Source: missourinet.com 2/12/25
The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of a lower court’s ruling, saying the sex offender failed to present evidence that a lifetime electronic monitoring requirement is unconstitutional.
The woman sued the state Department of Corrections, arguing that electronic monitoring for the rest of her life violates her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Her attorney also argued that women are different and much less likely to be repeat offenders.
During a December court hearing, Michael Patton with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office said that the parolee, known by the initials F.S., needs to be monitored for life.
Click here to download the ruling
F.S. Apel v. Mo Dep't of Corrections res
just goes to show how corrupt this state is..get off parole/probation etc… and leave the state… once outside the state cut the thing off and put it in the bed of someones pickup lol
If she isn’t under probation or parole couldn’t she move out the state and be finished with that nonsense?
Well. When your argument is basically “trust me bro” this is what happens. They literally presented no evidence. The people arguing this case made a blunder as they did in doe case in Alaska. Make good legal arguments and this would fall. It is really frustrating that they caused this precedent due to their absolute incompetence
She needs to be monitored for life, yet other convicted rapists, repeat felony DUIs and drug dealers get zero monitoring.
It is the state is Misery who thought signs out front on Halloween were ok also. Unless I am mistaken, when they lost that battle, they were going to appeal possibly but haven’t…
“The fact that F.S. raped an 11-year-old specifically, is important. Sexual offenses against children are just different,” he said. “They suggest a different level of dangerousness for purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis…”
This quote proves their law to monitor and this decision is purely emotion based. There is no evidence of higher or lower dangerousness. To state the obvious, I am not in support of this crime, but after you complete your sentence, you should be allowed a chance to do better and be better.
If they don’t think it’s unconstitutional, then the tax payers should have to pony up for the maintenance, feels and upkeep of everyone with a government-issued GPS. If they claim it’s for “public safety” then it’s money well spent, right? /s
That is gross abuse of power on the people “F” The state of Missouri n The Missouri Supreme Court . Sick to think they can get away with this.
What a backwards ruling. I would not believe that a Court and their Justices would assume that because you committed an offense once you of course will repeat it over and over again. Some people just will never understand that chasing the pregnant maid from the village 300 hundred years ago with torches and pitchforks truly worked positively for everyone the maid, the villagers and especially the maid’s child.
Washing my car does not make it rain.
Not washing my car, does not prevent rain.
These ideas are independent of one another. It either will, or will not, rain, and whether I wash my car or not has no influence on this.
Here’s another set of independent ideas:
The lack of a Compelling State need to GPS Monitor a person, does not create Interference to Privacy, in exactly the same way that Washing my car does not create rain.
Compelling State Needs do not banish interference into non-Existence… in exactly the same way that Not Washing my Car, does not banish rain away.
So, either GPS monitoring creates interference, or it does not. The existence of a Compelling State Need to GPS Monitor, has no influence on the this, in exactly the same way the cleanliness of my car does not control the weather.
If GPS Monitoring creates interference, then it will create this interference for all that are GPS Monitored, whether there is or is not a Compelling State Need to do this… in exactly the same way that rain doesn’t just fall on clean cars.
If it doesn’t create interference, then the State should be free to do this to anyone they wish, with no requirement to establish a Compelling State Need?
Ah… I see…GPS Monitoring creates no interference for anyone, but the State cannot mandate this for anyone without a Compelling State need to do so? Why?
The requirement to do this to someone without a Compelling State Need to do so, would be unconstitutional for what reason? How does this reason not apply to her?
Her conviction creates a permanent compelling State need to monitor, which does not interfere with privacy, but would not be Constitutionally acceptable for others, without first establishing a compelling State need to monitor… why?
If it is Unconstitutional for your clean car to be left in the rain, then it is Unconstitutional to leave her dirty one in it. The rain will fall on all the cars, but this is only Unconstitutional if it falls on the clean ones… because not all cars are equal.
Compelling State needs do not banish the rain into non-existence but apparently they do banish away the Unconstitutionality of it… for some.
SCOTUS already ruled this unconstitutional in Grady 2015
Off the top of my head, I believe this topic has been tackled before in other jurisdictions which should have been referenced for their outcomes before attempting this in this state. I don’t agree with the findings of the court, but it is what it is until someone wants to come along and challenge it with a stronger argument.
An obscene policy