Mar 062019
 March 6, 2019  Posted by  Court, Surveillance, U.S.

Joe Cadillic sent me a link to this post from with a comment that it’s a huge privacy ruling. I’m not sure how “huge” it is (I mean, it’s just GEORGIA… and not the 11th Circuit, even),  but it’s still a good ruling for privacy — until this offender re-offends and someone is assaulted or killed and everyone screams that it was foreseeable so why didn’t they monitor continuously and forever?

Hall writes:

Lifetime GPS monitoring of a sexually violent predator was a Fourth Amendment violation that does not satisfy the special needs doctrine and is unreasonable. Despite the diminished expectation of privacy of a person on post-conviction supervision, this is just too intrusive. Moreover, GPS monitoring isn’t even part of probation or parole of a sex offender. Park v. State, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 138 (Mar. 4, 2019)

Read excerpts from the court’s opinion on

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.