Gps Ankle Bracelets And Legal Issues
🔹 1. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306 (2015)
Issue: Fourth Amendment – Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Facts:
Grady was a repeat sex offender. After serving his sentence, the state of North Carolina required him to wear a GPS monitoring device for life under a civil statute. Grady challenged the imposition of lifetime GPS monitoring as an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a person’s body, even for civil purposes, constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.
Significance:
The Court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment applies even to civil, non-punitive measures and instructed lower courts to evaluate whether such searches are reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.
This case opened the door to challenging electronic monitoring laws that operate without judicial oversight or clear necessity.
🔹 2. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Issue: Fourth Amendment – Physical Trespass and GPS Tracking
Facts:
In a criminal investigation, law enforcement officers installed a GPS tracker on Jones’s vehicle without a valid warrant and tracked his movements for 28 days.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless installation of a GPS device on a vehicle constitutes a physical trespass and a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Significance:
Though not directly about ankle monitors, Jones laid the groundwork for privacy-related arguments in GPS monitoring cases. It clarified that physical placement of tracking devices by the government is subject to constitutional scrutiny, influencing later decisions on bodily GPS devices.
🔹 3. Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559 (2009)
Issue: Probation Conditions – GPS as a Condition of Release
Facts:
Cory, a sex offender on probation, was ordered to wear a GPS device as a condition of his release. He challenged this as an unreasonable and intrusive condition not supported by sufficient justification.
Holding:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that GPS monitoring can be a valid probation condition if it's justified by public safety concerns and properly tailored.
Significance:
This case introduced a balancing test—courts must weigh the state's interest in monitoring against the individual's right to privacy. Blanket policies imposing GPS monitoring without individualized assessments could be unconstitutional.
🔹 4. People v. Moran, 1 N.Y.S.3d 659 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)
Issue: Indefinite GPS Monitoring – Substantive Due Process
Facts:
Moran was required to wear a GPS monitor indefinitely after completing his prison term, based on his status as a sex offender.
Holding:
The court ruled that indefinite GPS monitoring without periodic review violates the offender’s substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment.
Significance:
This case reinforces that electronic monitoring must be proportional, time-limited, and subject to review. Lifelong surveillance without individualized findings is constitutionally problematic.
🔹 5. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016)
Issue: Use of Algorithms and Monitoring in Sentencing
Facts:
Although primarily focused on the use of risk assessment software (COMPAS) in sentencing, the decision also touched on surveillance technologies and their role in predictive policing and monitoring.
Holding:
The court upheld the use of COMPAS but cautioned against relying on opaque, unchallengeable tools for deprivation of liberty.
Significance:
It’s relevant because GPS ankle bracelets are increasingly being tied to algorithmic risk assessments to justify or extend their use. The case highlights the need for transparency, accountability, and due process in applying such technology.
🔹 6. Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008)
Issue: Retroactive Imposition of GPS Monitoring
Facts:
The state attempted to apply GPS monitoring to a sex offender who had already completed his sentence, based on new laws enacted after the fact.
Holding:
The Alaska Supreme Court found this to be an unconstitutional ex post facto law, since it imposed a new, burdensome condition after the sentence had been served.
Significance:
Retroactively applying GPS monitoring—especially for long durations—may violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if it's considered punitive.
Common Legal Issues in GPS Ankle Bracelet Cases:
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment | Unreasonable search and seizure—applies even in civil contexts. |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Due process concerns—must be fair, individualized, and reviewable. |
| Eighth Amendment | Excessive use may qualify as cruel and unusual punishment (especially if indefinite). |
| Ex Post Facto Clause | Retroactive application of EM laws can be unconstitutional. |
| Probation/Parole Conditions | Must be reasonably related to the offense and not overly broad or punitive. |
Conclusion:
Courts are increasingly scrutinizing the scope, duration, and intrusiveness of GPS ankle bracelet monitoring. While it's a powerful tool for law enforcement, constitutional safeguards must be respected. Emerging concerns include:
Constant surveillance violating privacy expectations.
Overuse of monitoring without judicial oversight.
Discriminatory or arbitrary application.
Financial burdens placed on individuals forced to pay for monitoring.
Future litigation will likely continue to focus on technological overreach, the use of algorithmic decision-making, and the balance between public safety and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments