Georgia’s highest court says it’s unconstitutional to require “sexually dangerous predators” to remain on electronic GPS monitoring after completing their sentences.
The unanimous Georgia Supreme Court opinion published Monday says that violates the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Awesome! Now we need more of these “civil regulations” struck down for the punishment that they are.
Ah, yes, some sanity showing in the higher courts.
My theory is it has always been about ” the gov use” of databases more than sex offenders.
Here as in Grady V NC, the federal courts are beginning to outwardly acknowledge the true impact of the databases and infrastructure electronic upon liberty. These two rulings identify what the surveillance saints are really about. Continuous electronic monitoring of the people whole. King George would be doing flips with joy of he’d had the technology. Ultimately the political security of establishment groups are supported by and through the uses, constitutional or not.
So, if a condition violates the 4th amendment, does that also make it more than merely administrative?
It’s great that the opinion was unanimous! That leaves very little wiggle room for the GPS proponents.
I’m glad to see courts are starting to apply what SCOTUS clearly said in US v Jones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones) and its progeny: GPS tracking is a 4th Amdt. search. The Gov’t may be able to articulate a reason (on a case-by-case basis) why a GPS monitor is a reasonable search, but to just issue them willy-nilly certainly indicates a lack of inquiry into reasonableness.
I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point making lifetime GPS tracking part of a sentence is found to be excessive (i.e. 8th Amdt violation). Just because it’s stuck inside the sentence doesn’t automatically make it a reasonable search. Of course the Gov’t’s answer to that is lifetime probation–which always ticks me off. If I’m so bad that I need lifetime supervision, how can I be good enough to roam in society? Once again, Gov’t is flapping out of both sides of its mouth.
I foresee a day when there are very few cases where a GPS tracker is allowed outside formal supervision. And that’s as it should be. Just as in Doe v. Harris (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/11/18/13-15263.pdf) where the 9th said RCs off supervision enjoy “the full protection of the First Amendment,” I think courts are now (finally) agreeing RCs also enjoy full FOURTH Amendment rights. What a concept…too bad it comes with the asterisk of BS registration and restrictions.
On that note, if the 9th says RCs have full protection of the First Amdt., it would seem to make sense (I know, that doesn’t always come into play in a court of law) that presence and/or residency restrictions in the 9th’s turf would be restricted, if not outright prohibited. Or if there are such laws, their implementation and application should have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Since the default standing is, “has full protection,” it would seem the State needs to provide reason for taking away any element of that protection that the rest of society enjoys. THAT, it would likewise seem, implicates Due Process. Are not the hosprisoners at Coalinga given some sort of Due Process prior to the curtailment (being kind in using that word) of their full First Amendment protections? How is that required, but other First curtailment is not? Where’s the tipping point along the curtailment continuum?
My reading of the opinion and Grady (for what it’s worth) is that the state can’t mandate GPS after the sentence is completed, therefore lifetime GPS can only be imposed on crimes that carry life sentences.
One thing that Grady pointed out was that there must be a procedure to petition for relief to pass constitutional muster, something I’m pretty sure Georgia doesn’t have. Equally sure they’re not going to break their backs establishing one and if they do, whatever procedure they come up with will be nearly impossible to successfully complete and, even if a person does, he’ll still be denied.
I don’t remember where, but I read another opinion where the judge wondered if the person requires monitoring and tracking to such (ridiculous) extents, then what exactly is the logic behind releasing him in the first place?
Okay, you guys seem to be actively posting on this post so what do you make of this,
PENAL CODE – PEN
PART 4. PREVENTION OF CRIMES AND APPREHENSION OF CRIMINALS [11006 – 14315] ( Part 4 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1385. )
TITLE 1. INVESTIGATION AND CONTROL OF CRIMES AND CRIMINALS [11006 – 11482] ( Title 1 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1385. )
CHAPTER 1. Investigation, Identification, and Information Responsibilities of the Department of Justice [11006 – 11144] ( Heading of Chapter 1 amended by Stats. 1972, Ch. 1377. )
ARTICLE 6. Unlawful Furnishing of State Summary Criminal History Information [11140 – 11144] ( Heading of Article 6 amended by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1222. )
11143.
Any person, except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code, who, knowing he is not authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record, knowingly buys, receives, or possesses the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 963.)
Very specific and this is what the CA AG supplied in a letter about the dissemination of the cop’s criminal history info demanding they had no authority to “private” info. Here is a link to Section 1070 E.C. which is very specific,
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/evidence-code/evid-sect-1070.html
See part of the AG letter at,
https://ufile.io/5rcjg
This is a link to the letter to the actual letter,
https://www.scribd.com/document/400506811/Lewis-Robert-Notice-of-Inadvertent-Release-01-29-19#fullscreen&from_embed
“We thus see no reason to construe section 6254.5 differently than Evidence Code section 912 in this regard, and good reason not to do so. We conclude that, in enacting section 6254.5, the Legislature intended to permit state and local agencies to waive an exemption by making a voluntary and knowing disclosure, while prohibiting them from selectively disclosing the records to one member of the public but not others.”
Ardon v. City of Laos Angeles (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 1176.
Evidence Code section 912 does not allow waiver of criminal history records.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EVID§ionNum=912.
Now, how can we make a case in CA using this case law?? Do you need participants? The anklet is the worst part of PPS for my son…