We can always have drones fly around watching them.

Would GPS tracking data have prevented this guy from suicide attacking his wife's workplace? It may help raise the law enforcement budget and collect some addiitonal fines for violations, but will it do anything to improve public safety?

I know someone who had one of those ankle tracking devices and the thing set off false alarms several times while he was sitting at home. It took more than an hour after confirming a false alarm before it's siren was reset, much to the annoyance of everyone in the neighborhood. Not really an effective use of resources.

So a bracelet will let police/corrections know the person is in a place they shouldn't be. Great, there's still the problem of Law Enforcement needing to be notified and then responding. So the person will have anywhere from 3-6 minutes to do what they want. Sounds like a lefty plan, all "feel good" but in the end won't stop a person from commiting a crime.

This is unenforceable window dressing and will do NOTHING to help.

Wouldn't both parties need to wear one? If the order says to not come in contact or within so many feet with the other, and the other is shopping at Mafair the restrainee must keep his or her distance.

restraining orders do nothing right now. if the person is caught they get another charge tacked on. it does NOT protect anybody or prevent crimes.

Are there enough GPS bracelets? How many people voted for Obama this last time around?

The worse case scenario is the situation at the Azana Spa shooting in which those women were killed. But the killer was already known to the Brown Deer police and they had a few times in which they could have arrested him, but choose not to do so, probably in violation of the Domestic Violence Laws, already on the books.

I don't understand how bracelets could be put on someone who has not been convicted of a crime --- or even charged of a crime.

Anybody can file for a TRO --- and unfortunately they are all too often used by spouses who are trying to get back at the other, or set up some precedent for an upcoming custody dispute.

I think that to force a GPS tracking bracelet on someone who has yet to commit an offense is not only a bad idea, but probably unconstitutional. If after the initial order it is violated, then that would be the time to order the bracelet. The violation would clearly indicate cause. If someone is going to commit violence against another, then a restraining order is not a deterrent.

I think it would only be fair if the person who took out the restraining order wore a device as well that would go off if the other person came within a specified distance. That would serve as early warning.

Obviously this would be meaningless in practical terms unless the would-be victim was also being tracked. Otherwise you could not prove a violation for being too close.

So why do this?

I notice that all of these schemes, which sound like lost chapters from "1984," involve complex, expensive private sector equipment that must be purchased and maintained with taxpayer funds, with extra personnel to work with it. Bigger government budgets, more staff, and more under-the-table action from the manufacturers kicking back to the buyers. Great idea. Ask Michael Chertoff.

Oh, and then there's that pesky Constitution, which Obama does not seem to have actually read.

Let's say the Azana shooter had the GPS monitor... What would have changed?

Obama can kill Americans with drones, and the libs are worried to "allow GPS monitoring of certain dangerous individuals receiving first-time restraining orders.”

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Libs are worried about 30 rd magazines and black guns but ignore drones klling American citizens. Yet are worried about GPS tracking of criminals? Strange world we live in.

It might be a good idea BUT I think the person that is ordered to wear it should pick up the tap for it NOT me (the tax payer) who has nothing to do with why these people have to wear it.
Just a thought..

Gov. Walker is spot on with this proposal.

In keeping with our philosophy of a smaller government, a less intrusive government, a fiscally conservative government, this is definitely both the proposal, and the direction we should be headed.

I anxiously await the day when my taxpayer money may be spent on a GPS chip for every citizen in America; perhaps, we could get a proposal from Gov. Walker to implant every newborn child in the state with a GPS chip.

We'd be better off issuing a firearm along with some training to the threatened person/persons....

The "device" should be worn by the victim, and it's called a gun.

Yes, wait till they violate the restraining order before you track them; makes perfect sense, or does it? It might make sense to those who would be required to wear them, who want to violate the restraining order. I wonder what those who initiate the order feel about that? After you are beat up, dead or a child has been kidnapped, it's a little late; Don't Ya Think? I am not quite understanding where some people are coming from. They want to take away guns from Honest, Responsible People, and let what appear to be violent people run around Freely. A recipe for certain disaster, against the Good, Honest, Responsible people in most cases : (

This sounds like "Big Brother". Let's at least wait until the person does something wrong, and then respond appropriately. Wearing a surveillance device will not stop someone who is "hell-bent" on harming someone.

FYI you cannot get a restraining order against someone unless something has happened and a judge is the one who hears the circumstances from each party and witnesses(if there are any) and decides if a restraining order is needed. It's not like someone can just walk in to the courthouse and demand a restraining order. Paperwork is filled out by the party wanting the order. The judge sees the paperwork and decides if there is enough evidence for a temporary order. If the judge decides to order the temporary order, then there is a court date set where both parties can attend to give their side of the story. Believe me.....a person who has had to get a restraining order against a person......even though you have that order it doesn't mean you are safe. I have had to constantly look over my shoulder. I never leave my home unless I tell someone where I'm going. I have to make sure my kids are safe at all times. It is not a nice way of living at all. Would the GPS system work for this problem? I'm not sure. I would gladly wear a braclet myself to make sure that the person is not around me hiding in a crowd. I do believe that the person the restraining order is against should have to pay for the braclet and the monitoring of it. I would gladly pay for my own without any hesitation. It would be so nice to be able to go to the store, a game, a park, etc. without fear.

Would Judge Prosser have to recuse himself if this came up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Aren't they "ALL NON-VIOLATORS"......that is until they violate the conditions for which they are wearing the GPS in the first place? Then it's probably too late.

