NC Supreme Court will hear GPS monitoring case

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    • #48772 Reply

      By Emery P. Dalesio, AP . . . North Carolina’s Supreme Court is re-evaluating whether forcing sex offenders to be perpetually tracked by GPS-linked de
      [See the full post at: NC Supreme Court will hear GPS monitoring case]

    • #48775 Reply

      Continuous search is abhorrent to free men and free movement. To be sure the general public will land upon the side that upholds continuous search for persons like Mr. Grady. The public likes to know where he is at all times. I have little doubt some North Carolina folks would be just fine having a tracking chip implanted in Mr. Grady.

      The sex offender pathology was the very reason used to justify GOV use of the DATABASE ex post in the first place. Electronic means of search are popular with LEO and their unions have embraced their unconscionable and unconstitutional use. The ATFs operation fast and furious used tracking devices hidden in the stock’s of guns. LEOs use of GPS trackers placed without warrant upon vehicles of those suspected of drug trafficking has been rejected by SCOTUS. Simply put LEO knowingly violates or cheats the rights first then courts provide relief later. Packingham case proves that absolutely. I still do not know about those convicted before his case. Obviously all those similarly situated were indeed not provided a constitutional process and were wrongly convicted.
      Robin, what was the resolution of the pre-packingham folks?

    • #48915 Reply

      In NC v. Griffin, No. COA17-386, decided August 7, 2018, the NC Court of Appeals directly quoted the 4th Circuit (Doe v. Cooper, 842 F.2d 833, 846 (4th Cir. 2016), addressing premises restrictions) when addressing this very issue:

      “The State tries to overcome its lack of data, social science
      or scientific research, legislative findings, or other
      empirical evidence with a renewed appeal to anecdotal case
      law, as well as to “logic and common sense.” But neither
      anecdote, common sense, nor logic, in a vacuum, is
      sufficient to carry the State’s burden of proof.”

      I seriously doubt the NCAG can get around this reasoning for necessity of the law requiring lifetime satellite monitoring in general. I would think he would try to concentrate on Grady’s case and circumstances here to paint all registrants with the same brush. Unfortunately, I would think the NCSC would buy into that approach. Pretty sure they did in Packingham.

    • #49643 Reply

      Wondering Robin’s opinion on this and also, any updates he or anyone else has from the day’s proceedings

    • #50640 Reply

      This disappeared from the court calender. Any updates?

    • #50835 Reply
      Buttered Biskit

      in Wisconsin, a sex offender with 2 crimes must register AND be on electronic monitoring for life. This has become to be as of September 2018.

Viewing 5 reply threads
Reply To: NC Supreme Court will hear GPS monitoring case
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="">