840 S.E.2d 267
N.C. Ct. App.2020Background
- Griffin pleaded (Alford) in 2004 to first-degree sex offense with a child; sentenced to 144–182 months and recommended for sex-offender treatment (SOAR).
- Released in 2015 on five years post-release supervision; three months later the State sought satellite-based monitoring (SBM) for thirty years under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40(a)(2).
- At the bring-back hearing the State introduced a Static-99 (moderate-low risk) and testimony describing the ankle monitor but presented no evidence that SBM is effective or how data would be used.
- The trial court ordered SBM for thirty years; the Court of Appeals initially reversed, Grady II influenced that result, and the North Carolina Supreme Court’s Grady III modified the law and remanded for reconsideration.
- On remand this Court applied Grady III’s totality-of-the-circumstances balancing and again reversed the thirty-year SBM order as an unreasonable warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 30‑year SBM order is a reasonable warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment | SBM is a valid tool to protect the public; judicial risk assessment and conviction justify monitoring | SBM is a significant, continuous intrusion; State failed to prove SBM’s efficacy or necessity | Reversed — thirty years of SBM unconstitutional as applied under the totality test |
| Whether Grady III controls outcome here | Grady III applies only to unsupervised recidivists and thus is distinguishable | Grady III provides the relevant Fourth Amendment balancing framework | Grady III governs the analytic framework; although Griffin differs factually, its balancing leads to reversal |
| Whether the special‑needs doctrine justifies SBM | SBM serves special needs (public safety) | Special‑needs argument was not preserved; in any event inapplicable here | State waived the special‑needs argument; court analyzes under diminished privacy framework |
| Whether Static‑99/judicial findings suffice to impose long‑term SBM | Risk assessment and court finding support imposition and duration | Static‑99 (moderate‑low) and findings insufficient; State must show SBM efficacy | Static‑99 alone is insufficient; State failed to meet burden to show SBM advances legitimate interests |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grady, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019) (Supreme Court holds lifetime SBM unconstitutional as applied to unsupervised recidivists and requires efficacy evidence under the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Grady, 817 S.E.2d 18 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals’ earlier as‑applied holding on lifetime SBM’s unreasonableness)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (Fourth Amendment protection for location‑tracking information)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probation supervisory relationship bears on diminished privacy expectations)
- Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (framework for balancing governmental interests and intrusion under Fourth Amendment)
- Belleau v. Wall, 811 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2016) (discusses GPS monitoring as uniquely intrusive)