\u2019s been a series of high profile cases across the country where offender\u2019s tracked with GPS bracelets are committing horrific crimes. And this is very tragic and it\u2019s set off in motion a number of investigations in California. There\u2019s a state senator who has launched or asked the inspector general to investigate offender tracking. In New York state, a U.S. representative from New York has asked the government accountability office to investigate offender tracking, monitoring and after a heinous crime in that state. And this is all, you know, obviously appropriate scrutiny after such horrific crimes that have occurred. However, it really illustrates the importance of realistic expectations of the technology in managing those expectations with stakeholders in the public in general. When I think most of your audience understands the limitations of the technology, they\u2019re well documented, there are inherent limitations to any technology, there are environments in which, you know, satellite tracking, GPS tracking just doesn\u2019t work well. That\u2019s a known. We know that these devices can be defeated, they can be cut, they can be jammed. Offenders can put aluminum foil on them and block signals or they can simply not power up their devices. So it\u2019s, you know, fairly easy for a non-cooperative offender to get around this system. Again, these are well-known, well-documented limitations.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> But for the rest of us in the field, we\u2019re fairly puzzled by the negative publicity because we understand the inherent limitations on GPS satellite tracking technology. We understand that it\u2019s not full proof and we understand that just because the person has satellite tracking technology on doesn\u2019t mean he can\u2019t simply snip it off, doesn\u2019t mean that he\u2019ll stop committing crimes. And we\u2019re sort of puzzled when we see the various negative stories coming out in the newspapers and TV stations because we\u2019re saying to ourselves why doesn\u2019t everybody else understand the limitations on this equipment. So I spoke to some reporters throughout the course of years and they said, well, you all in the community corrections fields are sort of overselling the promise of GPS. And I\u2019m not quite sure that\u2019s true. I mean, inherent within any technology, as you just said are limitations.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> That\u2019s exactly right. I don\u2019t know that community corrections agencies are necessarily overselling or vendors are overselling but there is a, you know, interesting kind of dynamic. Whenever an agency is looking for budgetary funds to implement a program, obviously they\u2019re going to highlight the, you know, the positive parts of that technology and how that technology can benefit overall supervision. But as you alluded to, you know, the affects of any technology or any program are measured in the aggregate, you know, does the input, does the program or the treatment create a benefit to an aggregate population. Obviously, you know, they\u2019re going to have individuals who are determined to continue their criminal ways. And regardless of whether it\u2019s GPS monitoring or, you know, anger management training or any kind of high intensity supervision, it\u2019s less of a reflection on the program as it is of the individual. So it\u2019s, I think, you know, folks need to step back, understanding we\u2019re dealing with a criminal element, understanding we\u2019re dealing with, in community corrections, we\u2019re not dealing with\u00a0 <\/span>John Augustine\u2019s\u2019 day, you know, or probationers or debtors or public drunkards.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Mmm-hmm.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> A lot of these folks are serious offenders.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Yep.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> And so agencies across the country are doing their best to implement technology, to implement programs to achieve positive outcomes but there will be failures.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> The two things that come to mind is, number one, the research from a variety of sources does indicate that GPS\/satellite tracking does reduce offending, does reduce technical violations, does reduce the amount of \u2013 or the numbers or the percentage of people being returned to the correctional system. But there is a fairly strong corrective incentive in terms of GPS satellite tracking done well, correct, per research?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Absolutely. There is that and even, you know, if you take the most negative view on it. You know, in those cases where offenders are determined to continue their criminal acts, GPS has been, you know, instrumental in making these offenders accountable. GPS location data is able to match the crime, you know, incident locations and the folks who ultimately are accountable for their actions. And in many cases, you know, they probably would have committed those crimes with or without tracking.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Mmm-hmm.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> At least with tracking there\u2019s an ability to hold these folks accountable.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> And we\u2019ve been able to track down some fairly serious offenders through GPS tracking and so that is a huge plus. Number two, we train law enforcement, not just the metropolitan police department here in Washington, D.C., but we train the FBI, we train the secret service, we train a lot of law enforcement agencies in terms of the use of our GPS tracking device so they can see the offenders who they\u2019re interested in, in real time. So there\u2019s a lot of promise in terms of GPS satellite tracking but it is a huge drain on manpower. And I\u2019m not quite sure people understand how difficult it is to keep \u2013 to watch all the tracking marks of an offender on a day-to-day basis and the fact that most of us in parole and probation are not 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. We\u2019re basically Monday through Friday, 9-5. Now there are variations on that theme and there are some offenders who we do track in real time but those are problems. Take the first one. The fact that this is very \u2013 it involves a lot of\u00a0 <\/span>manpower, person power to keep track of all of the data that comes in.