The Law Offices of Joseph Lesniak, LLC
Free In-Person Consultation 484-441-7055

Supreme Court: GPS sex offender monitoring must be reasonable

One of the more important civil rights we all enjoy is the right to protection from government unduly poking its nose into our stuff. We have this right because the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees, among other things,

“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Unfortunately, the question of what should be considered an “unreasonable” search or seizure has been the subject of innumerable court rulings over the years, which makes it hard to answer. The same applies to the related question of what constitutes a “search” or “seizure.”

That second question came before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. And, although this interesting case originated in North Carolina, the reasoning presumably applies in any state.

The case involved a man who was adjudicated to be a recidivist sex offender. In such cases, North Carolina reserves the right to order offenders, as appropriate, to wear a GPS monitor around their ankles 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives.

For practical purposes, what that means is wearing a clunky, uncomfortable device all the time. Even worse, the ankle bracelet cannot be removed so the wearer is forced to be tethered to a wall during charging, which takes four to six hours every day.

The North Carolina man didn’t dispute that he’s a recidivist. He just wanted someone to consider whether this level of restriction on his freedom of movement was actually reasonable.

His hearing judge wasn’t interested. Both levels of North Carolina’s appellate courts glibly turned him away, reasoning that post-release sex offender registration and monitoring is civil -- not criminal -- in nature. Therefore, it could not meet the basic definition of a search or a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Not so, the U.S. Supreme Court said in an unsigned ruling. The Fourth Amendment applies to all searches and seizures, regardless of whether they’re done for civil or criminal purposes, the court noted. “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 high court then remanded the case back to the original court for consideration of whether the GPS monitoring program is, in this man’s case, reasonable or unduly burdensome.

Source: Courthouse News Service, “Sex Offender's Future Monitoring Faces Review,” Dan McCue, March 30, 2015

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • Super Lawyers
  • 2014 Top 40 Lawyer Under 40 ASLA
  • 2017 Top 40 Lawyer Under 40 ASLA
  • Avvo Rating 10.0 Superb Top Attorney Criminal Defense
  • TOP LAWYER 2017 | THE GLOBAL DIRECTORY OF | WHO'S WHO
  • Avvo Client Choice 2016 | Criminal Defense
  • Superb Rated Attorney Joseph Lesniak
  • National College for DUI Defense | MCMXCV | General Member
  • Daily Times
  • 10 Best 2014-2017 | 4 Years | Client satisfaction | American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys (TM)
  • Expertise | Best Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia | 2016
Contact US Email Us For A Response

How Can We Help You?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

The Law Office of Joseph Lesniak, LLC

The Law Offices of Joseph Lesniak, LLC
206 West State Street
3rd floor
Media, PA 19063

Media Law Office Map

maps