Today, the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Park v. The State, found that an ordinance requiring that a person who is classified as a sexually dangerous predator – but who is no longer in State custody or on probation or parole – wear and pay for an electronic monitoring device linked to a global positioning satellite system (“GPS monitoring device”) that allows the State to monitor that individual’s location “for the remainder of his or her natural life.” is unconstitutional.
The requirement, the court found, constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the 14th Amendment to the constitution.
The United States Supreme Court previously held in Grady v. North Carolina, that GPS constitute a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Precedent dictates that to be reasonable, a search ordinarily must be based on “individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.”
SCOTUS makes no sense! On one hand these laws can be retroactive, but parts of it are punitive? On one hand they uphold civil commitment, but THIS violates the constitution?
I sure hope that individuals subject to that lifetime requirement here in Michigan eventually succeed in getting that law tossed. Michigan’s Supreme Court intentionally ignores U.S. Supreme Court decisions unless and until an actual Michigan case reaches the higher courts. I had to wear an ankle monitor for 2 years and 3 days while on parole. I can’t imagine what it’s like to have to wear it for life. It malfunctioned several times when I wore it, and the burden was always on me to show that I didn’t tamper with it.
So in the future it will be probation for life then it will ok. That is what I got out of it. It even suggests they can add more types of offenses to life time probation. This idea seems to be repeated several times.
” 2 It may also be possible for the General Assembly to revise the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board Act to provide constitutionally for the GPS monitoring of certain sexual offenders.With respect to the potential rehabilitation of the Act, however, it is worth noting that other serious constitutional concerns about the Act separate and apart from the constitutional problem that forms the basis of our decision today have been raised in this and other cases. Our decision expresses no opinion about whether those other concerns are well-founded.
Exactly! That’s what I got out of his ruling. Very unsympathetic and seeming to apologize for his ruling and citing ways to make the laws tougher so they will not be able to be challenged again. I think this ruling will make things worse for the majority of offenders with lifetime probation for most sex offenses…
Couldn’t help but recalling and chuckling at NCs ridiculous argument in Grady v. North Carolina (cited several times here): “…the State argues that we cannot be sure its program for satellite-based monitoring of sex offenders collects any information. If the very name of the program does not suffice to rebut this contention, the text of the statute surely does:…”
Pretty depressing that this guy had to fight so long to get a ruling basically saying warrantless searches on individuals not in custody or under supervision are unconstitutional. What’s the word I’m looking for here? DUH!!!!!!!!
Also of note is the SCs procedural history regarding Park’s effort to challenge his designation by the SOR board as a predator. The idiocy of tiering aside, I think it shows the impossibility of disputing their conclusions, particularly those that can’t afford attorneys (which is nearly all of them).
One more point of interest here,
It’s a shame that Georgia did not reach this decision earlier, as in immediately after SCOTUS declared the very same thing.
Also, to reiterate what you mentioned earlier… That one has to go through so many legal hurdles to have the state go along with legal precedent established in a higher court.
Too much political bullshit for me.
It’s a very limited win for “us”. The ruling only applies to offenders who have completed their sentence and probation and were put on lifetime GPS as an afterthought. The judge even suggested making lifetime GPS as part of the sentence in the first place, then he would have no problem with it. So, now even more offenses will have lifetime probation with lifetime GPS in the original sentence. Not a huge win, if at all…
Bob,
Good point, but pretty sure that lifetime GPS monitoring would only apply to life sentences. This same opinion holds that lifetime GPS can’t be imposed once sentences are completed. Think the only way the state could get around that would be to amend all sex offenses to carry life sentences. Not saying that won’t happen, but seems pretty unlikely. At least in Georgia.
Florida, on the other hand…
Dustin,
I read the entire findings and the judge listed a bunch of offenses where he could see and recommend lifetime GPS. Does not have to have a lifetime sentence to receive lifetime probation and GPS. It is really a sad ruling when you read the bias of the judge that ruled on this, simply because it was so obvious that it was unconstitutional that he had no choice but to make this ruling. He was actually trying to help the legislature pass laws that would institute lifetime GPS so that they would never be able to be challenged as unconstitutional. He did not seem sympathetic to the cause at all…
I am not a lawyer, but that seems questionable. If the order says that monitoring has to end when supervision ends, then that is that.
Yes, the legislative could change all sex offenses to lifetime, but that would come with a fight even from the general public. The public would not tolerate everyone on the registry being in prison for life, especially as they learn what small infractions can put them or their loved ones on it. You would have much less approval for that than you do for the registry, which already seems to be heading toward a downswing. Yes, we have a prison-industrial complex, but going to prison for life for indecent exposure, or solicitation? Doubt that would be accepted without some serious debate. And, even if it is, it could also be challenged in the judicial. It’s more blatantly cruel and unusual than any other criminal law or sanction I know of, including SORNA.
Also, on the lifetime sentencing possibility, you would have much much much less plea deals being accepted. Nobody is going to plead out to a life sentence, unless maybe they are facing death? And even then, still a toss. This would create a huge burden on the courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, and so on. They don’t want life sentences either. They want to be able to snag quick wins, not long and drawn out trials with burdens of proof and so on.
FAC Legal, if you can do so without risk please chime in with some non-legal-advice opinion.
Anyway, there’s a lot of pessimism about this not being a good enough win, or not really a win because of some hypothetical new legislation. Plain and simple, the judge could have easily ruled against our community if he wanted to, without much repercussion. He ruled in our favor. Just like receiving praise or thanks, accept some good news when you hear it. Lavish it, for today it is a win. Why not have something to feel good about?
The public would not tolerate it? They would cheer it and prefer castration.
If a state Congress or the U.S. Congress wanted to make any sex offense punishable by lifetime probation or supervised release or whatever jargon, then those legislative bodies have to power to do so. But the statute at hand does not. And as far as guidelines go, they are only recommended and not actual statutes. We must all fight these issues as they come up in our individual cases and collectively when needed.
This is so good. It is a common-sence decision. Believing for many more decisions that are based on fact and common sense!
It is happening, albeit slowly that the entire registry scheme will come down.
@ Nicholas:
Not entirely. I figure the USCS will eventually (but no time soon) rule that registration stops when sentences are completed, but continues for those on parole or probation.
I actually wonder if states that enacted other notification laws outside the registry did so under the prediction that the registry will sooner or later be held unconstitutional. But it’s really hard to give any legislator credit for that kind of foresight.