Is this a final decision of will state appeal to a higher court?
The decision here is so much different from the 100s of other GPSM cases where judges tell the bearer, “the device protects you too because we can rule you out as a suspect in reported crimes if we can prove you were not in the area.”
Sounds logical enough, but an underpinning of that preposition implies that judges acknowledge wrongful or misidentification of the perp in sex assault cases occurs at a measurable rate. DNA exoneration proves this has been a problem for quite some time. IMHO, this is a reasonable foundation for a hearing BEFORE inclusion in the registry.