NC Supreme Court affirms limitation of lifetime GPS monitoring for registrants

By Will Doran. . . Sex offenders have rights, too, and in some cases the state has been violating those rights, the NC Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The ruling concerns people who have been ordered to submit to satellite-based monitoring for the rest of their lives, which forces them to wear a tracking device so law enforcement can track their location via GPS using an ankle bracelet.

Most states don’t have lifetime monitoring at all, the Supreme Court wrote. And only in North Carolina and California can offenders be forced to undergo lifetime monitoring without the option for appealing it, and without regard for the severity of the offender’s crime.

But in North Carolina, that rule is now no more. In a ruling written by Justice Anita Earls, the court ruled that it’s unconstitutional for North Carolina to order people into lifetime monitoring simply for recidivism — committing a second offense — and no other reason.

“We conclude that in such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment … prohibits the mandatory imposition of lifetime SBM on this class of individuals,” the court wrote, using SBM to refer to satellite-based monitoring.

The judges cited a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Fourth Amendment is intended in part to “place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.”

Once people are done with their prison sentence, probation or parole, the court wrote, the state can now only order them to undergo lifelong GPS monitoring under certain circumstances.

Depending on the details of the crime, an offender could have what are called “aggravating factors” on his or her record. Having aggravating factors is one reason the state can still order lifetime monitoring. So are a few other specific circumstances, such as an adult convicted of statutory offenses with a victim under 13 years old, or someone deemed to be a sexually violent predator.

The kind of person it would not apply to is someone like Torrey Grady, who brought Friday’s case to the Supreme Court in the first place.

Read the full piece here at the News&Observer.

The decision may be seen here.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Viewing 33 reply threads
  • Author
    • #59042 Reply

      David G

      What about michigans laws now… Will it affect those?

      • #59054 Reply

        michael Kuehl

        In Michigan, Abigail Simon was convicted of having sex with a 6’3′, 220 lb. biological man whom she claimed raped and terrorized her and was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole monitoring with an anke tether/”bracelet” she can never remove (not even when sleeping, bathing, showering, having sex with a spouse or paramour) and public sex-offender registration with her mugshot, name, and address on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and humiliation. All this for a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibitum crime, a woman who has never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” or to anyone or even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age. To call all of this insane is an understatement; it’s beyond insanity.

    • #59044 Reply


      I still don’t think anybody should be subject to lifetime monitoring. If a person is considered that dangerous, they just shouldn’t be out. It’s cruel and unusual to allow a person to be out among the free and incumbered with the constant reminder that they will never be like them.

    • #59053 Reply


      It seems that this decision, while helpful, is limited by the oft-repeated and dangerous conflation of “seriousness of offense” with actual risk of recidivism.

      Enhanced monitoring would presumably be targeted towards individuals with an elevated risk of recidivism. But it is not. It is targeted to individuals with a higher level of perceived “seriousness of the offense.” The two areas do not always correlate.

      That is, the seriousness of the crime is not necessarily related to a higher risk of recidivism. In most cases GPS monitoring is not applied with the intent of watching people with a higher risk of re-offending. It is applied to those individuals who the criminal justice system deems to have committed more heinous crimes. That calculation shows that GPS monitoring is nothing more than a punishment. Often a retroactively (ex post facto) applied punishment which only serves to harm the individual and his/her family.

      Such an invasive and devastating tool (GPS ankle bracelet) should be reserved for those people who the state can prove (through data, not emotion) have a high risk of recidivism. I think this is unlikely as long as the states are incentivized to expand monitoring (with contractual benefits with the GPS services). The states will not pursue a rational approach to GPS monitoring unless the taxpayers can be shown that their money is being misspent.

    • #59050 Reply

      Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN Ret

      Why does it take the state supreme court to figure this out? What is wrong with the legislators? Did they miss that class on the Constitution in middle school?

    • #59075 Reply


      Who maintains the GPS units that the state or general public ostensibly benefit from? That job is certainly worth a lot of money. ~200k per year?

    • #59076 Reply


      paint em black and force em to work for free for benefit of those of superior rights and priveleges? — epitomi of the servitude prohibited by the 13th amendment.

      Restitution Now!

