tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post5562403329409166061..comments2023-08-10T05:27:59.584-04:00Comments on SEX OFFENDERS AND THEIR WIVES: GPS monitoring for sex offendersDeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04084719094071573879noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-1356785934066389102013-04-26T15:57:12.230-04:002013-04-26T15:57:12.230-04:00my husband is on ankle bracelet . he was in proba...my husband is on ankle bracelet . he was in probation 2 years . never done nothing wrong , then wham , one day he came home told me the news showed me the bracelet . i just was o shocked and mad:! he said probation told him to get use to it , wont say how long he has to be on it . his situation happened in 2005 .was charged in 2009 , been on probation 4 yrs of 18 yrs so far:( its a living night mare. all these laws they keep putting in place limiting what freedom if any people have . and it not only affects him it affects our family. .what do i do ? im loss of options :( wrote governors of tenn . prayed and im trying to voice my concerns out in forums and debating web sites . i dont know how to write senator about all this . man i cant even write :(hurtingfamilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04402408363606312940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-32406785452190320662013-01-20T12:59:55.152-05:002013-01-20T12:59:55.152-05:00http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles...http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27124.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-37549888063029062072013-01-20T12:58:43.481-05:002013-01-20T12:58:43.481-05:00andhttp://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFi...andhttp://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27124.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-3100368795963115012013-01-20T12:54:56.380-05:002013-01-20T12:54:56.380-05:00May 9, 2012
South Carolina Supreme Court declares ...May 9, 2012<br />South Carolina Supreme Court declares lifetime sex offender GPS tracking unconstitutional on various grounds<br />The South Carolina Supreme Court has a very interesting (and seemingly ground-breaking) constitutional ruling concerning GPS tracking of a sex offender. The ruling in SC v. Dykes, No. 27124 (S.C. May 9, 2012) (available here), is a bit hard to figure out: the first opinion seems to announce the opinion for the court, but then a footnote at the state of Justice Hearn's opinion states that "[b]ecause a majority of the Court has joined the separate concurring opinion of Justice Kittredge, his concurrence is now the controlling opinion in this case." I will quote the first paragraph from both opinions in the case, because they both are noteworthy, starting here with the opinion of Justice Hearn:<br />Jennifer Rayanne Dykes appeals the circuit court's order that she be subject to satellite monitoring for the rest of her natural life pursuant to Section 23-3-540(C) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010). She lodges five constitutional challenges to this statute: it violates her substantive due process rights, her right to procedural due process, the Ex Post Facto clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We hold the mandatory imposition of lifetime satellite monitoring violates Dykes' substantive due process rights and reverse and remand for further proceedings.<br />The very lengthy opinion by Justice Hearn, which apparently garnered only two (of the five) votes on the court, is thereafter followed by a shorter opinion by Justice Kittredge which starts this way:<br />I concur in result. I commend my learned colleague for her scholarly research, and I agree with the majority's general proposition that persons have a fundamental right "to be let alone." But I respectfully disagree that Appellant, as a convicted child sex offender, possesses a right that is fundamental in the constitutional sense. I do not view Appellant's purported right as fundamental. I would find Appellant possesses a liberty interest entitled to constitutional protection, for all persons most assuredly have a liberty interest to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. I would find that the challenged mandatory lifetime, non-reviewable satellite monitoring provision in section 23-3-540(C) is arbitrary and fails the minimal rational relationship test.<br />Long story short, it appears that all members of the South Carolina Supreme Court have concluded that the mandatory lifetime satellite monitoring now required by stature in South Carolina for sex offender Jennifer Rayanne Dykes is unconstitutional. (I mention the full name of the defendant in this case because I cannot help but wonder, yet again, if the defendant's gender may have played at least an unconscious role in this notable outcome. I do not think it is implausible to at least suspect this case might well have come out another way if the the defendant was named Johnny Rex Dykes.)<br />I have not kept count of how many states are like South Carolina in requiring lifetime GPS monitoring of many sex offenders, but I am pretty sure this ruling could (and should?) have ripple effects in at least a few other jurisdictions. I am also sure that both constitutional scholars and those interested in the intersection of modern technology and criminal justice doctrines ought to check out the Dykes opinions.<br />May 9, 2012 at 06:20 PM | Permalink<br />TrackBack<br />TrackBack URL for this entry:<br />http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20168eb5f933c970c<br />Listed below are links to weblogs that reference South Carolina Supreme Court declares lifetime sex offender GPS tracking unconstitutional on various grounds:<br /><br /><br />Good luck to all... just another mom. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-82477596780424481172013-01-20T12:53:45.058-05:002013-01-20T12:53:45.058-05:00May 9, 2012
