Being intoxicated while behind the wheel is irresponsible and potentially fatal for others, including the driver. Driving drunk can result in DUI/DWI arrests and can cost drivers thousands of dollars on average. Understanding the comprehensive financial implications of DUI is crucial for individuals to make informed decisions and take preventive measures to avoid such costly consequences.

What is DUI/DWI?

A DUI/DWI (Driving Under the Influence/Driving While Intoxicated) refers to criminal driving offenses resulting in hefty fines and penalties against the offender’s driving record. This could include thousands of dollars in legal fees, increased car insurance costs, court appearances, and even jail time.

DUI/DWIs may refer to driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, opioids, or other drugs. If a driver is pulled over for suspicion of DUI, an individual caught driving with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of .08 or higher can be arrested. Some states, such as Utah, have legal limits as low as .05 BAC or zero-tolerance policies. In fact, individuals can be arrested for DUI/DWI on a boat, electric scooter/moped, and even a bike.

In most states, arrested offenders may be required to spend time in jail for days or months, depending on the severity of the case. DUIs are an egregious offense and often require a lawyer to represent the offender.

The Financial Costs of DUI/DWI

DUI/DWI convictions can have a significant financial toll, often resulting in substantial fines, legal fees, and increased insurance premiums. The average cost of a DUI can vary from $6,500 – $13,500 or more. Though every case is different, depending on the location and circumstances of the offense, the financial costs can vary.

The list below outlines some estimated costs and expenses of DUI/DWI and possible additional fees.

• Depending on the state where the DUI occurred and if it is a first-time misdemeanor, bail can range from $500 – $2,500
• Legal representation can vary case by case but is estimated to be around $1,500 – $5,000
• Court fines may include:
  • Jail time ($10 – $300)
  • Sentencing fees ($100 – $250)
  • Probation fees ($200 – $1,200)
• Often, offenders will have to attend mandatory alcohol education classes, which can cost around $300 – $1,000+
• Offenders may also be assigned to alcohol monitoring devices or court-ordered testing, which may include:
  • Car breathalyzer/Ignition interlock device (IID) ($60 – $90 monthly, plus installation and calibration fees)
  • Remote handheld breathalyzer device ($10 – $20 daily, plus fees)
  • Alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet ($13 – $16 daily, plus fees)
  • In-office testing ($20 – $40 per visit)
• Other possible costs a driver could incur include:
  • Car towing/impounding ($100 – $1,200)
  • Hospital bills resulting from injuries ($100 – thousands of dollars)
  • Additional legal action against the driver if other individuals were injured or killed (hundreds – thousands of dollars)

Beyond the initial legal costs and fines, which can quickly amount to thousands of dollars, individuals convicted of DUI/DWI often face heightened insurance rates, mandatory alcohol education programs and alcohol testing, and potential loss of employment opportunities.

Personal Costs of DUI/DWI

A DUI/DWI conviction not only has financial impacts but can also have profound personal implications that may affect many aspects of the offender’s life. According to the American Judicial System, receiving a DUI can negatively impact a person’s mental health, including “the initial shock, anxiety, feelings of shame, guilt, the social stigma, and isolation.”

In most cases, the driver’s license will be suspended potentially causing even more stress and obstacles with transportation and maintaining employment. However, those convicted of DUI/DWI can find positive ways to cope with the mental toll, including therapy and strong support systems.

Choosing to never drink and drive and finding alternative safe rides home is the first step to avoiding these burdens and keeping the roads and other drivers safe.

Summer is a popular season for binge drinking, with 47% of summer days seeing an average BAC above .06%—higher than the national average throughout the year. However, there are many risks to consuming alcohol that may negatively affect summer fun.

Dangers of Drinking in the Sun

While drinking comes with its own set of physical and mental risks, drinking in the sun can exacerbate these issues. Consuming alcohol in the heat of the sun can affect speech, motor skills, and overall health. Even consuming just a few alcoholic beverages can increase urine production causing dehydration, especially in the sun.

According to the NIAAA, “alcohol not only increases the risk of accidents, but when combined with increased sweating in the heat and sun and frequent urination, drinking can lead to dehydration and heat stroke.”

