I'm a Florida criminal defense attorney and I've had quite a few clients with the same problem, the GPS unit sounds a false alarm rather frequently. Unfortunately, the defendant has little ability to do anything proactively about the alarms.
All you can do is comply with your conditions of probation. If the box sets off an alarm, either ensure that you are in proximity to the box or call in, as required by the type of alarm. Working in your favor is the fact that the problem is common and very well known, meaning that the PO's are used to dealing with it.
Absent something more, I suspect your PO is not going to violate you. In the years that I've been dealing with these units, I have never had a client violated over nothing but alarms from the GPS unit. Instead, the PO would want to have an entirely separate violation and/or confirmation that the person was actually away from the unit.
Please let me know if anything requires clarification.
Also, several customers have asked how they may direct a question to me in particular. If you specifically want me to assist you in your legal matter, just put "FOR JOSEPH" in the subject line and I will gladly pick up the question as soon as I am on-line.
While I'm a little further south, I've actually handled cases from the Panhandle all the way down to Dade County. While Pasco County does have a reputation for being rather strict, the same laws and rules apply throughout the state.
One such law is that the state has the burden of proof in a VOP. Meaning, the prosecutor needs to prove that you did, in fact, violate your probation by failing to comply with the requirements of the GPS unit. This would mean that the prosecutor would need to provide actual evidence of non-compliance as opposed to relying solely on the GPS records.
As to testing the units, I am aware of no such company or opportunity. The problem is that the units belong to the state and no defendant has the legal authority to have the unit opened, examined or tested. They are, however, subject to testing by the state if the probationer seems to be having problems with the unit. And no, there is no scientific data of which I am aware. Rather, having had several dozen clients, and several dozen PO's, dealing with GPS units, I am confident that the problems are common knowledge throughout the court system.
With all due respect, my answer was not "incomplete". While it may not be the answer you want to hear, it is legally sound. By way of example, let me tell you about a legal argument that is making its way through the Florida courts....
When a person is arrested in Florida for DUI, they are requested to submit to a breath test on an instrument known as the Intoxilyzer 8000. Based hugely on the results of this test, the person faces a conviction for DUI, possible incarceration, probation, fines and classes. One would assume that such a defendant would be entitled to examine the instrument, know the schematics and be permitted to test it.
Criminal defense attorneys throughout Florida, myself included, have been filing motions for about two years to gain access to the instrument. The manufacturer, CMI, has thus far refused to release anything to us. Our motions have been heard at the county court level and the circuit court level and are now reaching the appellate courts. As of right now, we have not been permitted to purchase one instrument, examine one instrument or test one instrument. In denying our motions, the courts have held that the instrument is tested by the manufacturer and by the state and, as such, the defense bar should agree that it is reliable.
As of this moment in time, your situation is much the same. The GPS unit is tested by the manufacturer and maintained by the state. As of right now, I am not aware of a single defendant that has been permitted to open, examine or test the unit in any way.
As a note, your rights as a probationer are less than those of a person charged with an original crime. A person charged with an original crime is presumed innocent and his charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, a probationer has already been found guilty and his violations only need to be proved to the greater weight of the evidence. Meaning, if the DUI defendant has been unable to gain access to the relevant instrument, a probation defendant has little hope of gaining access to the relevant information.
I regret that my answer is unfavorable, but please understand that it would be unfair to you (and unprofessional of me) to provide you with anything less than a truthful response.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).