South Carolina Supreme Court declares ...May 9, 2012<br />South Carolina Supreme Court declares lifetime sex offender GPS tracking unconstitutional on various grounds<br />The South Carolina Supreme Court has a very interesting (and seemingly ground-breaking) constitutional ruling concerning GPS tracking of a sex offender. The ruling in SC v. Dykes, No. 27124 (S.C. May 9, 2012) (available here), is a bit hard to figure out: the first opinion seems to announce the opinion for the court, but then a footnote at the state of Justice Hearn's opinion states that "[b]ecause a majority of the Court has joined the separate concurring opinion of Justice Kittredge, his concurrence is now the controlling opinion in this case." I will quote the first paragraph from both opinions in the case, because they both are noteworthy, starting here with the opinion of Justice Hearn:<br />Jennifer Rayanne Dykes appeals the circuit court's order that she be subject to satellite monitoring for the rest of her natural life pursuant to Section 23-3-540(C) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010). She lodges five constitutional challenges to this statute: it violates her substantive due process rights, her right to procedural due process, the Ex Post Facto clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We hold the mandatory imposition of lifetime satellite monitoring violates Dykes' substantive due process rights and reverse and remand for further proceedings.<br />The very lengthy opinion by Justice Hearn, which apparently garnered only two (of the five) votes on the court, is thereafter followed by a shorter opinion by Justice Kittredge which starts this way:<br />I concur in result. I commend my learned colleague for her scholarly research, and I agree with the majority's general proposition that persons have a fundamental right "to be let alone." But I respectfully disagree that Appellant, as a convicted child sex offender, possesses a right that is fundamental in the constitutional sense. I do not view Appellant's purported right as fundamental. I would find Appellant possesses a liberty interest entitled to constitutional protection, for all persons most assuredly have a liberty interest to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. I would find that the challenged mandatory lifetime, non-reviewable satellite monitoring provision in section 23-3-540(C) is arbitrary and fails the minimal rational relationship test.<br />Long story short, it appears that all members of the South Carolina Supreme Court have concluded that the mandatory lifetime satellite monitoring now required by stature in South Carolina for sex offender Jennifer Rayanne Dykes is unconstitutional. (I mention the full name of the defendant in this case because I cannot help but wonder, yet again, if the defendant's gender may have played at least an unconscious role in this notable outcome. I do not think it is implausible to at least suspect this case might well have come out another way if the the defendant was named Johnny Rex Dykes.)<br />I have not kept count of how many states are like South Carolina in requiring lifetime GPS monitoring of many sex offenders, but I am pretty sure this ruling could (and should?) have ripple effects in at least a few other jurisdictions. I am also sure that both constitutional scholars and those interested in the intersection of modern technology and criminal justice doctrines ought to check out the Dykes opinions.<br />May 9, 2012 at 06:20 PM | Permalink<br />TrackBack<br />TrackBack URL for this entry:<br />http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20168eb5f933c970c<br />Listed below are links to weblogs that reference South Carolina Supreme Court declares lifetime sex offender GPS tracking unconstitutional on various grounds:<br />Shimmerringshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11889345175260200888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-69128024857824011132011-06-22T15:57:16.501-04:002011-06-22T15:57:16.501-04:00I live in ga but i agree with what you say.this ma...I live in ga but i agree with what you say.this man found me on the street,homeless took me in and has help me like a father but due to my disability's and him having a record that start before i was born,the law has try things and my father in-law.he wears a leg monitor.he's been out 4years now and the put it on him in DEC.2010.he spent 20years in the chain gang.he hasn't done anything since he's been out.i feel it's unconstitutional cause he did his time and he went through the class in prison.how can one do there time and still even once they complete it,they still have to pay.he's free yet he's not.i do not believe in the gps.i think it violates are rights as human beings.so everyone in maryland please don't agree to this program and do as dee says.Mighty Egale Soarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04469499490451564238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-43695164247741193012011-04-10T10:31:50.784-04:002011-04-10T10:31:50.784-04:00I'm tired of fighting for what I should alread...I'm tired of fighting for what I should already have .... My rights!!! Ten yrs is enough !!! What I don't understand is how can I be around children ...but be labeled a tier 111 jus need to vent ...and @ 31 my soul is exhuasted....I'm labeled a cso but am allowed around children....please help metelly snipesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-9539791644551114052011-04-06T18:58:14.610-04:002011-04-06T18:58:14.610-04:00I am so glad I found your blog, I am at the end of...I am so glad I found your blog, I am at the end of my rope it seems. I would have never in a million years thought my life would be this way...thanks, I don't feel so alone now :)lilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16914379657960881876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-61832628092325814482011-03-12T09:39:34.988-05:002011-03-12T09:39:34.988-05:00@ Dee:
