__ U.S. __ (2015), 14-593, Grady v. North Carolina
|Citation:||__ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459, 83 U.S.L.W. 4226, 25 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. S 181|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||TORREY DALE GRADY v. NORTH CAROLINA|
|Judge Panel:||Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan.|
|Case Date:||March 30, 2015|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Grady was convicted in North Carolina of a second degree sexual offense in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in 2006. After he served his sentence, the state held a hearing to determine whether he should be subjected to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as a recidivist sex offender, N. C. Gen. Stat. 14–208.40(a)(1), 14– 208.40B. Grady argued that the program, under which he would... (see full summary)
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
[135 S.Ct. 1369] [191 L.Ed.2d 460]
Petitioner Torrey Dale Grady was convicted in North Carolina trial courts of a second degree sexual offense in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in 2006. After serving his sentence for the latter crime, Grady was ordered to appear in New Hanover County Superior Court for a hearing to determine whether he should be subjected to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as a recidivist sex offender. See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § § 14-208.40(a)(1), 14-208.40B (2013). Grady did not dispute that his prior convictions rendered him a recidivist under the relevant North Carolina statutes. He argued, however, that the monitoring program--under which he would be forced to wear tracking devices at all times--would violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Unpersuaded, the trial court ordered Grady to enroll in the program and be monitored for the rest of his life. Record in No. COA13-958 (N. C. App.), pp. 3-4, 18-22.
Grady renewed his Fourth Amendment challenge on appeal, relying on this Court's decision in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). In that case, this Court held that police officers had engaged in a " search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when they installed and monitored a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a suspect's car. The North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected Grady's argument, concluding that it was foreclosed by one of its earlier decisions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a-7a. In that [135 S.Ct. 1370] decision, coincidentally named State v. Jones, the court had said:
[191 L.Ed.2d 461] " Defendant essentially argues that if affixing a GPS to an individual's vehicle constitutes a search of the individual, then the arguably more intrusive act of affixing an ankle bracelet to an individual must constitute a search of the individual as well. We disagree. The context presented in the instant case--which involves a civil SBM...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP