DE: ACLU loses appeal in challenging sex offender GPS monitoring

Delaware’s Supreme Court has rejected a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union to a law requiring GPS monitoring of certain sex offenders who have been released from prison and are on probation.

After hearing arguments Wednesday, the court issued a two-sentence order Friday upholding a Chancery Court decision in favor of the state. Full Article


Search de: DE: Supreme Court weighs sex offender GPS monitoring

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Love how it was said it could be retroactively applied to before the bill was passed in 2007. Really? How can our country allow that to happen? Why not just say to the beginning of time?

If this thinking was applied to all laws, more folks would be up in arms about the principle of applying it to before the bill was passed. This seems to me to contradict what MI just went through in being told in court they could not apply their RC law to before the bill was passed. Maybe I am wrong on that point.

I hope this doesn’t give them free range to apply this to every offender even after probation or parole…I think this was a losing argument to begin with…common sense says yes that of course they can apply this to high risk offenders on probation or parole…Now once off of supervision an absolutely NOOOO they should not be able tooooo….