Wow I have a restraining order against me and I would never try to violate it reasons is because my boyfriends ex is a phyco path and she would tell me nasty things and once even brought ppl to jump me an how did she get this res. against ME when she or was her intentions. She has came to my house I've called the police and you kno what they said? That since she has the res. on me that I have to let her but I can't go to her house the law is stupid this should be the other way around. Some people should have more evidence. Good thing it expires in 2015 because I want to meet y stepdaughter and I'm sure my b.f misses his daughter not fair that he doesn't get to see his daughter all because he made a mistake of even letting her have the blessing of having his child but w.e we all make mistakes but hers is one that I may not even be able to forgive

This is a nice idea but this better pertain to huge issues cause if I am ordered to wear one I would rather croak then let someone stalk me when they lied their way to getting a res.order against me this law system it so messed up

I know that Republicans like to claim they are against government intrusion into people's lives. Except, of course, when they want to.

I am opposed to this new plan. While I sympathize with victims of violence, I also believe in our Constitution which states you are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. A restraining order is not proof of crime, only a court order. Therefore, people who do not violate should not be treated the same as people who have violated and have commited a crime. Also, who would monitor all of these GPS devices? The police? I doubt they have the manpower, and how would they know where the petitioner was at all times? They might know their home and work addresses but if the respondent tracks the petitioner down at the mall or the library, how would GPS help the petitioner unless they were wearing a device to track their location? This is feel-good legislation that does no good.

The act states only those who have violated a TRO or injunction, and have been convicted are then candidates for a GPS bracelet. It also reads that gps info will be avail to those monitoring, which means corrections will be notified via an alert of the violator entering an exclusion zone. So then corrections will have to call law enforcement to respond. What does this all mean? Well for those who have home security you already know, an average of 5-10 minutes before police arrive. Sorry, but except for columbine, most active shooter incidents were over by that time.

So what really is this act? Its a feel good solution that won't do anything to make you safe. Sorry, but it is a typical lefty response and Shame on our righty gov for signing this and wasting 3 mil of tax payer money.

Read "Cindys Law" 2011 WI Act 266, which is highlighted in the article above. Yes in this article he is proposing an extension to this act.

IF you want to see GPS miss-use and all its epic failure, look no further than WI Dept of corrections use of GPS monitoring on P&P violators. Again, my point is, those that want to break the law, will do so when they want regardless of the bracelet.

THe answer to this is not what people want to hear. Petitioners must take responsibility in protecting themselves and to rely on the police not as their saviors, but as a support structure. Petitioners must have some sort of plan, weather its an escape and evade, family and friends or some sort of personal protection. But to sit and wait for a violator to enter an exclusion zone, then wait for the bracelet to send an alert to P&P who then must identify what jurisdiction the violation is occurring, locate a phone number then call the proper police dept, relay the info, then have an officer dispatched to the call which may take several more minutes to respond....sorry, but it is too late by then, and another Azana salon disaster has occurred.

MFIndian –

To be very clear and fair…

"Assembly Bill 175/Senate Bill 104 —Cindy’s Law. WCADV supported this bill because it provides an effective tool for the enforcement of restraining orders. The bill allows courts to institute GPS monitoring of restraining order violators. It was signed into law as 2011 Wisconsin Act 266 and takes effect April 24, 2012"

To Wit: "The bill allows courts to institute GPS monitoring of RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATORS..." [MY CAPS]

Hence, it simply does NOT pertain to anyone who has NOT VIOLATED A RESTRAINING ORDER...

2011 Act 266 "cindys law" was signed into law iand went into effect on April 24th last year.

Wow a whole 5 mil to make PD's more robust? On average, that means 50-60 cops to fill depts statewide. Boy that will really fill the budget cuts and layoffs to PD's within the last 4-5 years. Don't forget Milw PD alone is still down around 175-200 officers. I have no doubt that this NEW proposal will create some jobs.....

Your missing the point on the GPS monitoring. It only works if the person follows the law. GPS monitoring WILL NOT and HAS NOT stopped those already on it now (those on probation) from violating the restrictions or cutting them off altogether. P&P and the police are reactionary to these types of violations. Hence, no matter how state of the art new GPS systems might be, they still need to alert P&P, who needs to call the police, who again will be reacting to an event already occurring. end result, you haven't prevented or stopped anything.

MFIndian -

"Your missing the point on the GPS monitoring. It only works if the person follows the law. GPS monitoring WILL NOT and HAS NOT stopped those already on it now (those on probation) from violating the restrictions or cutting them off altogether. P&P and the police are reactionary to these types of violations. Hence, no matter how state of the art new GPS systems might be, they still need to alert P&P, who needs to call the police, who again will be reacting to an event already occurring. end result, you haven't prevented or stopped anything."

No, I am not missing THAT point at all, in fact, I do agree with you. TROs rarely work, and when they do, it is only with relatively normal people, who have good impulse control and just find themselves in a divorce situation where one spouse is using the TRO for custody or support advantage or the situation of the TRO is an once-in-a-lifetime incident.

Many people take the TRO as a threat to their freedom, "No judge is going to tell me what I can and cannot do!" The enforcement of a TRO is also not a high priority with the police.

I guess we will just have to wait until June and see what shakes out of the legislature to really see where all this ends up; we can write to our representatives, however, they typically are hearing and reading impaired. I am not optimistic about GPS or DNA proposals simply dying on the vine… I sincerely hope that I am wrong…

Definitely should make anyone who has faced a judge and been determined to be a threat to a person (s) wear a gps unit at all tines and all should be tied to a computer so if that person crosses the line barrier it lights up so a patrol car is sent immediately on its way, and then a report comes up with the reason for the report, the persons name and picture, where the victim of the report lives, and where the boundaries are to remind them or pick them up so as to keep our victims safe agian from this perpetrator.

I think that this could be a great idea. Then we could use less patrol to watch the violators and it is easier to keep track of them if they can be seen by using GPS.