7th Circuit Court reviews lifetime tracking

By Joe Kelly . . .

CHICAGO (CN) — The Seventh Circuit on Friday weighed the intrusiveness of a Wisconsin statute that institutes lifetime GPS monitoring of certain convicted sex offenders against the necessity of preventing further offenses from that particular class of criminals.

The underlying suit was first filed as a federal class action by eight registered sex offenders in March 2019. They argued that a 2017 statutory interpretation by former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel that broadened the class of sex offenders subjected to lifetime GPS monitoring after the completion of their sentences constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, calling the tracking “an intrusive search that provides the government detailed, real-time data about a person’s every move.”

Individuals convicted of sex offenses on two or more occasions were already subject to GPS monitoring under Wisconsin law, but Schimel’s 2017 interpretation and the subsequent application of his guidance the following year applied GPS monitoring to anyone convicted of more than one count.

The complaint originally named as a defendant former Wisconsin Department of Corrections Secretary Cathy Jess, who has since been replaced by Secretary Kevin Carr.

Read full article.  

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


Viewing 7 reply threads
  • Author
    • #76642 Reply

      This is all coming to a head. Prepare for round after round of Court Challenges until it reaches the point such that, it’s going to get beyond Crazy. It will become nearly Chaotic…and NONE of this is ever going to be good!

    • #76754 Reply

      My favorite paragraph is “Schmelzer explained that GPS tracking could help establish a nexus between child pornography and contact offenses, and it could determine where an offender was when downloading child pornography on a computer.”

      If that’s not the ultimate stretch attempt to try to make the round ends justify square means, I don’t know what is. Surely the AG himself was cringing at his own statements and felt a little soiled when he left the courthouse that day.

    • #76854 Reply
      The Criminalized Man

      Ed – that’s an amazing admission on Schmelzer’s part. If a “nexus between child pornography and contact offenses” hasn’t been established (and I know it can’t be since there isn’t one), how did even possessing “child pornography” become criminalized to begin with? Who lied to lawmakers to convince them to pass such laws, whose enforcement sets the precedent for present-day calls to ban “fake news” and other non-classified information that the enforcing regime happens to disapprove?

    • #77447 Reply

      if its a “civil” law then why aren’t targets paid for their burdens?

    • #77733 Reply

      My favorite sentence:

      But Schmelzer mostly just offered that “we don’t want to diminish the state’s effort to protect children from these crimes” and that society has already determined that sex offenders have a reduced expectation of privacy.

      First, the state’s efforts to protect children from “these crimes” would be better served if they’s quit harassing those that are among the least likely to commit them as shown by every empirical recidivism study done both before and after the implementation of Megan’s Law. Second, since when does society get to determine privacy rights?

    • #77854 Reply

      Registry is bogus. If a guy wanted to perpetrate some vile offence against another, all he’d have to do is lie about who he is. Give a made up name. It’s easy enough to do considering most guys got the shaft because of little white lies their “victim” sometimes told. We live in a world where honesty is dead. You can’t swear by nothing. Not even on a bible. The majority of sex offenders are one and done type offenders. Very very few actually thrive on sexually abusing the next victim. That’s why whenever some high profile rape/murder occurs, the most atrocious law is put on the books. It’s a knee jerk reaction to a crime brutally violent. Polititions thrive on this kind of misery. Tough on crime laws are what gets them in and keeps them there. Using a violent crime to further your career is a perversion of justice in my opinion.

    • #78460 Reply

      Have there been any updates on this case yet? If not, how long does the Court have to rule on it?

    • #81274 Reply

      Does anyone know if there is an update? Was a ruling made? Are there other states that do this? Once off supervision can we move out of this state and have it removed?

Viewing 7 reply threads
Reply To: 7th Circuit Court reviews lifetime tracking
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="">