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Absolutely and if there\u2019s nothing else your listeners hear today is that the resource issues are paramount. Agencies need to be clear about why they\u2019re tracking offenders, what purpose and what they hope to achieve and they need to dedicate the appropriate resources to accomplishing those goals. You know, far too many agencies compare the cost, the equipment cost of GPS to a day in jail and make cost-effective based decisions based on that. But the labor costs far exceed the equipment costs. And, you know, and that\u2019s probably the biggest pitfall that agencies face. They don\u2019t dedicate enough resources to maintaining programs, addressing violations, dealing with alerts and that\u2019s where program integrity falls. And that\u2019s where if a case goes really bad and an offender goes off and does something heinous that\u2019s where the agency really has a difficult day explaining to the press why certain actions were not taken.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Now we have here at the Court Services of Offender Supervision Agency, we use our vendor to track 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but just because they\u2019re tracked 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, doesn\u2019t mean that we have personnel at the ready to respond. So that\u2019s the case as it is in virtually every parole and probation agency in the country, correct?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Oh absolutely, absolutely, even for agencies, police agencies that operate GPS programs. And you would think they theoretically are the best situated to respond to alerts and cuts. Even they can\u2019t be everywhere at every time. So obviously probation and parole agencies, you know, have much less resources, are much less able to react in a timely manner. So, again, these are understood limitations in technology, these expectations need to be managed. I think better education needs to occur between agencies and the public and judges and the media, frankly, so that we understand what we\u2019re dealing with.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Now the Corrections Technology Center of Excellence there at the University of Denver, again, part of the National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center, you all came out with guidelines, rather technical guidelines, rather complete guidelines in terms of the application of GPS, correct?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> We\u2019re developing a standard right now for the performance of offender tracking devices. But more recently we published a guideline for agencies to think about GPS devices and GPS information as potential evidence. We thought that too many agencies don\u2019t see these devices in that light. So the goal was to educate them to start thinking more about how they use these devices. And how potential evidence might end up in a court room if, for example, an offender who\u2019s tracked is accused of committing a crime.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Mmm-hmm. Now, the other thing that we\u2019re talking about is not necessarily using devices that we currently provide, which are anklets strapped around the person\u2019s ankle. We\u2019re talking about going to a cell phone based system.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well we see that in the industry, there are vendors now who are offering basically SmartPhones with GPS chips to offenders and they can be tethered or not tethered, you know, wirelessly, and basically tracking is occurring through the phone. So there\u2019s no device strapped to an ankle in certain applications. And this seems like it might be a trend for the future and may lead to, you know, one day where the offender brings his own device to be supervised and can bring in their own SmartPhone and the officer can install tracking software and accomplish tracking that way. Now this is a little far out thinking but it certainly seems to be a direction.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Well everybody has always said that we\u2019re looking for the day where the tracking device is not the size of a cell phone strapped to the offender\u2019s ankle but the size of, I don\u2019t know, a pen. And that device will automatically take blood pressure readings, will automatically take readings as to whether or not the person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And so is that still pie in the sky or are we moving towards something along those lines?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> You know what, in different areas there are certainly components of what you described that are being developed but as you envision it or as I\u2019m interpreting how you envision it, it may be a chip, an RF chip that\u2019s embedded in the offender and has the ability to \u2013<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Well no, not in the offender himself, but the device that they\u2019re wearing.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Oh absolutely. I mean, that\u2019s even easier to do. So yeah, as these technologies mature and are developed, you know, then we\u2019ll definitely see that in the future. I mean, obviously right now we have devices that can track transdermal alcohol expiration from the body, that\u2019s one device. We have devices that can track movement. There are certainly physiological devices, you know, that Fitbit movement is opening up a whole lot of doors in terms of using machines and computers to monitor physiological activity. So certainly, you know, blood pressure, respiration rates and we can match that information to where a location is. Or if a sex offender is near a school and his heart rate is pumping, you know, that obviously tells a supervision officer something. So yes, right now it\u2019s all theoretical but there are pieces in place and they\u2019re growing. And one day maybe we can put it all together.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Well the technical podcast I listened to this week in tech, Leo Laporte, on a weekly basis, religious basis and they talk about this stuff. Not necessarily in terms of tracking people on criminal supervision but they talk about the Fitbits, they talk about other wearable devices, they talk about taking blood pressure, they talk about monitoring pulses, they\u2019re talking about whether or not a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol in terms of safe driving. So that conversation is taking place not within the criminal justice system, that conversation is taking place in the tech industry in general.