Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14–593.
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 575 U.S. 306,191 L.Ed.2d 459,135 S.Ct. 1368 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–593. |
| Parties | Torrey Dale GRADY v. NORTH CAROLINA. |
575 U.S. 306
135 S.Ct. 1368
191 L.Ed.2d 459
Torrey Dale GRADY
v.
NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 14–593.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 30, 2015.
PER CURIAM.
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
decision, coincidentally named State v. Jones, the court had said:
"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 proceeding—is readily distinguishable from that presented in [United States v. ] Jones, where the Court considered the propriety of a search in the context of a motion to suppress evidence. We conclude, therefore, that the specific holding in [United States v. ] Jones does not control in the case sub judice ." – –– N.C.app. ––––, ––––, 750 S.E.2d 883, 886 (2013).
The court in Grady's case held itself bound by this reasoning and accordingly rejected his Fourth Amendment challenge. App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a–7a. The North Carolina Supreme Court in turn summarily dismissed Grady's appeal and denied his petition for discretionary review. 367 N.C. 523, 762 S.E.2d 460 (2014). Grady now asks us to reverse these decisions.*
The only explanation provided below for the rejection of Grady's challenge is the quoted passage from State v. Jones . And the only theory we discern in that passage is that the State's system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court's precedents.
In United States v. Jones, we held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a ‘search.’ " 565 U.S., at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 949 (footnote omitted). We stressed the importance of the fact that the Government had "physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information." Id., at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 949. Under such circumstances, it
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yang v. Boudreaux, 1:21-cv-00148-BAM
...Cty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.1987)). The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 135 (2015). A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless the search falls within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, as fo......
-
Mason v. Besse, Case No. 3:20cv246(KAD)
...upon reasonable privacy expectations.'" United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 402 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 310 (2015)). "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the......
-
State v. Hilton, 292A20
...of the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations." Grady v. North Carolina (Grady I), 575 U.S. 306, 310, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 1371 (2015) (per curiam). The Fourth Amendment reasonableness test requires balancing significant competing interests: the S......
-
Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, SJC-13122
...481 Mass. 710, 715, 119 N.E.3d 669, cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 247, 205 L.Ed.2d 138 (2019), quoting Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 309, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015) (per curiam). We recognize that the United States Supreme Court has held that the trespass test......
-
Yang v. Boudreaux, 1:21-cv-00148-BAM
...Cty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.1987)). The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 135 (2015). A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless the search falls within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, as fo......
-
Mason v. Besse, Case No. 3:20cv246(KAD)
...upon reasonable privacy expectations.'" United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 402 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 310 (2015)). "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable......
-
Leaders of A Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep't, No. 20-1495
...balancing the burden on constitutional rights against other law enforcement and public safety needs. See, e.g. , Grady v. North Carolina , 575 U.S. 306, 310, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015) (per curiam); Samson v. California , 547 U.S. 843, 848, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006)......
-
Leaders of A Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep't, No. 20-1495
...burdens on constitutional rights against the claim of law enforcement and public safety needs. See, e.g. , Grady v. North Carolina , 575 U.S. 306, 310, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015) (per curiam). "Whether a search is reasonable ‘is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the......
-
GAMING CERTIORARI.
...granted, vacated per curiam, 139 S. Ct. 500 (2019); State v. Grady, 762 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. 2014) (mem.), cert, granted, vacated per curiam, 575 U.S. 306 (2015); Jackson v. Felkner, 389 F. App'x 640 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished), cert, granted, rev'd per curiam, 562 U.S. 594 (2011); Wilkins, 3......
-
Part Ii: Response Issues Good Health and Good Privacy Go Hand-in-hand
...that use “haphazard” and inconsistent analyses). 52. Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 n.3. 53. See, e.g., Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 310 (2015) (use of a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet constitutes a search); Demo v. Kirksey, No. 8:8-cv-00716-PX, 2018 WL 5994995, at *3, *5-6 (D. Md. Nov......