      • #59575 Reply


        interesting decision. from new york times:

        “Judge Rules Terrorism Watchlist Violates Constitutional Rights”

        deja vu?

    • #59079 Reply


      Capt. Munsey,

      They know. They have to have an idea when they come up with these statutes, especially with the judicial momentum challenges have gathered in recent years. I think it’s as simple as throwing red meat to the voters, the usual scare/show all the parents how they’re protecting your kids, and then running for the exits from one session’s laws to the next set of headline-grabbers before the next election cycle once the last-decade statutes are invalidated. Purpose served, goal achieved – “we tried everything we could to protect your kids, but those damn liberal judges keep fighting to let Willie Horton back out on the streets.” They get exactly what they want from these laws, these laws are NOT about protecting anyone and they know it, they’re about reelection so they achieve exactly what they set out to accomplish. The evidence mounts when the state AG and DPS/relevant State parties can not only not provide solid data to defend the laws, many don’t even seem to have the will to attempt to do so because they see the writing on the wall.

      State Legislatures 1, State administration and AG 0, some registered citizens (a long, hard-fought, in most of these cases) 1.. All that’s been wasted pf course are many years, millions of dollars, and lives of individuals and families to get back to square one. Or in this case, 2007

    • #59082 Reply


      Will, this monitoring thing is a bit off centered. So who is monitoring who? Now lets throw away the bible and its principals just for a minute. Who wants to dominate who? Oh yes we will give you a second chance when you come out of prison but you will have to wear a monitor for the rest of your life so we can keep track of you. Its for public safety.
      Is that prevention? I wondering if a monitoring device could of prevented the killings in El Paso or Dayton. From the simple internet encounter to the person that actually had a victim or actually did harm to another. One wonders who induces the conscience of another or are we all victims of our own device. So who tresspasses against who to be blunt about it.
      Does man want to dominate man in a lot of this crafty sex registry ordeal. Correction is good but who corects the mind of another. True Justice is good if one knows how to tie their shoes right. Murdering one is bad enough but Murdering one with this sex registry inducement in many cases is a bit bleak and a black mark on Government and “We the people”. Where are the values of the constutition today.

    • #59084 Reply

      linda shedlock

      Along with lifetime monitoring which is invasive how about lifetime probation for first time crime of looking at child pormn. No actual victim , Just 3 pictures !

      • #59108 Reply

        K. Fish

        In regards to the comment above about ‘no victim, just three photos of child porn’… yes, there are three victims. Please don’t discount where those photos came from in the first place.

        • #59112 Reply

          Robin Vander Wall

          I suspect what Linda means is that “looking” at previously created images shouldn’t be weighted as heavily as “creating” the pornographic image in the first place. Not everyone buys into the parvenu’s insistence that “looking” at an image is the same as “violating” the victim anew. And it cannot be said that everyone is “looking” for the same prurient reasons (law enforcement agents frequently “look” at these images….is that also a re-victimization?). Many reasonably minded people disagree about the presumption that every single viewing of child pornography “re-victimizes” the subject of the image. Even the Supreme Court has taken issue with this perspective by limiting victims’ ability to collect damages from a multiplication of image exposure. So, if the Supreme Court understands that there is a fundamental problem allowing for damages for every single instance of exposure, surely that must mean that there is intellectual disagreement with the raw presumption that every time a person “looks” at an image that already exists, he or she is “re-victimizing” the subject of the image. This is simply not universally accepted in the way that you appear to present it.

          • #59211 Reply


            Thank you, Robin, I don’t have to chime in on this one 🙂

          • #60022 Reply


            Exactly. After all, there’s plenty of videos online with terrorists in Iraq cutting peoples heads off. They dont turn around and call you a murderer if you watch one of the videos, then call you a violent offender and lock you away, so why should child porn be any different? Its one thing to give someone a sentence for looking at something, but to treat them as if they actually did the deed themselves or has a “victim” is nonsense.

    • #59086 Reply


      Who do you contact for removal?

      • #59114 Reply

        Robin Vander Wall

        Removal from what, exactly? SBM? Are you in North Carolina?

        • #59131 Reply


          Yes we are in NC

          • #59138 Reply


            Finally got through to the Dept of Community Corrections. They stated they have to wait and make sure there is no appeal. Once they get the go ahead, they will be removing bracelet.

          • #59140 Reply


            Appeal to which entity? The State Supreme Court’s website states the following in no uncertain terms:
            “The Supreme Court of North Carolina is the state’s highest court, and there is no further appeal from its decisions on matters of state law.”

            Now, I understand there may be a mechanism to appeal to the US Supreme Court – however, the case in question was already determined to be a search, and remanded to North Carolina to determine if GPS monitoring constitutes a “reasonable” search. The NCSC has just done what the USSC tasked it to do, and decided that said monitoring is not reasonable for the subset of defendants named – thus, on what grounds does Stein have to appeal?

          • #59144 Reply


            I guess anything is possible. That is what the NC Department of Community Corrections told an offender that is classified the same as Grady.

          • #59146 Reply

            Robin Vander Wall

            Ed, just for the sake of further clarification, while it is true that the N.C. Supreme Court is the final appellate court for determining matters of state law, it is not the final court for determining matters of federal law. And whenever someone challenges a state law as unconstitutional (and roots that claim in the federal constitution), the losing party has the privilege of seeking certiorari review of the state supreme court’s decision from the nation’s highest court. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” (Art. VI, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution). This is why Josh Stein (NC’s attorney general) may consider such an option. But I think he would foolish to consider it.

          • #59149 Reply


            Hi Robin

            Thanks for the clarification. How long does the state have to appeal?

          • #59152 Reply

            Robin Vander Wall

            2-4.114 – Criminal Cases—Petitions for Writs of Certiorari
            Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court by either party in a criminal case must be filed within 90 days after entry of judgment, but this time may be extended for a period not exceeding 60 days for good cause shown, provided the extension is requested at least 10 full days before the petition is otherwise due. See Rules 13.1, 13.5, Rules of the Supreme Court.

          • #59153 Reply


            Robin, Tj, Ed,

            When political society determined database need outweighs human need (MN>HN) they diminished humanity itself in favor of machine! That notion was sold to America with moral propaganda.
            This is where my point about the necessity of tending to the unnatural disposition of a citizen’s subservience to state database comes into play. Such an unnatural institution would necessarily need an agenda setter in place to keep the queered status quo (the ‘null’ in programming terms) intact.

            It has taken nearly three decades to get to the heart of the unconstitutional nature of certain uses of the database machine. SBM is continuous electronic search by government agents.

            So while Grady makes the point of asserting that such state uses are incongruous to ex post prohibition on punishment does not address the collateral implication upon the whole of the union. Point being the law was indeed in place therefore the wider intent must be in place as well. Packingham spoke to that as well concerning speech rights.

            I’m almost sure cert will be applied for but not granted, but the lack of congressional action upon MI v Snyder mandamus may truncate the high court’s normal tendency to defer to self determination for individual states. I’ll be keeping an eye on what J.G. Roberts does. Ultimately he held the onus on the Michigan case when denying Certiorari review.

    • #59094 Reply

      Art B

      Ruling: “Once people are done with their prison sentence, probation or parole, the court wrote, the state can now only order them to undergo lifelong GPS monitoring under certain circumstances.”

      For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The opposite reaction I predict in this situation is this: judges in NC will start sentencing everyone convicted of a sex crime to lifetime probation. That way no one is ever finished with probation and can therefore be subject to lifetime GPS monitoring.

      If this happens, what would be our (NARSOL) next step in preventing this?

    • #59095 Reply


      I believe that these people that commit another sex crime are the cause for so many restrictions being added to the already loaded restrictions. We need the 2 and 3 time losers to stay in prison for the rest of their lives. If they don’t learn the first time they sure as hell won’t learn a second or third time. Lock them up for life.

    • #59121 Reply

      ALD (Former Attorney Now Registered)

      The flaw is in the Courts. In Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and other states in these cases, there is one striking … and very glaring, similar issue… The evidence needed to oppose in a defense. When the States are sued, each Court opinion when issued in favor of the Plaintiff (the people that are suing in the cases challenging constitutionality), all of the Courts have opined that “the State (or Federal Government) has not shown any defense as to the recidivism rate or danger to society” and that if properly challenged, has not shown any defense that some laws or not ex post facto. In fact, momentum is growing in many states that many of these laws as applied in certain circumstances, are in-fact, ex post facto and punishment (one or both).