If you do choose to drink this summer, make sure to stay hydrated by drinking plenty of water, using sunscreen, and remaining responsible by never driving after any alcohol consumption.

Drinking in Bodies of Water

Scorching summer days can call for a trip to the nearest pool, lake, or ocean to cool off. However, drinking in or around bodies of water comes with its own set of dangers.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 31% of all drownings involve blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of 0.10% or higher. Swimming sober is ideal but using life jackets can help prevent drownings, especially if alcohol is involved.

Drinking while boating also poses another danger—alcohol is the leading contributor to fatal boating accidents. Alcohol can not only impair a boater’s vision, balance, and reaction time but can also contribute to slips on deck, falls overboard, and dock accidents.

Boat operators with a BAC of .08% or higher are 14 times more likely to be killed in an accident than those with no alcohol in their system. Additionally, the CDC estimates that 27% of deaths involving boats, jet skis, and other forms of water transportation involve individuals with a BAC of 0.10% or higher.

Summer DUIs

Unfortunately, DUIs are common in the summer months and pose a serious threat to anyone on the roads. When going to social events or gatherings, if alcohol consumption is involved, never get behind the wheel and always find a sober ride home.

“There were 307 reported DUI arrests over [the 2023] Summer Blitz enforcement period. So far in 2024, there have been 58 fatal crashes in Colorado that involved an impaired driver,” reports the Colorado Department of Transportation.

Remember: You can save lives by choosing a sober ride home and creating safe habits should you decide to drink this summer.

As younger generations move into adulthood, the popularity of “Dry January” has become delegated to the entire year, rather than just a month. As this trend continues, many craft breweries, cocktail manufacturers, and even wineries are producing more non-alcoholic options.

Although non-alcoholic liquor has existed for quite some time, only in recent years have technological improvements allowed non-alcoholic liquor to maintain the majority of its flavor, without any alcohol. With these substantial improvements, the liquor industry hopes to continue to grow in an increasingly abstinent young population.

History & Background of Dry January

The practice of “Dry January” has been a challenge that many people have participated in for decades. However, it originated long before that in World War II era Finland. Aiming to save natural resources that might be used in the production of alcohol, the Finnish government encouraged people to completely abstain from drinking alcohol for the month of January at a minimum.

Referred to as “Raitis Januar”, or Sober January, the movement was a success for Finland, resulting in reduced alcohol consumption amongst the troops and population, which saved money and promoted welfare of the Finnish people and soldiers.

In the decades since the war, however, the idea of a Dry January did not gain traction until the mid-2000s, when it was shared as a challenge for people trying to start the new year off right. In 2013, the first official Dry January was hosted by the UK organization Alcohol Change, with thousands of people participating internationally every January since.

Changes in the Alcohol Industry

As younger generations have moved into adulthood, the popularity of making Dry January a lifestyle year-round has increased dramatically. The benefits of long-term sobriety can include better sleep, positive mental health, lower blood pressure, and reduced risk of liver disease.

In response to this shift, the liquor industry has worked to provide alternatives to alcoholic beverages, while still maintaining that same signature flavor. In Colorado, for example, many businesses are crafting non-alcoholic beers to appeal to this growing market, while others are experimenting with drinks that provide a buzz by using flowers, herbs, and other stimulants like chocolate rather than alcohol.

Keith Villa, creator of Coors’ Blue Moon, launched Ceria Brewing Company five years ago to tap into the market for non-alcoholic beer. According to Villa, the market for non-alcoholic beer is “growing double digits, typically 20-30% every year”. This growing market has greatly benefited the success of Villa’s most popular non-alcoholic beer, Grainwave, which claims to maintain the taste and foam of a traditional beer, except with significantly fewer calories—and the buzz or hangover that alcohol can cause.

Although the sale of alcohol has spiked since the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol appears to be less and less appealing for younger generations reaching adulthood. These trends can certainly change, but it seems only a matter of time until Dry January is no longer delegated to only one month of the year for many. As the alcohol industry adapts in tune with these societal shifts, the future of alcohol in our society remains uncertain.

Additionally, criminal justice reform advocates contend that cash bail has a disproportionately negative impact on people of color. Police unions and organizations across Illinois strongly condemned the legislation when it was initially passed, saying that the law punishes police officers and law-abiding citizens because it limits the power of police to stop crime and allows arrested individuals to be free to commit more crimes before they stand trial.