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Oh absolutely. People are fascinated with understanding their own physiology, their sleep patterns, increasing performance. And you\u2019re right, this is well established and growing. But you\u2019re right, there are applications for offender management there that can be tapped into.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Okay. Before we go to the break and start talking about correctional officer mobility, parole and probation, agent mobility, virtual offices, office tablets and technology regarding driving restrictions, one of the things that we wanted to talk about was analytic capabilities.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Yeah, absolutely. You know, in previous calls we\u2019ve talked about the need for analytics to better analyze, understand and act upon all the data that GPS generates. And we talked about a couple of different initiatives that were going on across the country and I wanted listeners to know that since our last conversation one of the GPS providers has actually acquired a company that specializes in sophisticated analysis and interpretation of data. This company has a long track record working with intelligence agencies and defense agencies to make sense of big data. And recently they\u2019ve been working with community corrections agencies to explore how their techniques might work with offender tracking data. This is very encouraging at least, you know, one company has taken a big step to provide their customers with this important capability and I think the trend will be that other, you know, other vendors will follow suit and provide similar support.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> What sort of things are we talking about tracking?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well, for example, link analysis, where offenders, who they are near, other tracked offenders, are there patterns that develop in terms of the locations that they tend to frequent, are they associating with other offenders? You know, can we establish other patterns of behavior based on other folks who are being tracked? So can we establish a drop point or a chop shop based on the time that offenders are spending in a particular location where there are patterns of movement.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Interesting.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> So the idea is to take all of that, you know, aggregate data that GPS provides and move from the inclusion zone, exclusion zone kind of scenario to really digging deep and establishing patterns of behavior and really supporting the officer. Letting the officer know what types of information might need to be acted on.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> So everything that we\u2019re hearing in terms of big data as it applies to Google, big data as it applies to IBM, big data as it applies to Wal-Mart, that same application is coming to corrections.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Very much so. Very much so.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Interesting.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> And GPS is one of the \u2013 kind of the easiest forays into this because we do acquire so much data in that area.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> All right Joe, we\u2019re halfway through the program. Let me introduce you before we\u2019re getting on to the other topics. Ladies and gentlemen, our guest today is Joe Russo, he is the Director of the Corrections Technology Center of Excellence at the University of Denver, part of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, www.justnet<\/span>, j-u-s-t-n-e-t.org, www.justnet<\/span>, j-u-s-t-n-e-t.org. Okay Joe, let\u2019s go into the other topics that we are talking about. And I find this to be fascinating, so many companies now are moving away their own vehicles, moving, I\u2019m sorry, moving away from offices and putting people out in vehicles all the time and it sounds like that\u2019s what we\u2019re talking about with parole and probation agent correctional officer mobility. Talking about virtual offices, talking about tablets, talking about giving that individual all the tech they need to stay in the field.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Yeah, exactly, and this is something that\u2019s been discussed, you know, for some time now. There\u2019s been a movement against getting away from the ivory tower of probation and parole work, getting away from central office and headquarters, making the offender report downtown typically to the officer.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Mmm-hmm.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> But in recent years, and in part prompted by economic issues, but a lot of agencies are looking at ways to get the officers in the field where the offenders are, where they live and work and where they exist. Georgia, perhaps, is the leader in this in terms of, you know, actually shutting down offices and requiring parole officers to maintain virtual offices out of their cars. And the agencies provide the officers with everything they need, SmartPhones and tablets and laptops so there\u2019s really to come to a physical office. And in this way the early reports are that they\u2019re seeing success because they\u2019re able to make more contact with the offenders, more sustained contact in their environment and the outcome so far have been very positive.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Well I remember years ago when I worked for the United States Senate, one of the folks there gave me a laptop computer and then a couple weeks later said, you know, is the use of the enhanced technology of a laptop computer changing the way that you work? And I\u2019m going, well, no, I mean, just because you gave me a laptop doesn\u2019t mean that I\u2019m any more proficient. I mean, I report to the office every day and there is a desktop. How exactly is the laptop going to assist me beyond office hours? I mean, I understand beyond office hours, having a direct link to the computers but, you know, so sometimes I get the sense that we provide technology, laptops, tablets, cell phones, mobile fingerprint readers, again, sort of like with GPS, unrealistic expectations. So I would imagine this parole and probation agent, this correctional officer is well versed in terms of what mobile technology can do for them.