      Well, a chicken pecking on the ground for corn kernels can even conclude that any defense previously used that was overruled in favor of the plaintiff(s) where the Court had informed the defense team that they have shown no evidence to the contrary or to support their position, should be automatically stricken and prohibited by the courts to be used by defense counsels for the state or federal governments, at the initial pleading stage.

      The Justice in the North Carolina case wrote…

      “The generalized notions of the dangers of recidivism of sex offenders, for which the State provided no evidentiary support, cannot justify so intrusive and so sweeping a mode of surveillance upon individuals, like defendant, who have fully served their sentences and who have had their constitutional rights restored,” Earls wrote for the court.

      So, why aren’t NARSOL, FAC, ACSOL and other alike, suing the states and Attorney Generals prohibiting use of false facts and relying on misplaced and out-dated Court opinions that have been proven, time and time again, that the facts and previous court opinions used in defense of these lawsuits are contrary to real, proven facts, such as dangerousness and recidivism, when they are a blatant lie to the court?

      Every time a person or a class of people sue on a constitutional issue relating to these issues, when the State or Federal Government opposes/defends against these actions and tries to defend the suit using the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY et al. v. DOE, et al, (2003) and other progeny opinions of this case, stating the validity of “high rate of recidivism and danger to community”, the plaintiff’s attorney should immediately file a Bar Complaint against the defense attorneys for lying to the Court because these defense attorneys know full well that the facts and court opinions they are using are blatantly wrong and that the opposite are the true facts. Time, and time again, these current documented evidence and empirical data facts have proven that the facts used by these defenses attorneys contradict the facts and court opinions used in defense of these actions. This will cut-off many defenses to these actions against the State and Federal Government.

      You people or organizations… Someone should start the ball rolling and bring a Declaratory Judgment Action (“DEC Action”) and sue the State and its Attorney General seeking a writ of prohibition or restraining order prohibiting any of these defenses used because the information to the Court in defense of these types of lawsuits is patently as false information and in violation of the Bar Rules under Candor to the Court and Professional Responsibility Rules.

      So, if any of you plaintiffs or attorneys who prosecute these types of lawsuits for us challenging constitutionality of laws and are scared to file Bar Complaints, I, as an “interested Third Party”, will create a standing in whatever state or federal jurisdiction the lawsuit is brought, and file a Bar Complaint in the jurisdiction of the law suit. Just e-mail Fred at NARSOL to contact me.

      • #59135 Reply


        Would you be interested in discussing FTR situations? In WI many defenses were eliminated statute as per liability against. I too held onto standing by refusing to enter plea agreement and demanding trial by jury. Connecticut DPS the court had only considered those ” similarly situated” and did not address the question of substantive 14th rights.

      • #59147 Reply

        Robin Vander Wall

        The states are not using “false facts.” They are using legal facts (McKune v. Lile) and a whole lot of conjectural fiction that sounds persuasive because it appeals to common sense. As a former attorney who presumably also went to law school, you are aware of the distinction between real (objective) facts and legal facts (facts determined by judicial fiat). What we see in the Grady case (which cites also to the Does v. Cooper case) is that courts are becoming frustrated with the absence of evidence in support of their conjectural claims. The states, by and large, aren’t citing to ANY real facts at all. And whenever these state attorneys general cite to legal fact (such as the “frightening and high” rhetoric of McKune v. Lile) they are operating well within their ethical duty and are under no obligation to dispute what the Supreme Court declared in 2002. It is our job to place the more convincing and compelling facts before the courts where we litigate. And that is precisely what we are doing. I am not sure starting a pissing contest using multiple efforts at sanctioning attorney generals for positing “facts” that are clearly within the mainstream of legally articulable claims (and based on a majority opinion less than 20 years old) is going to get us too far ahead in the game.

