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.
Most university professors should be required by law to wear tracking devices.
loose = lose
California has an explicit right of privacy written into its state constitution, which raises questions concerning this bill's legality.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
So? This law has nothing to do with punishment. So what's your point?
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Chill out it wasn't directed to you. It's part of protecting children. In the "old days" they would have used capital punishment immediately which would also have protected the children.
Perhaps (although I cannot believe that section 1 applies to convicts, as they are deprived of property and liberty when incarcerated, so privacy would go as well) but these legal experts were not refering to the CA constitution as far as I can tell.
The whole idea of letting someone dangerous enough to require tracking run loose amongst us is asinine to begin with.
Yes, it certainly is!
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.
This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
I say wood chippers to every family of an abused child and a few minutes with the molester alone. (put them in feet first it hurts more)
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.