How Does ‘No Cash Bail’ Work in Illinois?

The law was initially set to go into effect on January 1, 2023, but several legal challenges delayed this. Although a lower court ruled the law unconstitutional, a 5-2 decision by the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the legality of the law, saying that the Illinois constitution does not mandate a monetary bail as the only way to protect the public or ensure criminal defendants show up for trial. The law then went into effect on September 18, 2023.

Even though cash bail can no longer be applied to arrested individuals in the state, judges can still determine whether those accused of specific felonies and violent misdemeanors (such as murder, sexual assault, arson, or burglary) pose a risk to others or the community. If a judge determines that a criminal defendant falls into either of these categories or is a potential flight risk, the defendant can still be held in jail prior to trial.

People accused of “more significant offenses” will have to appear in court within 48 hours of their initial arrest, even if they are not initially incarcerated. Criminal defendants not falling into these categories will be released on the condition of attending required proceedings and judicial hearings—at least until the date of their trial.

The History of Cash Bail and the Push to End It

Cash bail is the practice of requiring a specific amount of money that a defendant must post to be released from custody until their trial. This practice has existed in various forms for centuries.

In the United States, the practice of releasing criminal defendants before their trial, if they could pay a set amount of money, has existed for its entire history. The only element of the U.S. Constitution that limits this is the Eighth Amendment, which specifies that judges cannot require “excessive” bail.

However, this vague limitation on imposing cash bail has led to issues with defining what amount is considered excessive in each specific case. This problem has been amplified in the last half-century. According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, there was a fivefold increase in the number of people jailed before trials between 1970 and 2015, with more than 60% of these defendants being detained prior to trial because they could not afford to post bail. A 2022 federal civil rights report found that courts tend to impose bail amounts that are 35% higher for black men compared to white men, and 19% higher for Latino men compared to white men.

Despite efforts to eliminate cash bail in other states over the years, such as Alaska, New York, and California, those states have either rejected eliminating cash bail or rolled back previous reforms, making Illinois the only state to strike it down entirely.

Impact on Electronic Monitoring

Many advocates for this law have expressed concern that the end of cash bail could lead to more electronic monitoring of criminal defendants in the time before their trials. Because judges will no longer have the option to impose a cash bail, supporters of the law worry that judges will impose more electronic monitoring as a substitute for pretrial incarceration.

However, Cara Smith, the director of the Office of Statewide Pretrial Services (OSPS) refuted this claim, stating her office is not urging judges to order electronic monitoring as a substitute for cash bail. According to Smith, the law eliminating cash bail discourages electronic monitoring use because judges are required to apply the “least restrictive conditions” necessary to ensure the criminal defendant appears at hearings while protecting victims of the crime from imminent threat of physical harm.

Still, the office announced that by September 18th active GPS monitoring would be available to all counties at no cost to the county or defendant. The OSPS supports the use of electronic monitoring as a strategy for reducing jail populations, as well as monitoring domestic violence and other high-risk offenders to protect victims.

With 70 Illinois counties managed by OSPS with about 100 individuals on electronic monitoring each, it seems likely that the number of criminal defendants being electronically monitored in Illinois will increase as Illinois becomes the first state to enter a post-cash bail era in its criminal justice system.

However, enforcement of compliance with these programs varies between states, leading to different rates of repeat DUI offenses across the country.

How Does Ignition Interlock Work?

Car breathalyzer devices, also known as Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs) are small handheld devices that measure the amount of alcohol in the breath (Breath Alcohol Content, or BrAC). These devices prevent the vehicle from starting until a breath alcohol test is taken and passed.

Interlock devices require the driver to submit a breath sample, usually through a small tube. If the breath sample is adequate, the device converts the breath sample into an electrical current. If the client did not blow hard enough, the device alerts the client, who must continue to submit breath samples until the device indicates that the sample is sufficient. Through chemical oxidation, the alcohol from the client’s breath is accumulated.

