A North Carolina appellate court ruled that a sex offender cannot be forced to wear a GPS monitoring device for 30 years because there is no evidence to show that GPS tracking protects the public.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina ruled that, “absent any evidence that satellite based monitoring is effective to protect the public from sex offenders, the trial court erred in imposing SBM on a sex offender for 30 years.”
A copy of their decision can be found here: State v Griffin – NC
The defendant in that case spent more than a decade in prison for abusing his girlfriend’s daughter. GPS was not part of his original sentence, but upon his release, probation tried to impose that condition and the trial court allowed it.
The appellate court, however, reversed. Based on a recent prior case, State v Grady, that was decided a few months ago, the state would need to demonstrate that the search (GPS tracking constituted a search) was “reasonable” in order for it to not be considered an unreasonable search and seizure and therefore unconstitutional.
The court found the lack of evidence that GPS tracking is effective as the catalyst for making this requirement unreasonable.
Correct decision and may I add in my county our sheriff’s office has no way of exact and accurate tracking of any suspect fitted with a GPS device.
Lately close to my home a violent offender cut off his device and 3 weeks later he was discovered 1000 miles away.
Agencies don’t have either the manpower nor the technological science to keep track of each individual’s movement.
JEV
here is another win out of NJ. here they attacked the retro from an increase sentence perspective
https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/appellate/published/a2388-16a3132-16.pdf
Thanks – we will post this!
Not exactly the ideal spot to post this. Figured since FAC has a soft spot for John Oliver that I would point out that his most recent episode on prosecutors is pretty good:
Sounds good now. Unfortunately, North Carolina’s Supreme Court will have the final say. They may overturn the lower court’s decision. Happens all the time, especially where an important issue is raised.I had to wear one for 2 years and 3 days while on parole. Just dealing with the routine malfunctions of the device was a pain in the … .
Gerald,
I had to wear one of those things for 7 months before the JUDGE told them to take it off me. They would come by to “check on me” and while I was there, in my “zone” it would read that I was “absconded”. I took pictures of it flashing red because the probation would say “its ok, we know about it”—then try to have me violated.
There was a BIG story in Broward County about it. They had one offender IN COURT, with his attorney, and the probation stated that he was “at home”.
Well, you should have seen the look on their faces when the judge asked the person (with his attorney–under judges orders to be there) to stand up. The judge asked the probation Dept to explain themselves on how this person could be compliant and be home, yet 7 miles away, in a courtroom……..
I wish the courts here in Missouri would see things the same way. But unfortunately we do not have enough support for individuals to go that far up in the court system. Most do not have the money and there isn’t an organization here that will help. We have lifetime supervision with GPS monitoring but no one is able to challenge it in the way it’s needed.
@ Candace
Lifetime gps monitoring has been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court as it directly violates the 4th Amendment…assuming you are not on probation that is.
Like the decision in this case here, gps monitoring amounts to a “search.”
The decision by the Court is binding over any states law regarding that matter. To challenge this you need not go any further into the system than the circuit courts… maybe. Court systems are funny things.
Either way, hope this info helps.
@ FAC, ty for this. It’s encouraging information.
Can you cite the case? I am not aware of any such ruling and to my knowledge, Missouri still has lifetime GPS monitoring.
I’ll look for it when i have more time, aka, when i am not at work.
I want to say it was case originally out of either north or south Carolina, decided by scotus in 2016.
@ Candace
Follow this link for an easier to read version of the Case I had mentioned above:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0330/GPS-monitoring-of-sex-offenders-for-life-Supreme-Court-reverses-N.C.-case
The case was Grady v. North Carolina (14-593). Decided in 2015.
Yes, I realize that both of these are from the same state now… have I mentioned that the Courts can be funny things?
I think I found it.:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/14-593/case.pdf
I read what the Supreme Court said the GPS tracking was considered a search. However, the SC did not rule that it was unconstitutional because neither the state nor Grady showed how the program was reasonable or unreasonable. For now, the GPS tracking is still active in many states. Someone has to argue how the tracking is unreasonable. In Missouri, you have to charge the GPS tracker for 3 hours every night. So you have to have it plugged in while you are sleeping. Also, you can’t go outside of a 100-mile radius, which means that a person can not do any job that requires them to travel. It subjects them to public humiliation when they are seen wearing a GPS tracker on their ankle.
Candice – in FL the legislature just passed a minimum mandatory sentence for registration violations (any) of 6 months on a GPS. Given all you cite and more, it will be part of our ex post facto challenges.
Big win! Thanks for sharing.
Boy, oh boy… you can tell its an election year.
FAC,
I know all stories that you put out cant all be wins for us. And I understand that there will be “low spots” AKA. Dips in the road of life. But right now the train is on a roll!!!
People are seeing how stupid these “Punishments” violate our rights.
I just hope that, before I die (which isnt in the to far future) that I will be able to die without the “living legacy” of being labeled a sex-offender