Comments on: WI: Homelessness becomes the reason for a GPS bracelet and new felony charges for refusing

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 23:17:31 +0000

In reply to David.

David

That is a great point. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Is he going to go to the library, the bus station, a socket on the wall at the police station? This is basically a set-up, designed to make the person fail and get back in the system.

It is one thing to be on probation with a monitor, but this here is something I just cannot wrap my head around when I hear that the supreme court is fair and non-partial? We did our time, yet it seems those of us on the registry are going to do our time all the way to the grave, which is basically the same as a life sentence.

Maybe more ammo for F.A.C to give evidence of how we are treated un-humanely. My thoughts come to mind of Double Jeopardy.

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 23:05:15 +0000

In reply to Sailtime. Sail Just speaking the truth my friend

By: FAC_Media

FAC_Media — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 23:04:48 +0000

In reply to David. This is horrible like most on probation gps and transient this is what they face on a daily and officals do little to push back.

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 22:56:58 +0000

In reply to No end..

@No end

The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. The paper cannot speak or make decisions. But I 100% agree with you. The registry is a huge example of constitutional let downs. Where did the paper protect us from retro-active punishment, and for life with a low chance of being removed.

They also make up laws, ordinances and rules that no other groups of people have to abide by.

By: David

David — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 22:50:50 +0000

If he's homeless, then how is he expected to charge the battery in that anklet? If he uses a public plug, he could be arrested for theft of services...maybe he coukd go to the sheriff's department everyday and charge it. Or better yet, one of his representatives' offices that voted for this bull .

By: FAC Contributor #12

FAC Contributor #12 — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:37:39 +0000

In reply to RM. SCOTUS held that this constitutes a search, as you point out.

By: Sailtime

Sailtime — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:24:29 +0000

In reply to CherokeeJack. That's a great response and observation cherokee

By: RM

RM — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:22:32 +0000

In reply to JJJJ. It is not legal or constitutional. The United States Supreme Court has already said so in Grady v. North Carolina (575 U.S. 306, 2015).

By: RM

RM — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 18:56:22 +0000

The United States Supreme Court has already rule that this type of electronic monitoring constitutes a warrantless search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The only question here is whether the search is reasonable, which it is not. It is not reasonable because the state caused the circumstances that led to the homelessness. Moreover, homelessness in the absence of demonstrable risk to the public does not reasonably justify lifetime 24-hour electronic surveillance. And here, because SCOTUS has already said that this constitutes a search, the police were on notice that this was violating an established right, which gives those unlawfully searched a cause of action against them individually.

By: No end.

No end. — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 18:37:03 +0000

This country has wiped its butt with the constitution for years now. If our government considered the constitution when making laws, there wouldn’t be a registry to begin with.