Because an ignition interlock device’s fuel cell is designed to be sensitive to ethanol—a type of alcohol found in beer, wine, and liquor—IIDs detect and measure the amount of alcohol in the breath sample and compare it to a pre-determined level. If the driver’s breath alcohol content is higher than the pre-programmed level, the interlock device may disable the vehicle’s ignition, flash the lights, and sound the horn.

In addition, the vehicle usually cannot be started until the client passes a breath test or the device is reset by an IID service provider. If the client’s breath alcohol content is lower than the pre-programmed level, the ignition will start normally. Some interlock devices contain a camera to verify that the correct client is submitting the breath test.

IIDs also log several kinds of data including the results of the breath sample; the amount of time operating the vehicle; any attempts to tamper with, disable, or circumvent the IID; and the dates that the device is serviced.

History of Ignition Interlock Devices and Legislation

According to CDC, the first alcohol ignition interlock was developed in 1969 but interlocks with alcohol-detection technology did not become standard until the 1980s. In 1986, California passed legislation allowing for initial testing of alcohol interlocks to prevent repeat drunk driving offenders, with other states following suit. Federal legislation began to financially incentivize states with ignition interlock legislation, and today, all states have alcohol interlock programs.

However, the enforcement of compliance with ignition interlock devices varies significantly in each state.

Discrepancies in DUI Recidivism Rates Based on State Laws

Many studies have indicated that ignition interlock devices are highly effective in reducing recidivism and in turn, saving lives. While all states currently have ignition interlock programs, only 33 states and the District of Columbia have compliance-based removal laws. These laws mandate that drivers with an IID installed in their vehicle must have a specific number of violation-free days before the device is removed.

Examining this more closely, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) conducted a study with alcohol-impaired driving recidivism data from January 1st, 2016, to December 31st, 2019. For the purposes of comparison, two states with compliance-based IID removal laws (Tennessee and Washington) and two states without these laws (Arkansas and Iowa) were analyzed. From 2016 – 2019, Tennessee saw recidivism rates of 1.7% and Washington at 3.7%. Comparatively, in the two states without IID compliance laws, the rates of recidivism were 5.6% in Arkansas, and 6% in Iowa.

Although there are many other factors that can impact repeat DUI offenses across the country, the GHSA study indicates that mandating compliance with ignition interlock devices may help lower repeat DUI offenses—which account for a significant portion of drunk driving-related crashes and deaths.

In fact, several studies have shown that DUI recidivism rates can range from 21% – 47%. As such, laws that force DUI offenders to complete their ignition interlock program with an extended period of sobriety can help significantly reduce repeat DUI offenses. This not only helps reduce drunk driving deaths but also supports clients in taking the first steps to achieve long-term sobriety.

A recent study even indicated that if systems like IIDs were installed on all vehicles, 9,000 to 12,000 deaths could be prevented every year.

Although ignition interlock devices are not the complete solution to drunk driving crashes and deaths, they can promote changes in behavior that save lives, especially when regulations are enforced to mandate compliance.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Where Does Your State Rank in Drunk Driving?

Every day, around 37 people in the United States are killed in drunk driving crashes—about one person every 39 minutes. In 2021 alone, 13,384 people died in alcohol-impaired driving incidents. However, different regions of the country see varying rates of DUI arrests and traffic deaths as a result of drunk driving.

Using FBI crime statistics, U.S. Census Bureau data, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) DUI fatality statistics, each state can be ranked by the severity of its respective drunk driving rates.

Upper Midwest Plagued by High DUI Rates; Northeast Ranked Safest

The northwestern and north central U.S. is consistently ranked as the most dangerous region for drunk driving-related traffic fatalities and DUI arrests. Although exact rankings vary based on statistics used, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho are consistently ranked in the top 10 states with the most drunk drivers.

In Montana, for example, 45% of traffic deaths in 2020 were caused by drunk drivers. Additionally, for every 100,000 state residents, 6.92 people were killed in a crash involving a drunk driver and 8.39 drunk drivers were involved in a fatal crash. All three of these Montana statistics were the highest in the United States.

Other states with consistently poor rankings include Texas, Oregon, New Mexico, Missouri, South Carolina, and Maine. Texas had the highest rate of fatal crashes involving drunk drivers under age 21, at 0.92 per 100,000 licensed drivers.

