Sex Offenders And Ankle Monitors: Who Is Tracked?

The use of ankle monitors for tracking sex offenders has been a topic of legal debate in the United States, with varying rulings and opinions across different states and courts. While some argue that it is an effective way to prevent sex crimes and protect the public, others raise concerns about the constitutionality and fairness of such monitoring practices, especially when imposed for a lifetime. The discussion often revolves around balancing public safety and the rights of individuals, with courts and lawmakers working to establish legally sound rules that respect constitutional protections while also holding offenders accountable and protecting potential victims.

The US Supreme Court ruled ankle monitors on sex offenders are constitutional

In the United States, not all sex offenders are required to wear ankle monitors. However, in a 2015 case, the US Supreme Court ruled that ankle monitors for sex offenders are constitutional. This case, Grady v. North Carolina, involved a recidivist sex offender who was required to wear an ankle bracelet for life. The Court held that this monitoring was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, but did not rule on its constitutionality, remanding the case to the state court to determine whether it was reasonable.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Court's decision in Grady v. North Carolina affirmed that ankle monitors on sex offenders fall under this amendment. The Court's decision was based on its previous ruling in United States v. Jones, which held that attaching a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle was a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals initially held that the ankle monitor program was a civil monitoring program and thus fell outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment. However, the US Supreme Court disagreed and sent the case back to North Carolina to decide under the standard set in Jones.

The North Carolina Supreme Court then held that the monitoring program was an unreasonable search, stating that offenders did not forfeit their rights to bodily integrity and freedom from search by virtue of their status as recidivists. This decision effectively ruled out the mandatory imposition of ankle monitors on sex offenders, but it is important to note that each case is assessed on its own facts and circumstances.

The constitutionality of sex offender registries and monitoring has been challenged on various state and federal constitutional grounds. While the US Supreme Court has twice upheld sex offender registration laws, it has also placed limitations on the monitoring of sex offenders. For example, in Packingham v. North Carolina, the Court held that a North Carolina statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from using social media was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Ankle monitors are a staple of probation and release programs

In the case of sex offenders, the use of ankle monitors has been a particularly controversial topic. While some argue that ankle monitors are an effective way to prevent repeat offenses and enhance public safety, others believe that mandatory ankle monitoring extends punishment beyond the end of a sentence and raises constitutional concerns.

In the United States, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the debate, ruling that while ankle monitoring is not inherently unconstitutional, it does constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. This means that the state must demonstrate that placing an ankle monitor on an individual is not an unreasonable search.

State laws and policies regarding ankle monitoring for sex offenders vary. For example, in North Carolina, people convicted of the most serious sex offenses are subject to perpetual satellite-linked bracelet monitoring. On the other hand, a 2019 Georgia Supreme Court ruling deemed the lifetime electronic monitoring of sex offenders unconstitutional, leading to the release of hundreds of high-risk sex offenders from their ankle monitors.

The effectiveness and ethical implications of ankle monitors continue to be a subject of debate, with some arguing for more focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than solely relying on electronic monitoring as a preventive measure.

Ankle monitors can help prevent sex crimes

Ankle monitors are an effective way to prevent sex crimes and protect potential victims. By tracking an offender's movements and location, these monitors help law enforcement and the courts restrict the activities of convicted sex offenders. This is especially crucial for repeat offenders, who may pose a higher risk to society.

The use of ankle monitors on sex offenders is gaining traction, with a recent bill in Georgia, US, aiming to expand their use. This bill, known as Mariam's Law, was proposed after a released repeat sex offender allegedly kidnapped and killed a young woman, Mariam Abdulrab. The bill would require sex offenders to wear ankle monitors during their probation, with the duration depending on their risk assessment.

Ankle monitors can be used as an alternative to pre-trial detention or as a condition of probation. They ensure that offenders adhere to specific rules and regulations set by the court, such as refraining from drinking alcohol or maintaining a certain distance from victims or restricted areas. If an offender violates these terms, they may face additional penalties, including jail time.

The benefits of ankle monitors extend beyond tracking an offender's location. They can also be used to detect alcohol consumption by testing the wearer's sweat, which is particularly relevant for those convicted of DUI or DWI offenses. This added layer of monitoring can help prevent reoffending and ensure compliance with court orders.

While some argue that the use of ankle monitors may violate a defendant's rights, the US Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue. The Court held that while attaching a GPS device constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, it is not inherently unconstitutional. This balance between individual rights and public safety allows for the continued use of ankle monitors as a tool to prevent sex crimes and protect communities.

Ankle monitors may violate a defendant's rights

Ankle monitors are often used as a condition of bail or parole for those accused or convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, sexual assault, or major drug offenses. While these devices can be effective at tracking individuals, there are concerns about their impact on a defendant's rights. Here are some ways in which ankle monitors may violate a defendant's rights:

Fourth Amendment Violations

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the case of United States v. Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court found that attaching a tracking device to a person's body without their consent also constitutes a search, and the state must demonstrate that such an action is not an unreasonable search. This sets a precedent that ankle monitors, which are often mandated for offenders without their consent, may fall under the scope of the Fourth Amendment.

Due Process Concerns

The right to due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, ensures that individuals are afforded certain legal rights and protections during criminal proceedings. In the context of ankle monitors, due process concerns may arise regarding the conditions and restrictions imposed on offenders. For example, the terms and conditions of ankle monitor programs can vary significantly, impacting an individual's freedom of movement, association, and privacy.

Potential for Unfair Punishment

Ankle monitors are often presented as an alternative to incarceration or a way to reduce bail amounts. While this may be beneficial for some, it is important to consider the potential for unfair punishment. Offenders are typically required to pay for the cost of ankle monitoring services, installation, and equipment, which can amount to hundreds of dollars per month. Additionally, the restrictions imposed by ankle monitors can interfere with an individual's ability to work, care for their family, or participate in community activities, effectively constituting a form of punishment beyond what was mandated by the court.

Limitations on Civil Liberties

Ankle monitors inherently restrict the civil liberties of those who wear them. They often require individuals to stay within specific geographic boundaries, limiting their freedom of movement. Additionally, the devices may monitor more than just location; for example, some ankle monitors can detect alcohol consumption, further regulating the behavior of the wearer. These limitations on civil liberties can be particularly invasive and may disproportionately affect certain communities.

Impact on Rehabilitation and Reintegration

While ankle monitors can provide a level of supervision and tracking, they do not offer programs, support, education, or reintegration services to help offenders rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. This lack of holistic support may hinder an individual's ability to successfully re-enter their community and could potentially increase the risk of reoffending.

Ankle monitors can be a costly burden for the offender

The financial burden of ankle monitors is not limited to the device's cost. Offenders may also face challenges in finding employment due to the monitor's visibility and the need to commit time to charging and maintaining the device. This loss of income, coupled with the monthly expense, can create a significant financial strain.

In response to the argument that ankle monitors are an extension of punishment, Rebecca Dobras, an assistant attorney general, countered that the purpose of the monitoring is to "prevent future recidivism" and "allow the offender to know he's being monitored." Dobras also emphasized that the requirement to wear an ankle monitor is a consequence of the offender's own misconduct.

While the financial burden of ankle monitors on offenders is evident, the potential benefits of such monitoring have been recognized. The Georgia Sexual Offender Registration Review Board has stated that GPS monitoring has been shown to reduce recidivism rates. This suggests that, despite the costs, ankle monitors may ultimately contribute to public safety and help prevent future crimes.

The debate surrounding the financial implications of ankle monitors for offenders is complex. While the devices can impose a financial burden, the potential for reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety must also be considered.

Frequently asked questions