815 S.E.2d 754
S.C.2018Background
- In 1979 David Wilkins Ross pled guilty to a lewd act upon a child (now CSC with a minor, third degree). He served his sentence decades earlier and has no later sexual convictions.
- South Carolina requires lifetime registration for certain sex offenses and biannual reporting; SLED regulations and federal SORNA impose detailed, technical registration duties.
- Ross was convicted in magistrate court in 2011 of misdemeanor failure to register. Under S.C. Code §23-3-540(E) a conviction for failing to register (when the underlying offense is CSC with a minor in the third degree) triggers mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring.
- The Department sought a circuit court order to place Ross on an active electronic monitoring device; Ross argued mandatory monitoring under §23-3-540(E) is an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search and that the court must conduct an individualized inquiry.
- The circuit court ordered monitoring as automatic under the statute; the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed, holding the Fourth Amendment requires an individualized reasonableness inquiry before imposing monitoring under §23-3-540(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §23-3-540(E) authorizing automatic lifetime electronic monitoring for failure to register is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment | Ross: Mandatory "must be ordered" language forbids individualized assessment, making the bodily attachment/location-tracking search unreasonable | State: Statutory scheme distinguishes triggering events and offenses; automatic monitoring under (E) is reasonable and no individualized judicial inquiry is required | The court held (reversed and remanded) that §23-3-540(E) must be applied with an individualized Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry; automatic imposition without case-specific review is unconstitutional as applied to Ross |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. (electronic monitoring that tracks movements is a Fourth Amendment "search")
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (reasonableness inquiry under Fourth Amendment in the context of parole/supervision)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probation search condition relevant to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- State v. Dykes, 403 S.C. 499 (upholding automatic monitoring under a different statutory trigger; discussed and distinguished)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (Fourth Amendment ultimate standard is reasonableness)