The US embassy in India on ankle monitors claims that they are
for routine use and do not imply guilt.

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr013111e.html

The reference to ankle monitors is in this paragraph:

Some of those involved in the Tri-Valley investigation have been issued ankle monitors. Use of ankle monitors is widespread across the United States and standard procedure for a variety of investigations, and does not necessarily imply guilt or suspicion of criminal activity. An ankle monitor sends a radio frequency signal containing location and other information to a receiver. It allows for freedom of movement and is a positive alternative to confinement during a pending investigation.

What they have not pointed out is that for the most part
ankle monitors are used for tracking offenders to ensure that they do not commit a repeat offense; for tracking those who would have been incarcerated but the gravity of the crime is low enough to allow monitoring rather than full incarceration; and for keeping track of serious offenders who are released on parole, etc. Most news stories on ankle monitors suggest this. For a sample see

The move to high-tech tracking of inmates

Oklahoma and other states turn to satellite technology to free up prison beds – but do the savings outweigh risks?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0507/p02s02-usju.html

12 states use GPS monitoring

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091115/NEWS01/911150318/12-states-use-GPS-monitoring

However the leading exception to this general rule is…..you guessed it ….immigrants. For a detailed note on ankle monitoring and treatment of immigrants in general see

Letter from America: Still the Land of the Free?

Barbara Franz

Rider University

http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no1_2005/franz_letter.htm

The note emphasizes how the use of ankle monitors before roughly 2005, when the immigration authorities started using them, was restricted to keeping track of rapists and other classes of the convicted while on parole. It suggests that the ankle-tagging of immigrants from 2005 is part of a wider scheme of turning the pressure on immigrants in a manner that is often discriminatory, violative of human rights and amounts to harassment even if within the bounds of the law in a narrow, literal sense.

Here is another story of ankle monitors and immigrants, which draws attention to the sense of shame and trauma experienced by immigrants (even if not yet judged guilty) when monitors are put on them.