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well that would be a necessary, you know, prerequisite obviously, you know, officers need to be somewhat tech savvy, be open and willing to learn perhaps new tools for them, you know, not everyone grew up with this technology certainly. So I\u2019m sure there\u2019s a learning curve for some officers. But certainly there needs to be openness. But it sounds like, you know, the agency made a decision from the top down that this is what they want and this is what they want to see. They don\u2019t want to spend their resources paying rental space throughout this, they want to spend their resources where they can make the most direct and positive impact on outcomes and that\u2019s the direction that they took. And, you know, just looking at it objectively, not having to come and go from an office increases efficiencies over and above the, you know, the cost savings for office space. Folks need to be in the field, officers need to be in the field where the action is. And that\u2019s just common sense and I think that, you know, more and more agencies are coming to that realization and acting on it.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Is mobile fingerprint readers involved in this, drug testing equipment, I mean, how far are they taking it?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well I think that that might be part and parcel. I\u2019m not aware, but the primary objective is you take the office and you put it in the car.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Okay. And that makes a tremendous amount of sense to me because why be in the office when you can be out in the field especially if you\u2019re doing surprise visits. And I understand that a lot of the visits need to be scheduled because, you know, the mother or the father, the family member, the sponsor, volunteers can be there and work with the parole and probation agent and work with the offender, so I understand that. But the idea of a spontaneous visit to that person\u2019s place of work or where that person lives or where that person socializes, especially in the evenings, makes an awful lot of sense to me.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well particularly with, you know, as GPS grows in terms of tracking offenders or if, you know, one day offenders are bringing their own device and we\u2019re tracking offenders by their phones and, you know, phones are pretty ubiquitous at this point and it\u2019s only going to grow more so. You know, perhaps we have the capability in the future to go where the offender is and not go necessarily to the house or the workplace.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> That would be interesting. So, in other words, GPS tracking, you know exactly where that person is and suddenly, voil\u00e0, you pop up and say hi.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well and that\u2019s part of the larger, you know, internet of things, movement that\u2019s going on in society is that, you know, we have all these sensors that are out there. We have all these machines that can be connected to the internet. They all can be networked and provide useful information. So, you know, if a GPS tracking device is linked to an officer\u2019s GPS tracking or a GPS system in their car, which tells them what route to take to get to the offender\u2019s location, if these systems link up and communicate and tell the officer, you know, don\u2019t bother making that home visit because the offender is not home.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Interesting, very, very interesting. I mean, so we\u2019re talking about really moving community corrections well into the 21st<\/sup> century and really bringing a sense of the internet of things, of big data, of mobility, of tracking, of, you know, as some people have hoped for, the mobile ability to say, hey, this person is now using drugs, this person is now using alcohol. I mean, it does bring us into contact with the people on supervision to a much more powerful degree than we have in the past, which, you know, when I was in the state of Maryland any sense of intensive contact or intensive supervision was two face-to-face contacts a month. Now we\u2019re talking about almost continuous contacts if we choose to do it and if we have the software through big data to analyze what\u2019s going on.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Yeah, absolutely and within that capability obviously comes challenges, right. We have somewhat privacy issues although those are mitigated because of the status of our offenders but you have the information overload issues and we\u2019re already seeing that with just GPS technology and the need to manage that data. So obviously, you know, the more sensors we try to tap into, the more connection of machines we try to leverage, the natural result is we have exponentially more data to sift through and figure out what\u2019s important and what\u2019s actionable and what\u2019s not.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> And that\u2019s why I\u2019m hoping whoever\u2019s developing all of this develops the algorithms to allow us to make sense of the data because there\u2019s no way an individual parole and probation agent, I would imagine the average caseload in this country is somewhere in the ballpark of 150 individuals per parole and probation agent, if you had half of those under these enhanced sensors, so you\u2019re talking about, what, 75 individuals where data is coming in on a day-to-day basis. That would easily overwhelm that human being, that parole and probation agent, that correctional officer. That person could never keep up with all that data. So somehow, some way, somebody\u2019s got to figure out a way of making sense of that data.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well exactly, there\u2019s no question about it. And then the worst possible scenario is you\u2019re overloaded with so much of this data and we don\u2019t know which of this data is important and which is not, that the officer doesn\u2019t have time to do the direct contact interventions that we know are so important.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Exactly. So we have to plow through the invention of new data and we have to plow through the invention of new algorithms to make sense of all that data.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Absolutely.