Posted on 02/09/2007 5:47:00 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
A new state law forcing sexual predators to wear tracking devices for the rest of their lives is unconstitutional, according to three University of Wisconsin-Madison law professors.
The measure violates privacy rights and amounts to punishment and warrantless surveillance when applied to offenders who aren't on parole or government supervision, the professors said in a letter sent to Corrections Secretary Matthew Frank on Feb. 3.
"A clearer example of governmental intrusion into personal privacy is difficult to imagine," wrote law professors Walter Dickey, Byron Lichstein and Meredith Ross.
The law's main author, state Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, called the professors "Monday morning quarterbacks" with weak arguments.
"They might want to talk to the victims of these crimes before they make such outrageous statements," Suder said. "Nothing is going to stop us form implementing GPS. We are on very solid constitutional grounds."
The law, which takes effect July 1, requires the Corrections Department to use global positioning technology to track offenders found to be sexually violent. Tracking would begin when they're released from prison and continue for the rest of their lives. The requirement would also extend to serious child molesters.
The law calls on Corrections to establish zones where offenders could not linger and ensure the bracelets immediately alert the agency or local police if they violate those zones.
Corrections officials asked for $23.7 million and nearly 235 additional positions in the two-year budget starting July 1 to run the tracking system.
The professors argue forcing offenders on supervised release to wear trackers is unnecessary because they're already being supervised and forcing offenders who have completed their government supervision is unconstitutional. Corrections has no authority over them, they said.
The measure doesn't authorize police to stop offenders from moving into off-limits zones, the professors point out. That means the measure doesn't protect the public, negating a possible legal defense.
Constantly wearing a GPS unit that must be recharged every 12 hours amounts to punishment and warrantless surveillance, the professors wrote.
"Constant, lifetime GPS tracking is physically and psychologically burdensome," they said.
Anne Sappenfield, an attorney with the state Legislative Council, said in a Jan. 3 letter to state Rep. Mark Pocan -- the only member of the state Assembly to vote against the law -- the measure could be unconstitutional because it applies to sex offenders who were convicted before the law was enacted.
Suder insisted the law is designed to protect the public, not punish offenders. He said the law allows Corrections to write rules on how to handle zone incursions.
Pocan, D-Madison, a member of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee, called the law a "knee-jerk" reaction.
"The bill was written in such a way to say 'hey, we're tough on sex offenders' instead of actually being tough on sex offenders," Pocan said.
Questions should be raised about the law now, before the Legislature releases millions of dollars in the upcoming state budget for the tracking system, Pocan said. That money could be better spent on helping Corrections develop ways to determine if individual offenders might re-offend, he said.
Frank's executive assistant, Susan Crawford, said Corrections has run into a myriad of problems as it prepares to implement the bill.
The law provides no penalty for offenders who refuse to wear the trackers, Crawford said. Corrections has no authority to return a sex offender on GPS who has completed his sentence to prison, and nothing in the law allows police to stop them for a violation, she said.
"It points to a need for the Legislature to ... fix some of these defects," she said.
Life in prison for sex offenders. If they have to be monitored when they're released, then they shouldn't be released in the first place.
According to three Wisconsin law professors .... well that settles it for me.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Please note that they talk about rights for the offenders but never their victims.
If the law applies retroactively then his point is valid. The solution though is just don't release any offenders.
3 Wisconsin law profs... from MADISON ! The Ivory Tower has spoken. Maybe we can pass a law to have registered sex offenders be required to live in the homes of University profs in lieu of prison.
"Maybe we can pass a law to have registered sex offenders be required to live in the homes of University profs in lieu of prison."
LOL! Yep. That'll happen. ;)
Fine. Life without chance of parole.
The professors are probably on solid grounds constitutionally. That doesn't mean nothing can be done, however. If the mutts are dangerous enough to require that much tracking, then they should not be out. Period. Note, too, the professors qualified their opinion that it applied to those not on parole. If there is a reason one cannot be kept behind bars, then lifetime parole should be a reasonable requirement for release. And that would clear the constitutional objection.
I am really not fond of tracking devices either.
If it were up to me they would have to wear the testicles and johnson on a chain around their neck for life.
That works for me.
If we cannot work up the righteous execution of such... things. Then we might buy "Devil's Island" from the French and premanently exile such swine.
How about when a pedophile "intrudes" on the personal privacy of a six-year old?
Don't like tracking?
OK, put them in one place where we can keep an eye on them:
a hole in the ground.
That is exactly the point. If they are enough of a danger that they need to be tracked after release, then they are dangerous enough to keep locked up.
If this is retroactive, it's clearly unconstitutional ex post facto sentencing.
If it isn't retroactive, sex offenders who are sentenced to wear the gps devices would have to be sentenced to lifetime active probation.
That the devices have to be visible some how, brings about cruel and unusual punishment arguments going back to colonial Massachusetts branding punishments.
Third problem is strict confidentiality issues on such huge amounts of gps data. The next step is the state will give access to gps tracking info to researchers looking for whatever. Or leaked gps info will get sex offenders attacked, intimidated or killed. Leaving the state liable to lawsuits.
Fourth, if the state actually knows where sex offenders are on a hourly basis, is the state then responsible to pick up and re arrest every sex offender who violates his/her probation and enters within the 500 or 1000 foot buffer zone of schools and parks or whatever terms of his/her probation? If offender drives past a school during his commute?
None of the politicians pushing this are seriously talking about this, and damned if it won't end up in the courts, where the whole law might get thrown out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.