The majority of northeastern states ranked among the safest in terms of drunk driving. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey place in the top 10 safest states, primarily because of low DUI rates and low traffic fatalities resulting from a driver over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.08.

Both Connecticut and Maine were exceptions to this trend in 2020. Maine ranked as the eighth worst state for drunk driving, primarily due to high DUI rates and a high percentage of traffic deaths caused by drunk driving, while Connecticut ranked as 12th worst.

Although being surrounded by states ranked poorly, Utah ranked as the second safest state for drunk driving in 2020, behind only New Jersey. In 2020, only about one in five traffic deaths in Utah were caused by someone driving over the legal limit BAC limit, the second lowest rate in the nation.

Even if your state is considered one of the safest in terms of drunk driving, you should always play it safe when it comes to driving under the influence. The next time you think about hopping in your car—despite feeling “okay to drive”—think again. Always have a sober ride lined up if you plan to drink, and help keep the roads safe for everyone.

In response, State Representative Rafael Anchía filed legislation to try to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. Although several of the proposed bills have died in committee, just seven months after the Dallas shooting, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill (SB) 1004 into law, making cutting off ankle monitors a crime in Texas.

Purposes of Ankle Monitoring

Ankle monitoring is generally used as an alternative (or precursor) to incarceration. There are several types of ankle monitors, including GPS location trackers and alcohol monitoring devices. GPS ankle monitors allow correctional officers to view real-life movements and exact locations of offenders. Depending on the type of offender, some ankle monitors confine individuals to house arrest, while others define exclusion zones that a person is not allowed to enter.

Alcohol ankle monitors allow correctional officers to detect if an offender has consumed any amount of alcohol at any time, rather than random or scheduled testing which can result in wearers drinking around testing times. 

After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions turned to remote ankle monitoring to keep convicted criminals out of crowded prisons, where the virus could spread rampantly. As the use of ankle monitoring technology increases in a post-pandemic world, states are creating new legislation to combat these challenges.

What Does TX SB 1004 Change?

In the past, cutting off or tampering with an ankle monitor was only an administrative violation in Texas. In 2022, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), 1,127 warrants were executed for people on parole or mandatory supervision who cut their ankle monitors.

The Dallas Medical Center shooting is only one of many instances in which criminally charged individuals have cut off their ankle monitors and vanished or committed further crimes while wearing these devices. By enforcing tampering with or removal of ankle monitors as a felony, law enforcement aims to dissuade individuals on remote monitoring from committing further crimes.

When TX SB 1004 goes into effect on September 1st, 2023, individuals who tamper with or cut off their ankle monitor will face an additional felony on top of their previous sentence in the state of Texas.

In 2021, there were 691 deaths on Colorado roads—a 50% increase since 2011. In the past two years, fatal wrecks involving impaired drivers have increased by 44% and Colorado saw the highest number of highway fatalities since 2002.

However, new legislation is paving the way for stricter alcohol monitoring for habitual DUI offenders.

What Does Colorado SB22-055 Entail?

In early June, Colorado SB22-055 was enacted, which includes increased monitoring for alcohol-impaired drivers as well as other notable changes from the previous law.

Beginning in January 2023, the new law will require at least 90 days of continuous alcohol monitoring for those sentenced to probation following a felony offense or third or subsequent offense for DUI, DUI per se, or DWAI.

Additionally, the new bill permits those with revoked licenses under certain circumstances to apply for early reinstatement with an ignition interlock-restricted license immediately, whereas existing law requires at least one month before applying for reinstatement.

SB22-055 also requires the judicial district’s probation department to pay the costs of the continuous alcohol monitoring device for those who are unable to pay using money from the offender services fund.

What is Continuous Alcohol Monitoring?

Colorado SB22-055 is the first law in the United States to require the use of continuous alcohol monitoring for DUI and DWAI offenders. Continuous alcohol monitoring technology, such as SCRAM Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (or SCRAM CAM), are wearable devices that can detect the presence of ingested alcohol around the clock. Unlike other alcohol testing technologies such as urinalysis or portable breathalyzers, continuous alcohol monitoring devices remove the need for in-person testing and eliminate the possibility of wearers drinking around testing schedules.

This type of alcohol monitoring technology may support long-term behavior change by assisting those who suffer from alcohol misuse or abuse with rehabilitation and maintaining sobriety.