        • #59167 Reply


          I believe the man is referring to the conjecture that electronic regimes can impact recidivism. SORNA & SBM each fall into that category. A truth is a certain sum will re-offend but no one can say who or which one. Another truth is a government use must first impose affirmative restraints before any positive preventive outcome can be had by the electronic regime. The States blatant lack of statistical evidence “offering the clearest proof to suffice” could be because: 1, they cannot attain it ( can’t be had) Or 2 an unwillingness to attain it. Either way the status quo of mostly unfettered use remains the bedrock question.

          What to do about the database? Still stuck hard up against the surveillance saints and big data. So taking the route he suggests would be mostly fruitless as they indeed have good faith in attempting to follow law. They wouldn’t and didn’t need evidence to begin the regime and method to sustain it.

          For some of us this leaves only jury precisely because of the record already available. In FTR situation the hurdles and discovery are readily at hand. Especially for the man who plead not in 1991. Why? Because that is what the paper marked with clerks own stamp states.

    • #59123 Reply


      Now I have to commend NARSOL for keeping up with this sex registry efforts that effect many men and women that go through all of this. Yes, helping others is good. So what have we learned, that man is going to solve man’s problems or where is the principal in all this? Talk about a game changer of coming out of prison or on probation or other modes to infringe on one’s liberty. One would tend to believe justice defends and honors but in this case it snares.
      Is this drama all about man’s right or wrong or courts right or wrongs or flaws, Now keeping track of someone is a form of slavery. Now one can understand in certain cases. but who is serving in this whole episode or who is saving or protecting or preventng who.
      Sure Tim with his data base or computer understanding seems right in some respect. Is this technology the downfall of all. Internet was made to be good first and formost. I’m sure a lot of us would have good career’s if this internet things wouldn’t of happened. Do we all make mistakes, sure we do even the bible proves that. Does Government use their liberty as a cloak of maliciousness in many of these ordeal. Well you answer that yourself or should we judge not.
      Sure we could of all went to court and faced this ordeal we are all wrapped up in but that would be like the blind leading the blind in many cases. Probation one wonders what that is in this type of government hi-jinks. Should we all let the crime fit the punishment or was their a crime in many instances. So now it seems one has to deceive or lie to produce criminal intent to get the desired result and thats one of the reasons a plea deal is given as government doesn’t want to be ashamed of their actions or are we all accountable.

    • #59141 Reply

      linda shedlock

      Thank you Robin for your clarification of my statement . This was exactly what I was trying to say . I realize these child porn images involved them being victimized yet I don’t agree that another looking is re-victimization. These pictures can and are hidden in and around adult porn sites. They also can be embedded and downloaded without anyone’s knowledge ! I would never want or condone a child being hurt in this manner or any other for that matter. The people or person who do this is the ones who the severe punishment should be applied to. Men look at porn. And always have. Whether I agree or disagree with this doesn’t matter -this is fact. Because they do so is not my business. Punish the people with hands-on attacks! Not putting lifetime GPS or/and lifetime probation for this to simply be in their computers knowingly or unknowingly ! At the present time it doesn’t matter as to the crime you’re accused of committing nor whether you have served your time. All are thrown into a pot and punished severely and the same . This has not been factually proven a success for public safety or children .

      • #59168 Reply


        Well you’re preaching to the choir on that one, second hand victimization!
        That is one inherent trait of victimites, they tend to be loud if nothing else. Victimhood is being advanced as admirable and rewarded. As if there is no such thing as whores and sluts. ITS online hussy heaven out there! Live streaming sex of every sort. All made possible by big data.

    • #59156 Reply


      I’m afraid Robin is right in this jurisprudence court of law in a lot of ways. Sure their is a time to stand up and a time to be silent. Going against the grain is not good in any type of affair. So who’s trying who’s spirit with this sex inducement?

      Sure a lot of this sex registry is going overboard.. Yes we could say in many cases its ex post facto or being put in double jeopardy. Cumulative punishment is a bit much for anyone after doing prison but if its deemed by the courts than who takes action to defend justice.

      From the random “witch hunt” to the high profile leg monitoring is a bit much. I even liked Robin’s answer to linda. Has some of this average “witch hunt” actually been to proven to protect, for public safety. One still wonders who’s provoking . So are we all caught up in a web of deceit by this internet machine or some fast talking DA.