"The 21 day notice was not included i...@ Dee: <br />"The 21 day notice was not included in the bill but was added by the Dept. of Public Safety."<br /><br />Thanks for your rapid response. So this is a new policy that the Dept of Pub Saftey just decided to implement on their own without a legistlative order? Or is this something they want to become law, but has not yet. With the Congress Session ending soon, all the bills will be final in short time. <br /><br />Hopefully this will not become law. Sometimes I wish the Law makers would read the ACTUAL FBI crime stats for recidivism and stop quoting rates of 85%. I'm left to wonder if they are simply incompetent and fail to check the facts for themselves, or if they are using fear mongering as a tool to maintain power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-21833360175741841762011-03-12T06:09:29.839-05:002011-03-12T06:09:29.839-05:00@ Anonymous: The 21 day notice was not included i...@ Anonymous: The 21 day notice was not included in the bill but was added by the Dept. of Public Safety.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04084719094071573879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-41850130470768613592011-03-12T02:13:43.006-05:002011-03-12T02:13:43.006-05:00"Likewise, the proposed DPSCS regulation requ..."Likewise, the proposed DPSCS regulation requiring 21 days advance written notice, with documentation, any time an offender leaves the state and to show up in person 3 business days before departure to confirm travel plans runs afoul of the Constitution's Commerce Clause by interfering with offenders engaged in interstate commerce activities."<br /><br />Can you please provide what bill or session of congress this was brought up? I'm trying to do legal research for someone to help them fight these laws, but I only find rumors of this '21 day notification' and no House or Senate Bill to study.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-48467952995640022722011-02-25T09:24:32.822-05:002011-02-25T09:24:32.822-05:00Thank you Dee. We live in Florida. I am relatively...Thank you Dee. We live in Florida. I am relatively new to this process but am in agreement that offenders need to be viewed on a case by case scenario-not lumped in as a collective all subjected to the same humiliating and often times dangerous restrictions. Shortly after his release, the local sheriffs department had plain closed civilians distribute fliers around our neighborhood with his living address, photo and information. He actually lives 2 houses away as we have children and he may not reside in a household with anyone under the age of 18 without the courts approval. The evening after the fliers were passed out my neighbor, with whom he resides, truck was egged-she has lived in this neighborhhod for more then 15 years and I cannot fathom who did this as everyone knows her vehicle. We are currently awaiting order on a motion to allow him to reside with me. I was advised by the county probation where he served his prison term, that my residence would be approved as it was within the restrictions for a sex offender residence as manidated by the county we live in, if we had asked the sentencing judge to place that verbage in the order at the time of sentencing. My response to that: we are not career criminals and did not know to ask for something like that. This was his first and only offense at 34 years of age. I am grateful to find someone else who has had experience with this and god bless you and your husband as well!Angienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-20214273154045378592011-02-25T08:52:47.257-05:002011-02-25T08:52:47.257-05:00Thanks Angie for your story and the info. May I a...Thanks Angie for your story and the info. May I ask what state you live in? Sounds like this is like having to wear a huge scarlet letter for all to see. God Bless and I wish you and your fiance the best of luck.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04084719094071573879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-22164950302396868052011-02-25T02:10:18.996-05:002011-02-25T02:10:18.996-05:00Hi Dee,
My name is Angie and my fiance is a regis...Hi Dee,<br /><br />My name is Angie and my fiance is a registered sex offender who was sentenced on 7/21/08. He was released in January of this year and is required to wear the monitoring device although it was not mandated in his order. It consists of a ankle monitor and a large box that he must either wear around his waist strapped on like a fanny pack or he may carry the device but it must be within 2 to 3 feet of the ankle monitor or the box will beep and he has to reposition it. The first night he had it, the box beeped every 90 seconds and we later found out it was due to the "charging device" not being connected through a telephone line, which his probation officer negleted to mention was needed and apparently it was not providing any reading at all. The next day he contacted the probation office to find out how to make it stop beeping and he was told him to make sure it was plugged into a phone line or it had no signal, huh??? Why on earth did they not investigate this if he is to be monitored and he had no signal. The box is required to charge for no less then 10 hours a day. In total there are 3 seperate pieces, and it is extemely bulky and heavy and loud. He must pay $7.92 per DAY for the device. Two weeks ago we went to a different county on a Friday and the following Tuesday his probation officer contacted him and requested he gain permission before leaving the county again but thought he had left the county the day before. I don't know if they just don't know how to use the system or are just lazy about it but it seems rather pointless as they do not pay any attention to it.Angienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3262125013832702143.post-8637716327326989712011-02-23T13:23:06.783-05:002011-02-23T13:23:06.783-05:00Just to let you know...on the MD registry about 91...Just to let you know...on the MD registry about 91% are labeled Tier III. Can you imagine the cost of monitoring that system? Money better used elsewhere.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04084719094071573879noreply@blogger.com