The US Supreme Court ruled over a North Carolina man and registered sex offender, who was contesting a prior decision by a lower court to have him GPS monitored for the rest of his life.
The Supreme Court justices wrote in an unsigned opinion: “The state’s program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject’s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search. That conclusion, however, does not decide the ultimate question of the program’s constitutionality. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches…. The North Carolina courts did not examine whether the state’s monitoring program is reasonable — when properly viewed as a search — and we will not do so in the first instance.”
Torrey Dale Grady was ordered to wear a GPS monitoring ankle bracelet because of a 2nd degree conviction of sex offense back in 1997 and his later conviction of “taking indecent liberties with a child” in 2006.
Two years ago Grady was ordered to wear the GPS anklet 24 hours a day so that authorities could “track his movements.”
The justices pointed to the obvious violation of the 4th Amendment in that “the State’s program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject’s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.”
The non-consensual attachment of a monitoring device to Grady amounted to a search and therefore coverable by the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court stated: “The North Carolina courts did not examine whether the State’s monitoring program is reasonable – when properly viewed as a search – and we will not do so in the first instance.”
There are similar laws in 40 states across the nation which call for “some type of GPS monitoring of sex offenders, including eight states that monitor them for life.”
In California, GPS is used to monitor offenders to decipher their “location, speed of movement and direction of movement.”
This data is used in conjunction with several law enforcement agencies, becomes an investigative tool and has high value as “intelligence” for identifying associations of suspects and alleged cohorts.
However, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inspector General published a report in 2014 showing that the state’s Jessica’s law provides a false sense of security to the public because it does not prevent more criminal instances.
The only purpose it serves is to assist law enforcement in finding suspects quicker after the crime has occurred.
The initiative still allows sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet from a school or park which is a reasonable walking distance.
Shockingly, this governmental report found that “less than 1 percent of the violations were for sex-related crimes.”
This means that the common belief of the public that “sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism compared to other types of felons” is an assumption which was an underlying premise that led voters to enact Jessica’s Law in the first place.”
Three years ago, the National Institutes of Health determined a report that out of 516 high-risk sex offenders studied, those without GPS strapped on were 3 times more likely to commit a sex-related parole violation; however, this device was viewed simply as a “monitoring tool” and not particularly effective when judged against the presence of a police car patrolling a neighborhood or near a school zone.Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com on Instagram.