{"id":16558,"date":"2015-03-30T10:20:25","date_gmt":"2015-03-30T15:20:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=16558"},"modified":"2015-03-31T11:52:20","modified_gmt":"2015-03-31T16:52:20","slug":"scotus-per-curiam-reversal-grady-v-north-carolina-satellite-based-monitoring-of-sex-offenders-implicates-the-fourth-amendment-reversed-for-reconsideration-under-jones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=16558","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS per curiam: Grady v. North Carolina: Satellite based monitoring of sex offenders implicates the Fourth Amendment; reversed for reconsideration under Jones"},"content":{"rendered":"

North Carolina\u2019s satellite based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders is designed to effect a government search of the location of sex offenders under Jones. It matters not that it is in the context of a civil case. The state court expressly ruled that Jones applies to cars and not to persons, especially sex offenders under civil law. The state court of appeals decision is vacated and remanded for reconsideration. Grady v. North Carolina<\/a>, 14\u2013593 (March 30, 2015) (per curiam) (SCOTUSBlog report<\/a>):
\n<\/p>\n

In United States v. Jones, we held that \u201cthe Government\u2019s installation of a GPS device on a target\u2019s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle\u2019s movements, constitutes a \u2018search.\u2019\u201d 565 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (footnote omitted). We stressed the importance of the fact that the Government had \u201cphysically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.\u201d Id., at ___ (slip op., at 4). Under such circumstances, it was not necessary to inquire about the target\u2019s expectation of privacy in his vehicle\u2019s movements in order to determine if a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. \u201cWhere, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.\u201d Id., at ___, n. 3 (slip op., at 6, n. 3).<\/p>\n

We reaffirmed this principle in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. ___, ___\u2013___ (2013) (slip op., at 3\u20134), where we held that having a drug-sniffing dog nose around a suspect\u2019s front porch was a search, because police had \u201cgathered … information by physically entering and occupying the [curtilage of the house] to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner.\u201d See also id., at ___ (slip op., at 9) (a search occurs \u201cwhen the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas\u201d). In light of these decisions, it follows
\nthat a State also conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person\u2019s body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual\u2019s movements.<\/p>\n

In concluding otherwise, the North Carolina Court of Appeals apparently placed decisive weight on the fact that the State\u2019s monitoring program is civil in nature. See Jones, ___ N. C. App., at ___, 750 S. E. 2d, at 886 (\u201cthe instant case … involves a civil SBM proceeding\u201d). \u201cIt is well settled,\u201d however, \u201cthat the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations,\u201d Ontario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746, 755 (2010), and the government\u2019s purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search. A building inspector who enters a home simply to ensure compliance with civil safety regulations has undoubtedly conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 534 (1967) (housing inspections are \u201cadministrative searches\u201d that must comply with the Fourth Amendment).<\/p>\n

In its brief in opposition to certiorari, the State faults Grady for failing to introduce \u201cevidence about the State\u2019s implementation of the SBM program or what information, if any, it currently obtains through the monitoring process.\u201d Brief in Opposition 11. Without evidence that it is acting to obtain information, the State argues, \u201cthere is no basis upon which this Court can determine whether North Carolina conducts a \u2018search\u2019 of an offender enrolled in its SBM program.\u201d Ibid. (citing Jones, 565 U. S., at ___, n. 5 (slip op., at 7, n. 5) (noting that a government intrusion is not a search unless \u201cdone to obtain information\u201d)). In other words, the State argues that we cannot be sure its program for satellite-based monitoring of sex offenders collects any information. If the very name of the program does not suffice to rebut this contention, the text of the statute surely does:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe satellite-based monitoring program shall use a system that provides all of the following:
\n\u201c(1) Time-correlated and continuous tracking of the geographic location of the subject ….
\n\u201c(2) Reporting of subject\u2019s violations of prescriptive and proscriptive schedule or location requirements.\u201d
\nN. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. \u00a714\u2013208.40(c).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The State\u2019s program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject\u2019s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.<\/p>\n

That conclusion, however, does not decide the ultimate question of the program\u2019s constitutionality. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. The reasonableness of a search depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations. See, e.g., Samson v. California, 547 U. S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless search of parolee was reasonable); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995) (random drug testing of student athletes was reasonable). The North Carolina courts did not examine whether the State\u2019s monitoring program is reasonable\u2014when properly viewed as a search\u2014and we will not do so in the first instance.<\/p>\n

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

North Carolina\u2019s satellite based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders is designed to effect a government search of the location of sex offenders under Jones. It matters not that it is in the context of a civil case. The state court … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,83],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gps-tracking-data","category-scotus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16558"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16558\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16580,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16558\/revisions\/16580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}