    • #59175 Reply

      Marlin S.

      Robin, ALD
      What happened to the US Constitutionality of “NO” General Warrants? Wasn’t it decided many years ago that a General Warrant is unconstitutional? And isn’t that exactly what a sentence of life-time Satellite Based Monitoring is based upon, (a General Warrant?)
      How Constitutional for a person to be sentenced before a crime is even committed?

    • #59178 Reply



      Is there a way to view the latest filed appeals and requests for cert/etc online? If so, what is/are the best link(s)?

    • #59186 Reply


      Will, I like this article you presented as it opens up a who new view point and should open the minds of all in a lot of these situations. Sure its all about principal. Yes Robin and the others on the NARSOL team are doing the best they can to help others. Sure we all look for answers to eradicate this sex registry ordeal in many ways but who goes down to Georgia looking for a soul to steal in this confusion.

      One can look for words to confort or words to steal, but truth and correction is what its all about. Yes we all have a job to do to help others, to correct. do we ordain justice or let the people decide the correction or where is the spiritual value of the truth in this matter. Should we all have a low value of ourselves or should we strive to comfort in this type of situation.

      NARSOL is not a miracle worker and yes the facts can condemn but with facts their has to be reason and proof for true truth and justice, or are we all swayed by every wind of another. Sure we can all blame this registry on some data base understanding or even one’s own callousness. Maybe we need a ways and means committee to rationalize all this out. One really wonders does this registry protect to instill true justice or are we just casualities in this war game to prevent or pervert. I don’t even think chicken little could prevent the sky from falling.

    • #59214 Reply


      In Wisconsin, there is GPS lifetime monitoring… the only relief is after 20 years and that is only to petition the court for release from GPS. For lifetime registration, there is NO relief in the statutes…

      The way the DOC runs their ship here, they can keep a person on supervision for their entire life almost by just revoking them over and over on a long enough sentence…

    • #59545 Reply

      John Foellmi

      I’m a lifetime GPS SO in Wisconsin and I am still waiting to hear the decision on the lawsuit filed by the Chicago law firm suit to the WI DOC to abolish the lifetime GPS administrative law. My beef is that I have to register for life but the court did NOT order me to wear this f****** GPS for the rest of my life. Has anyone even heard about when they will do a verdict on this suit yet? Please contact me by this post and I’ll response in kind. THANKS!!!!!

      • #60036 Reply

        Miles T. C.

        I think you’re going about it the wrong way. The registration is separate from your conviction. The state can easily impose different criteria for the registry retroactively. I may be a layman, but I dont understand how a civil regulatory scheme could be possibly ran by the D.O.C. or any law enforcement entity. If peeps had to go to the D.O.C. to renew their Driver’s Licenses, they would be angry. If the registry is a civil regulatory scheme intended for public safety, then why isn’t the Dept. of Human Services or the like overseeing SOR? Then there’s the question of how the Attorney General has interpreted the statute to mean more than one offence when it clearly states lifetime GPS for multiple CASES. That’s how we attack that matter because the new Attorney General didn’t institute this new policy. Although, he did attack the incumbent on being soft on sexual predators.

    • #59537 Reply

      Robert Gibson

      How can one have life, liberty n the pursuit of happiness wearing a lifetime sbm? Isn’t that what our constitution was established for, for the people?

    • #59629 Reply


      Sep 5 date for “determining the next step” has passed and my contact at DPS has no information, says they can’t remove until they hear from the AG. AG is playing games, trying to perpetuate an illegal scheme to run out the clock as long as possible. NARSOL, what does your NC attorney think about this?

      • #59650 Reply


        Ed, what do you mean by Sept 5th for the next step? We are waiting patiently as well for bracelet to be removed.

    • #59945 Reply



      Do you have any clarified opinion knowing that Sep 5th was the date of the “mandate,” which I understand is the date State was supposed to comply. What mechanism is there to force compliance since the State is out of compliance nearly 2 weeks later, other than individual court motions, via retained counsel, which should not be necessary when the court already ruled and provided a clear date of compliance and clearly identified exactly which subjects (recidivists) were covered by said mandate?

