State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509

Background

Grady, a former sex-offender who served his sentences and was unsupervised, was ordered under N.C.G.S. §§ 14-208.40A(c) and 14-208.40B(c) to enroll in North Carolina’s satellite-based monitoring (SBM) program for life as a statutory "recidivist."
SBM requires nonconsensual attachment of an ankle GPS monitor, 24/7 real-time and historical tracking, daily charging, periodic in‑home beacon installation/inspections, and criminal penalties for tampering or noncooperation.
The U.S. Supreme Court held SBM is a Fourth Amendment search and remanded to decide reasonableness (Grady v. North Carolina). The state trial court upheld SBM; the NC Court of Appeals reversed as to Grady; NC Supreme Court reviews scope.
The State asserted SBM serves legitimate public safety and investigative interests (crime detection, deterrence, faster apprehension); it did not present empirical evidence showing SBM efficacy in North Carolina for unsupervised recidivists.
The NC Supreme Court held mandatory lifetime, warrantless SBM is unconstitutional as applied to unsupervised individuals subjected to lifetime monitoring solely because they are statutorily "recidivists," concluding the privacy intrusion outweighs the State's unproven benefits.

Issues

Issue	Grady's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether nonconsensual, continuous, lifetime SBM is a Fourth Amendment search and if so whether it is reasonable	SBM is an unreasonable, suspicionless, warrantless search that violates the Fourth Amendment	SBM is reasonable to protect public safety, deter recidivism, and aid investigations; recidivists have diminished privacy expectations	Court: SBM is a Fourth Amendment search; mandatory lifetime SBM for unsupervised recidivists is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional as applied
Whether the special‑needs doctrine or other exceptions justify suspicionless SBM	No special‑needs justification; general warrant requirement and individualized review required	SBM serves a special need (protecting the public from sex offenders) and does not target ordinary law‑enforcement evidence gathering	Court: special‑needs doctrine not shown to apply here (State did not identify a non‑law‑enforcement special need); must apply totality of circumstances balancing
Whether recidivist status meaningfully diminishes privacy expectations in bodily integrity and location tracking	Status alone does not eliminate expectation of privacy in person and comprehensive location data	Convicted sex offenders have diminished privacy; SBM’s intrusion is incremental/minimal compared with statutory registration and other restrictions	Court: recidivists’ privacy interests are diminished in some respects but not eliminated; SBM is a deep intrusion (physical attachment, daily tethering, quarterly home entries, continuous location history)
Whether the statute is facially invalid or invalid only as‑applied to Grady	Statute unconstitutional facially and as applied	Defer to legislature; statute reasonable and tailored to protect public; trial court’s factual findings support constitutionality	Court: Remedy is mixed—not a wholesale facial invalidation. It is unconstitutional in all applications to the defined class of unsupervised individuals subject to mandatory lifetime SBM solely due to "recidivist" status; other SBM applications not decided

Key Cases Cited

Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (U.S. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that attaching a GPS device to a person is a Fourth Amendment search and remanding to consider reasonableness)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and use of GPS device on vehicle constitutes a search)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (acquisition of long‑term CSLI invades reasonable expectation of privacy in movements)
Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (balancing test and special‑needs context for programmatic searches)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolee searches and diminished privacy expectations; balancing totality of circumstances)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (digital data search implications for privacy; ‘‘privacies of life’’)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (drug testing and balancing intrusion against public safety interest)
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015) (standards for facial Fourth Amendment challenges to warrantless search statutes)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (sex‑offender registration treated as civil regulatory scheme; legislative findings relevant but not dispositive)
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (plurality recognizing high recidivism risk for sex offenders; not dispositive absent evidentiary record)