State v. Strudwick

• Decision Date: 29 October 2021
• Docket Number: No. 334PA19-2,334PA19-2
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Tenedrick STRUDWICK
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

379 N.C. 94

864 S.E.2d 231

STATE of North Carolina

v.Tenedrick STRUDWICK

No. 334PA19-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed October 29, 2021

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Sonya Calloway-Durham, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

MORGAN, Justice.

¶ 1 The State appeals on the basis of a dissent filed in the Court of Appeals’ consideration of defendant's challenge to a trial court order imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) following this Court's remand of the case to the lower appellate court for reconsideration of defendant's claims in light of our decision in State v. Grady , 372 N.C. 509, 831 S.E.2d 542 (2019) ( Grady III ). Because the intrusion of lifetime SBM into the privacy interests of defendant is outweighed by lifetime SBM's promotion of a compelling governmental interest, the trial court was without error in entering an order requiring defendant to participate in SBM for the remainder of his natural life.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 On 22 March 2016, the victim in this case, a 64-year-old resident of Charlotte, was walking her dog along a greenway near her home when she noticed defendant was approaching her from the rear. The victim stopped to allow defendant to pass her, but once defendant had done so, defendant came back and began speaking with the victim while petting her dog. Shortly thereafter, defendant said to the victim "I'm sorry about this," grabbed the victim by her arm, and began to drag the victim into a wooded area along the greenway. The victim produced a small taser and managed to discharge the device in an effort to protect herself, but with little effect upon defendant. Defendant then pulled out a sock filled with concrete and began to beat the victim over the head, knocking the taser from her grasp. The victim fell to the ground, and defendant dragged her into the woods and across a creek. Once past the creek, defendant wrapped a sweatshirt around the victim's head and threw her face down on the ground. Defendant proceeded to rape the victim and to commit multiple forms of sexual assault upon her body. Defendant threatened to kill the victim with a gun if she did not do what he said and ordered the victim to remain in place for at least one minute while defendant made his escape after defendant had concluded his assault.

Defendant rummaged through the victim's purse, took her cellular telephone, and then ran out of the woods past a group of bystanders who had gathered around the victim's dog in an attempt to locate its owner. The victim exited the woods a short time later and sought assistance from the bystanders, who contacted the police on her behalf. Utilizing the description of defendant and his last known direction of travel as provided by the victim and the bystanders, law enforcement officers located defendant walking along a busy thoroughfare near the crime scene. A search of defendant's person revealed the victim's cellular telephone and a small amount of marijuana. DNA testing ultimately confirmed that defendant was the perpetrator of the attack upon the victim.

¶ 3 On 28 March 2016, a Mecklenburg County grand jury indicted defendant for, among other charges, the offenses of first-degree kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first-degree forcible rape. Defendant appeared with counsel in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County on 2 August 2017, where he pleaded guilty to the above-referenced offenses and allowed the State to present an uncontested factual basis for a plea agreement which described defendant's attack upon the victim. In consideration of defendant's guilty plea to the three felony offenses, the State agreed to dismiss four counts of first-degree sex offense and the misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana. The trial court accepted defendant's guilty plea and sentenced defendant, pursuant to the plea arrangement, to an active term of incarceration of 360 to 516 months. Defendant was also ordered by the trial court to register as a sex offender for life. The prosecution apprised the trial court of the State's intention to seek the imposition of lifetime SBM and to bring defendant back at a later date for a hearing on the State's request.

¶ 4 The State filed a petition to impose lifetime SBM on defendant upon his release from his active sentence. In response, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the State's petition in which he asserted both facial and as-applied challenges under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution to North Carolina's SBM statutory structure. The matter came on for hearing on 8 December 2017. At the hearing, the State called Probation Officer Shakira Jones as a witness who, while employed as a probation officer for thirteen years with the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS), had spent most of the previous three years specifically supervising sex offenders who were on probation or post-release supervision following the completion of active sentences for sex crimes. In that capacity, Officer Jones also worked as an instructor who provided initial and refresher training sessions to other probation officers who utilized the state's SBM program to monitor sex offenders. Officer Jones explained that when an offender is ordered to complete a term of SBM, a 2.5-by-1.5-inch device weighing 8.5 ounces called an "ET-1" is attached to the offender's body using fiber optic straps, usually around the offender's ankle. The ET-1 apparatus is charged using a 10-foot cord that allows the offender to move about while the device is charging. Two hours of charging provides 100 hours of ET-1 operation, and Officer Jones testified that even one of her homeless supervisees had no issues with keeping the unit charged. According to Officer Jones, the ET-1 does not restrict travel, work activities, or participation in regular sports. It can be concealed by wearing long pants.

¶ 5 Officer Jones further testified during the State's presentation that the State's monitoring of sex offenders in the SBM program manifests itself in distinct ways. She related that offenders on probation or post-release supervision typically interact with their supervising officers on a regular basis through visits at the offender's home and at the probation office, where the equipment is checked for functionality. However, individuals placed on unsupervised probation are not actively supervised by an officer, but instead are overseen by a central monitoring office in Raleigh. These unsupervised offenders receive a new ET-1 once a year. Other than these compulsory interactions for supervised offenders and yearly check-ins for unsupervised offenders, a person subject to lifetime SBM would have little interaction with the State, unless something goes amiss. For example, Officer Jones explained that in the event that the ET-1 is low on power or if the device loses its signal, an offender's supervising officer or the Raleigh monitoring office can send a message to the ET-1 which will play for the offender until the offender presses a small button on the unit to acknowledge receipt of the message. If an offender fails to respond to a low battery or lost signal alert, or if an ET-1 remains dormant for six hours, an officer or other state agent will attempt to call the offender to address the issue. In the most extreme cases, such as when an offender attempts to tamper with the ET-1 device, when a sex offender goes to a location where the offender is prohibited from going, or when the offender is unable to independently correct a battery or signal issue, an officer attempts to locate the offender in person and to address any noncompliant or criminal behavior.

¶ 6 Officer Jones elaborated in her testimony for the State on the purpose and operation of the SBM program itself. Officer Jones explained that the purpose of SBM is "to monitor [offenders’] movement and to work closely with other law enforcement agencies so that we can prevent future victims." The SBM program can be used to determine whether an offender was present at a location where a new sexual assault or crime has occurred, to generate potential suspects for a crime based on its location, or to corroborate a victim's allegations against a particular offender. Conversely, an offender in the SBM program would benefit from being eliminated as a suspect if the offender's tracking device established the offender's location to be a place other than the site at issue. Officer Jones related at the hearing that the State also utilizes the SBM program to ensure that registered sex offenders like defendant are actually remaining at their registered homes at night and are staying away from "exclusion zones"—areas where offenders are not allowed to go—such as schools and daycare facilities. To these ends, the SBM tracker allows the State to access an offender's physical location either in real time or through subsequent review of an offender's movements. The ET-1 only indicates an offender's physical location through the use of cell towers and the Global Positioning System (GPS) and provides no information about an offender's activity at a particular location. Law enforcement officers access an offender's location by interacting with a system operated by the state's SBM vendor BI Incorporated, which displays an offender's location on a map using GPS. Officer Jones testified that offenders on probation and post-release supervision have their locations and data checked at least three times a week by their respective supervising officers according to DPS policy, but could not testify concerning the practices of the Raleigh center in monitoring individuals who had completed their terms of judicially ordered state supervision. Only BI Incorporated and DPS personnel have access to an...