Michael Belleau v. Edward Wall
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1517
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Belleau, convicted in Wisconsin of repeated sexual assaults of children in the 1980s–1990s, was civilly committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 and later released in 2010.
- Wisconsin enacted a statute (Wis. Stat. §301.48) requiring persons released from civil commitment for sex offenses to wear a GPS ankle monitor for life; the statute applied to Belleau.
- The anklet records location (≈30m accuracy), must be charged ~1 hour/day, is waterproof, and is reviewed daily by the Department of Corrections; it is visible only occasionally.
- Belleau sued state officials claiming the statute violates the Fourth Amendment (search/unreasonable) and the Ex Post Facto Clause (punishment retroactively imposed). The district court struck the statute on both grounds.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding (1) the constant GPS monitoring is a reasonable search under Fourth Amendment precedents and (2) the monitoring is civil/regulatory (preventive), not punitive, so it does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does lifetime GPS monitoring of a released civilly committed sex offender violate the Fourth Amendment? | Belleau: Continuous location monitoring is an intrusive search invading privacy and requires heightened protection (warrant); unreasonable. | State: Monitoring is less intrusive than confinement, serves safety/deterrence, and is reasonable under special-needs/parolee diminished-expectation doctrines. | Reversed district court; monitoring is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. |
| 2) Is the GPS statute an ex post facto law (punishment applied retroactively)? | Belleau: The law applies retroactively to crimes committed before enactment and functions as punishment (stigmatizing, disabling), so it’s an ex post facto law. | State: Law is civil/regulatory and preventive (protect public), not punitive in purpose or effect. | Reversed district court; statute is nonpunitive (regulatory), so not an ex post facto violation. |
| 3) Does the statute impose a punitive effect despite stated civil purpose? | Belleau: The ankle monitor stigmatizes, imposes continuous restraint, and furthers traditional punishment aims (deterrence). | State: Any burden is minor, narrowly tailored to public safety, rationally connected to prevention, and not excessive. | Court applied Mendoza‑Martinez factors and found insufficient proof that effects are punitive; upheld statute’s civil character. |
| 4) Are privacy expectations diminished for class of persons covered (sex offenders / formerly civilly committed)? | Belleau: Even convicted persons retain significant privacy rights; continuous GPS is uniquely intrusive. | State: Convicted sex offenders (and those civilly committed) have diminished privacy expectations; public safety need is high. | Court: Diminished privacy expectation applies; balance favors monitoring given gravity/high recidivism risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (2015) (GPS monitoring is a Fourth Amendment search; reasonableness left to courts)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolee searches without suspicion are reasonable; diminished expectation of privacy)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (registration/statutes are nonpunitive when regulatory; ex post facto analysis framework)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (civil commitment of sexually violent persons is nonpunitive/preventive)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking implicates privacy concerns; scope of search doctrine)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (recognition of sex offenders’ dangerousness and public‑safety interests)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (special‑needs balancing for intrusive searches such as drug testing)