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Okay. Technology and driving restrictions, we have say in the final five minutes of the program. Once again, everybody has hoped for that piece of technology to the point where the car simply would not start for those on drinking and driving programs, that the car simply would not start. Now there are cars out there with locking devices that they do blow into the tube and if they blow over a certain level that car will not start. So that exists now, right?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> That exists now and that works, you know, quite well. One of the biggest ways or the most common ways for an offender to work around that type of a scenario is to simply install Interlock on a car and meet the judge\u2019s requirement and then drive another car.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Yeah, drive another car.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> So that \u2013 it\u2019s pretty simple to get around. One of the Interlock providers has recently bought a patent on technology that\u2019s been around for a while but is only now being seriously evaluated for viability. And this technology basically looks to identify driving behaviors. And so what we\u2019re looking at are ankle bracelets that can detect the movements that are consistent with driving a car. So essentially there\u2019s a unique physiological signature that\u2019s associated with driving. So if you think about the foot movements that you do without thinking, your acceleration, your braking, sensors can determine your speed. And all of these things put together, you know, you mentioned algorithms just before, these algorithms are designed to identify those signals that are consistent with a driving episode and then alert officers that this is occurring.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Sort of like a black box for automobiles or a black box for human beings?<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well it would be for human beings because, again, with the Interlock system we don\u2019t want to monitor the car. We want to monitor the offender. So these as envisioned, these would be ankle device, ankle bracelets that detect the movements of the foot.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Oh, that\u2019s interesting. So all of that is not necessarily biologically based, it is foot based.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Yeah, it\u2019s more mechanically based.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Oh.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> It\u2019s based on the physiology of what you\u2019re doing and how you\u2019re doing it. So if you think about it, there are very few actions or movements that you would make that are consistent with driving that are not related to driving. So you\u2019re not necessarily pressing down, for example, on an accelerator.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> That is interesting. That is really interesting. So the bottom line is that, you know, right now we have breathalyzers, right now we have blood tests in terms of substance abuse, but you\u2019re actually talking about something that actually measures the movement of the foot. I would love to be in court to establish that \u2013 to establish the legal basis of that. I would imagine that\u2019s going to be a fight from the very beginning. But if you could introduce that it would be revolutionary.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> Well exactly. I mean, any new technology obviously faces those legal hurdles. And certainly that would just be one piece of evidence against an offender and our standards of evidence are much lower than a new criminal case. But if you have indication that this offender is driving when he shouldn\u2019t be driving or he\u2019s driving a car that\u2019s not \u2013 that doesn\u2019t have Interlock installed in it, then that provides an investigative lead for officers to go and find other information. So it wouldn\u2019t necessarily be the nail in the coffin but it would be one piece of evidence.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> Being it\u2019s not physiologically based, that could also apply to drugs as well.<\/p>\n JOE RUSSO:<\/b> You know, the same thinking and theory. Another example that comes to mind is folks have developed handwriting analysis as a method of determining impairment. And so what they\u2019ve looked at is, you know, the way that you sign your name physiologically is altered if you\u2019re impaired. Now it may look exactly like your signature sober but the movements, the signals from your brain to your hand create very distinct and minute differences in the signature. So if we capture a computerized signature of an impaired person, there\u2019s research that suggests that you can tell if someone is impaired simply by the way they\u2019re writing their name versus how the name looks.<\/p>\n LEONARD SIPES:<\/b> I\u2019ll tell you Joe, it\u2019s always a fascinating conversation when you and I talk about corrections technology. That\u2019s one of the reasons why this program is one of the more popular programs that we do. Ladies and gentlemen, we\u2019ve been talking today to Joe Russo, the Director of the Corrections Technology Center of Excellence at the University of Denver, part of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, www.justnet<\/span>, j-u-s-t-n-e-t.org, www.justnet.org<\/span><\/a>. Ladies and gentlemen, this is talking DC Public Safety. We appreciate your comments. We even appreciate your criticisms. And we want everybody to have themselves a very, very pleasant day.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Community Corrections Technology-National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center DC Public Safety Radio http:\/\/media.csosa.gov Radio show at\u00a0http:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/audio\/2014\/05\/community-corrections-technology-national-law-enforcement-corrections-technology-center\/ LEONARD SIPES: From the Nation\u2019s Capital, this is DC Public Safety. I\u2019m your host Leonard Sipes. Back at our microphone is Joe Russo, Director of Corrections, Technology, Center of Excellence at the University of Denver, which is part […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminaljustice","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pBoKk-iX","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1175"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1438,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175\/revisions\/1438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}