A Wisconsin judge wasn’t required to tell a man he would face a lifetime of GPS monitoring upon pleading guilty to child sex crimes because such monitoring is a public safety measure, not a form of punishment, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday. Full Article
Related posts
-
WI: Gov. Tony Evers signs law requiring more sex offenders to be placed on registry for life
Source: jsonline.com 4/2/24 MADISON – Wisconsinites convicted of multiple counts of a sex offense will be... -
WI: At least 30 registered sex offenders live in WI nursing homes, records show
Source: wisn.com 2/22/24 When a family decides to admit their loved one to a nursing home,... -
WI Action Alert: Fight SB874 that would put many people back on lifetime GPS registration
Source: docs.legis.wisconsin.gov Call to action for Wisconsin registrants… Last year the high court in Wisconsin struck...
“(Lifetime monitoring) provides a middle ground between releasing dangerous sex offenders into the public wholly unsupervised and civil commitment,” Justice Michael Gableman wrote in the ruling. “In light of the ‘frightening and high’ rate of recidivism for sex offenders, the relatively minimal intrusion of lifetime GPS tracking … is not excessive in relation to protecting the public.”
—–
Either these judges are a complete bunch of morons, or they are intentionally setting things up for a (hopeful) SCOTUS review. It’s absolutely ridiculous that it was 7-0, relying on “frightening and high” still/again. That damned phrase simply will not die.
Justice Michael Gableman wrote in the ruling. “In light of the ‘frightening and high’ rate of recidivism for sex offenders, the relatively minimal intrusion of lifetime GPS tracking … is not excessive in relation to protecting the public.”
Until this frightening and high stat gets taken proven wrong in court more terrible decisions like this will be made.
Yes, it’s punishment!!
What a bad decision! I hope they appeal to federal courts. The court once again cites debunked statistics regarding “frightening and high” rates of recidivism. This is a dangerous precedent not only for registrants, but all Americans. The court has said that lifetime GPS tracking is non-punitive and only for “protecting the public.”
Imagine all the other people courts could place GPS trackers on for life without any due process or redress of grievances. If there’s a terrorist attack, a municipality could enact a law requiring all foreigners to wear GPS trackers in the interest of public safety. Require all children to wear GPS trackers for their safety. We already fingerprint / DNA sample teachers, why not also track them for the safety of the children? According to this precedent, all of that would be perfectly legal. Perhaps the current administration will cite this decision to place GPS trackers on all immigrants.
“In light of the ‘frightening and high’ rate of recidivism for sex offenders, the relatively minimal intrusion of lifetime GPS tracking … is not excessive in relation to protecting the public…He acknowledged that offenders must spend an hour a day next to a wall outlet to recharge the devices, but he argued that this is a minor restraint that doesn’t rise to punishment…Since monitoring isn’t a punishment, it’s not a direct consequence of a guilty plea and therefore judges don’t need to tell defendants about it, Gableman concluded.”
“In light of the ‘FRIGHTENING AND HIGH’ rate of recidivism for sex offenders, the relatively minimal intrusion of lifetime GPS tracking … is not excessive in relation to protecting the public,” Justice Michael Gableman wrote in the ruling.
Again, those unwarranted and continually disproven words distort a court ruling to opress and subjugate American citizens.
Nah, having to stand close to an outlet every day for an hour is not punishment, only a burden. I wish that the judges had to do that for a few months and lets see if it was only a burden. Judges can be so full of shit.
Well, I can certainly understand lifetime GPS monitoring! Bear in mind that his offenses were so heinous that he was incarcerated for an entire year! Who gets that kind of sentence? [Yes, sarcasm intended.]
More ridiculous laws being upheld due to that one incorrect ruling in 2003 based on a misrepresented article.
He had a loser attorney, going by the reviews.
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/54956-wi-leonard-kachinsky-1513008.html
Of course it is punishment. You have to take to charge twice a day, and if you don’t you will get another charge (literally) added. So, my question AGAIN…..when will a defense attorney demand to see proof of these “high and frightening” re-offense rates. This has to be the number one goal to proof that there aren’t such statistics. How hard can it be to debunk these lies that keep being used to punish more and more.
My belief is that these elected or appointed judges rule this way in a vain attempt at saving face. They can still say they are tough on crime but have no control over how the US Supreme Court rules. They are passing the buck on a very controversial and politically charged topic, ie SOR. If the Supreme Court over rules them then it is the supreme courts fault and not theirs
These judges had no problem quoting Smith to use “frightening and high,” yet clearly missed the part of Smith where SCOTUS talked about RCs being, “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.” Clearly GPS monitoring involves some sort of supervision, or else why have it on someone? This RC is nowhere near, “free to move…and to live and work as other citizens.”
This may not be punishment (work with me, please), but it’s absolutely a 4th Amdt. issue. SCOTUS has already ruled–more than once!–that GPS tracking, regardless to whom or what it’s attached, is a 4th Amdt. search and seizure. The seminal case, surprise surprise out of NC, is Grady (a RC) v. NC (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/supreme-court-if-youre-being-gps-tracked-youre-being-searched/389114/). See also: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150404/19380730550/supreme-court-says-lifetime-gps-monitoring-sex-offenders-may-be-unconstitutional.shtml.
Since he’s on probation, he doesn’t have much of a case right now, but come 2022 when off paper, this WI SC decision will be in conflict with Grady. He’ll certainly have time to prepare to sue in Federal court or appeal to SCOTUS. The State will have to show it’s a reasonable search, which it clearly isn’t. I can see WI then trying to commit him civilly. If so, it will reek of retribution, given they’ve already said he’s “okay enough” to avoid civil commitment and be in society. 4 years hence will only make his case stronger.