With the requirement of continuous alcohol monitoring, could these new legislative changes mean safer streets for Colorado?

What Fees Are Repealed?

At every point in the criminal legal process, California state law authorizes counties to charge administrative fees. From booking and arrest to representation by a public defender, an individual can be obligated to pay a host of charges. Although state law authorizes such fees, local jurisdictions have the discretion over the specific fees to impose and the amounts to charge.

Fees related to the use of “continuous electronic monitoring” are repealed under the new law. However, the Legislative Council has ruled that while individuals cannot be required to pay for electronic monitoring post-conviction, they can be required to pay for it if ordered to a diversion program. Other repealed fees include those related to work furlough and home detention, drug testing, and probation supervision.

Unfortunately, in some instances, the fee elimination could lead to unfunded positions and programs. This could negatively impact public safety, especially if budget restraints prevent those who require additional supervision from receiving it.

Is Continuous Alcohol Monitoring Considered Electronic Monitoring?

California’s Penal Code defines “continuous electronic monitoring” as the use of worldwide radio navigation system technology, known as the Global Positioning System, or GPS. There are no mentions of continuous alcohol monitoring in the Penal Code.

Despite this definition, it is believed that Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (or CAM) could be considered electronic monitoring under AB1869. Due to the lack of clarity from the legislature, it is expected that counties will interpret AB1869 differently and will therefore treat the use of CAM as they see fit.

Potential Fiscal and Societal Impacts of the Legislation

AB1869’s fiscal impact on California’s 58 counties is projected to be hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Thus, huge budget deficits will be created in many counties. To backfill some of the lost revenues, AB1869 includes an appropriation of $65 million to counties beginning in fiscal year 2021-22 through fiscal year 2025-26. Furthermore, several budget bills have been introduced in 2021 that include additional backfill funding for counties. None of these bills have been enacted into law, so it remains unclear at this point how these lost revenues might be backfilled. 

Time will tell if AB1869 is good for California, its citizens, and their public safety. We can only hope that all repeat DUI offenders are ordered to continuously monitored sobriety, that those convicted of domestic violence offenses are required to wear GPS monitors, and sex offenders are ordered to intensive supervision. These resources are not only beneficial for the individual to be able to successfully complete their court obligations but are at the heart of public safety and security.

Know the Difference: is it Verification or Recognition?

There are two main tasks that facial recognition performs—verification and recognition. Verification is limited to the task of comparing a consensual biometric photo profile against another biometric profile. This is a referred to as “one-to-one” matching. An example is the unlocking of smartphones with facial identification. When setting up the system, the phone will register the phone’s owner’s face. Therefore, the only task when unlocking is to compare the phone handler’s face to the registered face on the device.

Conversely, recognition is the task of comparing a biometric photo profile against a database of biometric images to derive the identity of an individual. This is a referred to as “one-to-many” matching. For example, the FBI has access to an estimated 140 million face images through the Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services unit, which is authorized to use state DMV driver’s license databases.

Legislative Trends

Many states are working to limit and even ban the use of facial recognition technology by state and local agencies. Unfortunately, these broad restrictions may carry unintended consequences. Courts and community corrections agencies (probation and parole) regularly mandate individuals to remote alcohol testing for alcohol-involved offenses such as impaired driving or domestic violence. Additionally, COVID-19 supervision protocols have pivoted away from in-person supervision to mobile phone-based check-ins to supervise lower-risk caseloads. These devices have facial verification technology embedded in them to simply verify and authenticate the person’s identity. A broad moratorium on facial recognition would prevent their use and would also do the following:

• Increase jail populations by precluding the use of technology-driven jail diversion purposes
• Reduce public safety by necessitating the reallocation of personnel to conduct labor-intensive manual review of offender photographs for verification purposes
• Restrict judicial discretion by prohibiting the use of virtual, remote check-ins and other remote supervision tools critical to maintaining public safety and reducing jail populations

Public Policy Recommendation for Facial Verification

Distinguish between facial verification and facial recognition–technology embedded with facial recognition that verifies and authenticates a person’s image using one-to-one matching plays a crucial role in community supervision and jail depopulation. 

Infographic: Verification vs. Recognition