Grady heads back to N.C. Sup. Court
By EMERY P. DALESIO . . .North Carolina’s Supreme Court is re-evaluating whether forcing sex offenders to be perpetually tracked by GPS-linked devices, sometimes for the rest of their lives, is justified or a Constitution-violating unreasonable search.
The state’s highest court next month takes up the case of repeat sex offender Torrey Grady. It comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his case that mandating GPS ankle monitors for ex-cons is a serious privacy concern.
“There’s different possible outcomes of the case. One is that it’s never reasonable at all. Another is that it’s reasonable, maybe while the person is still on post-release supervision” for five years after prison release, said James Markham, a professor who focuses on criminal law at the University of North Carolina’s School of Government. “Another possibility is that it’s reasonable for the rest of their life.”
Grady took his case to the nation’s top court arguing that having his movements forever monitored violated his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that attaching a device to a person’s body in order to track their movements qualifies as a “search” and a question of constitutional rights. But the decision left it up to states to decide whether imposed monitoring is reasonable, and for how long.
States are still at work answering that question, with Michigan and Wisconsin among the handful that have considered whether long-term electronic monitoring’s public benefit outweighs the privacy rights of the sex offender. Both decided it constituted a reasonable search. Delaware’s Supreme Court last year rejected a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union to a law requiring GPS monitoring of certain sex offenders complained the ankle bracelets were embarrassing, sometimes painful and an invasion of privacy.
North Carolina’s Supreme Court will consider Grady’s case on Dec. 3 as well as a second challenging the GPS tracking ordered for Darren Gentle. The combination would give the justices “an opportunity to compare and contrast those different situations,” Markham said.
Gentile was convicted in Randolph County in 2016 of violently raping a 25-year-old woman who was seven months pregnant and with whom he’d been taking drugs, according to state attorneys. He is serving a 41-year prison sentence, but is arguing he shouldn’t have been ordered into post-release GPS monitoring because the trial judge didn’t review whether that was reasonable.
Grady, 40, returned to prison in April after failing to register as a sex offender, according to state prison records. He was convicted of a sexual offense in 1997 when he was 17, and was convicted in 2007 of taking indecent liberties with a minor who was 15, according to the state sex offender registry.
His attorneys argue that after paying his debt to society in prison, Grady and other sex offenders do not give up their privacy rights even though laws restrict where they can live and travel, for example barring visits to school grounds.
A divided panel of North Carolina’s second-highest court in May reversed a trial judge that ordered Grady enrolled for life in satellite-based monitoring, saying they saw no studies showing tracking prevented future crimes.
“The State failed to present any evidence of its need to monitor defendant, or the procedures actually used to conduct such monitoring in unsupervised cases. Therefore, the State failed to prove” that lifetime monitoring, the state Court of Appeals ruled, “is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.”
Reprinted from the Charlotte Observer.
Robin, is it possible that the Michigan case if decided in the Plaintiff’s favor could affect the Registry laws in NC in the future?
Also I want to personally thank you along with everyone who works with you in this ongoing battle for Justice.
Robin, I was handed a totally legal and binding document by the Parole Officer over my case after the completion of the
five year post release that I was mandated to complete as well as a certificate of completion from the sex offender class that I was required to complete. The legal document reads, quote,”The Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission does hereby certify that pursuant to Sections 13.1/13.2 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, ALL Rights of Citizenship which the said: (my name) forfeited on conviction are by Law automatically restored.. Signed and Witnessed. Yet I am required to wear this Monitor for the rest of my life. Prior to conviction I was not requires to wear it and all of my movements were not being tracked 24/7. why is this not challenged? They are violating the very laws they are holding me accountable to.
I suspect that you are right. But you have to do something to challenge the imposition. Have you discussed this with an attorney?
Robin,
Thanks for the reply. Yes I have attempted to seek legal assistance but being an elderly person on limited income, I con not afford the high prices of a paid attorney. My only option up to now is to just accept my fate and wear it until I die. But I know in my heart that I have recovered form this most debilitating disease of sexual addiction because that is what it was. I also overcame the disease of alcohol addiction and now seek to help others who are seeking help in the recovery process. My life now entails staying at home virtually 24/7 except for going to AA meetings because of fear I might accidentally stray into an exclusion zone as they will not tell me where those exist until it’s too late. Thank you for all you, NCRSOL, and NARSOL are doing on my behalf.
Thanks, Marlin. We’re doing as much as our capacity allows. Would love to do more. Who is requiring you to wear the ankle bracelet? The sheriff?
Robin, in 2008 I took a plea arrangement but the monitor was not part of the pleat but at the very end the Judge added it as well as ordering no contact with the victim for the rest of my life. That law wasn’t even passed until 2009. Yes the monitor is ordered by the Sheriff. Thanks anyway. I wasn’t really asking for legal assistance from NCRSOL.
Marlin
Opinion out today, 8/16: Lifetime SBM unconstitutional with regard to solely being a recidivist. What happens next for individuals in Grady’s position?
https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=38471
I read a part of the decision but I still do not understand why the courts still refuse to understand and allow laws to keep anyone who has been convicted of a Sex Offense from ever ever regaining all rights guaranteed under the US and State Constitutions. I could see using SBM while on Post-Release, Probation, and Parole to try to keep people in check so they would be more likely to complete their outside time correctly but for years is unreasonable no matter how you look at it. The STATIC 99 form that is used to determine if an offender is low risk to high risk is bias and possible not legal if you clearly read all questions it ask. I should know. I am being forced to wear an bracelet for 10 years…..10 yrs and even though that time is near it has made it very difficult to do anything “normal” because of its limitations. So go read up on the STATIC 99 and you will understand. The laws regarding Sex Crimes are unjust and needs to be removed and redone. I understand we want to protect society from REAL dangerous people but when does it constitute going…TO FAR. Sex Offenders are NOT second class citizens as long as you have done your time and done what is required by law but to have ongoing requirements outside of jail and prison is absurd. Why is there no ongoing requirements and punishments for ALL other crimes committed? hmm. Maybe the State and Federal governments should wear the ankle monitors for a yr and be subjected to the same punishments if they fail to maintain it as if they wear a SO to see how it feels. Time to take back our freedoms from those who are destined to take it away.
The case before the NC Supreme court is NC vs Gentle, is it not? I was unaware there was any further action on Grady – I guess I was looking at the state level, not federal. Is there a link where we can find the latest news, like with the NCSC?
It looks like the Gentle case is awaiting a decision from our state Supreme Court. It was my understanding that that case decides whether lifetime SBM without a reasonableness test of some kind is unconstitutional/invalid pending that test. Further, I had assumed one could avoid expensive legal action to remove one’s self from monitoring with a favorable decision, being that the vast majority of lifetime enrolees in NC were mandated to monitoring before there was a post-Grady “reasonableness” test.
Ok, so the issue regarding the ban on registered sec=x offenders being on certain social networking sites is still being challenged in the courts. Why doesn’t someone create a social networking site that bans anyone under the age of 16 from being a member? Wouldn’t that solve the problem?
Ok, so the issue regarding life-time satellite based monitoring has yet to be resolved. But it was already decided that placing a GPS devise on a private vehicle is unconstitutional. I am a 74 yo male with visual and other health issues which restricts me from operating a vehicle. My two legs are my only mode of transportation which makes them a private vehicle. So why is it still legal to place a GPS devise on my ankle which is a private vehicle?
Ok this took place on Dec 3rd 2018. So what is the verdict on whether or not Satellite Based Monitoring is LEGAL or ILLEGAL or not. What is going on about the fight to rid NC and all states of the REGISTRY and all other Sex Offender Laws. There is not enough updates going on to keep people informed as to what is going on. Need immediate updates. I am sure people want to know what is going on. Thanks.
Grady is not resolved. Waiting for the Court to resolve it. Nothing we can do to make that go any faster. Two federal lawsuits are parked in the Middle District. Again, there is really nothing that can be done to push a case once its under the control of a federal judge (and there is no such thing as pushing a federal judge). We’re sorry for your frustration, but this is not a short term battle. This is a prolonged offensive that requires dedication, patience, and determination. If you don’t feel like there are enough updates, that’s because there is nothing to update you about.
Robin,
It could be useful to have a clock running on each case pending. This would raise moral in the national level as users could watch the time count down. Like you say, a judge cannot be rushed and necessarily so. The options are long and detailed with minutiae decis. Grady is in what I call the “work around phase.” This phase is the most exhaustive of resources precisely because threading the needle in civil deterministic terms is increasingly more difficult to achieve. Eventually the saints unfettered use of the database infrastructure to protect will be severely limited.
Clearly frustration mounts among the people as gov is slow to react to ever more rapidly changing social dynamics. Most complaining registrants are ignorant of their own states DOC, Trial, and other section code that determine tolls and latches, statutes governing evidence, and evidentiary hearings.
I look forward to proving by 1992 law that “No life term” to Wisconsin’s DOC was possible. By statute the max was 20 years. How stupid is Agent going to look in front of the jury of 12 when faced with that statute on the court’s big screen TV (90 in.) Do we follow all laws or only ones we like. LOL! This puts me on J.D’s role in it too! Why because he knew I’d not acquiesced by judgment in material, yet he included me anyway. LOL!
I’ve always wondered exactly what he meant by “We are putting a net around violent offenders!” As reported in the papers. ” a net” he stated. Let him answer summons. He may plead the 5 th himself.