VT: GPS monitoring as a probation condition for interference with custody was reasonable

Defendant was convicted of restraint of her child by taking him contrary to a court order across state lines. GPS monitoring as a condition of probation was imposed. Defendant allegedly violated the condition and appealed. GPS monitoring was a reasonable condition to prevent her from going around her own child. “Moreover, defendant’s status as a probationer and her awareness of the electronic monitoring condition diminished her expectation of privacy. Thus, although we acknowledge that continual GPS monitoring may be particularly intrusive, under these circumstances, we conclude that Condition 32 is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that no error occurred in its application. See United States v. Miller, 530 F. App’x 335, 338 (5th Cir. 2013) (‘In light of [defendant’s] background, any impairments of [defendant’s] privacy due to the GPS monitoring are outweighed by the condition’s benefits. These include effective verification of compliance with the other conditions of supervised release, deterrence of future crimes, and protection of the public.’).” State v. Kane, 2017 VT 36, 2017 Vt. LEXIS 56 (May 12, 2017).

This entry was posted in GPS / Tracking Data. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.