    • #59955 Reply


      Finally after trying to reach DPS, I got a phone call. DPS informed me they are aware of the mandate and that the AG has no plans of appeal for the history of the case. He did inform me they needed some clarification on issues and that it shouldn’t be any longer than a week till the SBM start getting removed.

    • #59968 Reply


      I wonder if you spoke with G.T, or who? No light shed on what “clarification on some issues” entails? This is good news overall if it works out this way. Please keep us posted if you hear anything further/contradictory otherwise let’s all cross our fingers that that this timetable sticks and the cake is already baked.

      • #59972 Reply


        There was no real light shed on the “issues” that needs clarified. Not sure who GT is I spoke to the head of that department who use to be the officer who monitored me , but recently has been promoted to manager. Will keep informed on all.

    • #60040 Reply


      I have been trying to reach the person I believe you reference, however his line has been busy for days. Still no word. Ridiculous, honetly

    • #60153 Reply


      Has anyone who reads this been removed yet?

      • #60173 Reply


        Yes mine was removed today, BUT only because my attorneys had to file a motion. Monday when I spoke to DPS they informed me that their legal department was still looking into things, but my attorneys weren’t waiting.

    • #60321 Reply



      How long did it take you from the time the motion was filed, until the (hearing? or when a judge signed off outside of a hearing?) until you had the order in hand? And then how did the order get to DPS and to which entity did you need to deliver it? I have heard stories of people filing motions and still, weeks later, do not have an order

      • #60334 Reply



        It was right at a week from when the motion was filed till judge signed off. My attorneys contacted me and told me it was signed off on and I drove to the court house and obtained a certified true copy from the clerk of court and emailed it to DPS as instructed. Once DPS read the email they contacted a contractor whom came and removed bracelet. The contractor was interesting because he started questioning me on stuff i did with bracelet such as bathing etc and movement of my beacon. Which i was informed i could do all with but according to him that was unacceptable now. They tell them one set of rules and us another.

    • #60926 Reply


      I have been told by DPS that all affected will be receiving a letter in short order advising them to seek legal counsel as they may be in an affected category persuant to the Grady ruling.

      The reason I was told can be summarized as the following: Neither DPS nor the AG’s office want to create the political optics of implementing the very clear directive laid out in the Court’s opinion to our class of citizens.

      Short answer: if you haven’t filed a motion yet, do it. Bracelets have been coming off. Tell your friends and spread the word.

      You need to contact the attorney who handled your repeat conviction case and file a motion in that county. Or, if you don’t like that attorney, one to your liking who works that county. If you cannot afford legal services, my guess would be to reach out to the NC Appellate Defender and discuss options.

    • #61670 Reply


      Lots of silence over here. Any more affected registrants who read this blog, or are known to anyone who reads this blog, who’ve successfully gotten relief? I know of 2 for sure, which means there are around 198 more who are legally-eligible to have the monitors removed with the help of counsel..

    • #61877 Reply

      dan smith

      gps monitoring is yesteryear.. In association with DARPA -LEA has moved on to implanting individuals with Brain computer interfaces.. outpatient procedure. Batteries are swapped out as needed via dental implants. Eli Lilly is the big pharma responsible for the hardware. I’d like to know why we aren’t seeing more intel on such procedures? Guess its highly illegal for anyone/any agency including the government to commit to such acts. @Robin What’s your take on that? got any recent intel on implants and vagus nerve stimulation via electrodes indwelling?

      • #61879 Reply


        Dan, where did you get this info from?

    • #67287 Reply


      Unfortunately, this applies only to North Carolina. Other state courts have ruled the exact opposite on both the ex post facto and Fourth Amendment issues. It’s the law of the land in the midwest 7th Circuit that lifetime GPS monitoring is neither punishment nor a violation of the 4th amendment, so we’re all screwed.

    • #67880 Reply


      Get a lawyer and act while you can. You can get it off but you may have a limited window. One can see the legislature trying to rewrite the law like GA is trying to do in time for pressing of the election Hot Button.

Viewing 33 reply threads
Reply To: Reply #60926 in NC Supreme Court affirms limitation of lifetime GPS monitoring for registrants
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">