7th Circuit upholds lifetime GPS for repeat offenders
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s decision finding lifetime GPS monitoring for people with two or more sexual offense convictions does not violate the 4th Amendment. The opinion can be read here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2022/D06-21/C:20-1059:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2893118:S:0
Perhaps this should go to SCOTUS since Justice Brown is now on the bench. After watching her embattled nomination proceedings on sex offense issues, I for one would like to know her opinion.
“Daniel Olszewski was convicted in 2014 of two counts of possession of child pornography”
So two pictures is two counts? Which now says lifetime tracking is ok. So everybody in this courts District (7th) will be on lifetime gps for one offense, if the prosecutor decides to charge you with multiple counts of cp but only one arrest conviction. The state of Georgia said lifetime GPS tracking is unconstitutional Colorado said no matter how many pictures you get caught with is still on one count per arrest, eventually the supreme Court court has to hear these ridiculous decisions based on nothing but fear and lies.
Example https://hurleyburish.com/new-department-of-corrections-interpretation-of-sex-offender-registry-statute-now-requires-thousands-of-individuals-to-register-as-sex-offenders-for-life/
Notice that the law specifies “two or more separate occasisons.” I don’t know how anyone could interpret two counts of possession prosecuted at the same time to be different occasions.
With child porn, prosecutors can usually arrange to bring multiple counts, depending upon how the “unit of prosecution” is defined in a criminal statute. The federal system has two nearly identical statutes regarding possession (18 USC 2252 and 18 USC 2252A). 2252 uses the term “1 or more” to describe media containing porn. 2252A uses the word “any”. If charged under 2252, all the media taken together can only constitute one count. Whereas 2252A, allows each book, disk, etc. to an individual count.
This distinction was agonizingly made through arguments in court–that is the judicial branch. Wisconsin apparently allows executive branch corrections department bureaucrats to parse law. Olszewski should be excluded from the new rule. However, it is a tragic injustice that he will be required to spend his time and money in the fight.
There is a guy on The all4consolaws site that was part of the original suite who was charged after the fact to lifetime gps on a one conviction charge. I fell bad for them, I just hope Florida doesn’t try to implement this.
Eugene
Even if you have done nothing wrong, cops tend to want to “pat” people down for weapons during a traffic stop. This is especially true for ex-felons. Once they feel a lump on your ankle, they are going to think either Gun or GPS. They have already run your tags so know you are a felon (Ex felon to us).
Having said that, then things tend to escalate depending on the officer. I do admit that sometimes the driver can cause the escalation by sending off attitude, but the officer should take the higher ground. Instead, many of them go off on a power trip and the next thing you know, one of us is in jail on more charges.
And what happens when we get a flat and pull over in front of a school? The GPS monitoring company calls law enforcement and states that a registered sex offender on GPS has been suspiciously parked in front of a school for a long period of time.
There is just so much that can go wrong with this as well as legally just down right “Being” wrong. How the courts cannot find this to be punishment, none of us can fathom. But as long as court rule civil commitment is ok well past your sentence, then we have little hope of getting justice.
On a side note, there are already people on the registry who have reached the end of their ropes, with GPS I see some who will choose suicide and others prison after they completely snap and say “Enough is enough”. And of course, that is exactly what law enforcement wants. The old saying about “Don’t poke a bear” may come to fruition.
Hey cherokee a little something funny for you. I have a service dog she is boxer/ Rhodesian ridgeback. On my car it says caution K9 i got pulled over for supposedly not making a complete stop at a red light. It was a drug unit that pulled me . the one deputy came up on the drivers side asking the usual questions. The other deputy snuck up on the passenger side. I say he snuck up because he stayed out of my mirrors , I never seen him until he was at my passenger front window at which time my dog made a low growl. They were quick to ask if my dog would bite or attack. I told them as long as they didn’t act aggressive neither would she. They asked to search the car i said OK but I’m not taking my dog out of the car on a busy roadway. They decided to take a super quick look and said have a nice day. I heard one of them as they were walking back to theyer vehicle say damn I wanted him but I’m not getting bit.
I don’t see the problem with this ruling. We have been pointing out over and over how low re-offense rates are. This ruling applies only to re-offenders, who are statistically, what, about 5% of the registrant population? And an even lower proportion of the FAC member population, I’d bet.
I’m not saying I’m necessarily a proponent of one-size-fits-all, mandatory lifetime GPS on all re-offenders. But when we try to educate the public on re-offense rates, we can’t just turn around and complain when restrictions are placed on re-offenders. Can we?
I see your point and don’t necessarily disagree as I think reoffenders hurt our cause to end the registry. However, I think that again the courts and public have a different set of rules for registrants. I want to cry out at all the reoffenders for assault, robbery, drugs, etc that neither receive the punishment nor lifetime registration that I do. And for that, this ruling is BS.
Only if applied retroactively. Once you plead guilty or even found guilty, the courts and law makers should not be able to go back in time and applies the new laws to those who have served their time. That is why so many of us are even on the registry, they applied it to so many who had already served and completed their sentences.
So yes, if they are applying it even to someone who committed a million offenses, if it is being applied as an add on for life, then they are not playing by the rules. I am not a repeat offender but be careful what you wish for, as they could apply it to ALL next, just like they did with the registries.
Possibly you might be unaware that WI likes to charge separate counts for each act against the same person and then call this separate convictions. So say you had an ongoing relationship with someone underage for a few months when you were 18 and had multiple occasions of sexual acts. They might charge you 10 times, convict you on 3 and then say since it’s more than 2, you get to wear this GPS thing for the rest of your life.
That’s much different than someone convicted, punished, and then later re-offends and is convicted again with an entirely new victim. In this latter case I would mostly agree with you.
I wore a GPS on my ankles for several years…it had to be switched from one ankle to the other when I fractured one of my ankles. I was released 11 years early from probation and of course the GPS was removed. I now have nerve damage to both ankles as a result of the time I wore the GPS. I have little to no feeling in the upper part of both ankles. Not one to ‘condemn’ court decisions, but the court got this one wrong and may very well be causing damage it claims it wants to prevent. What I did 23 years ago did not cause any damage, but the ‘punishment’ has caused damage.
The courts did though give them a golden ticket at least
“The monitoring program requires the plaintiffs to wear
an ankle GPS monitor for the rest of their lives
(unless they
permanently move to a different state”)
That would be my “See ya later” moment before they change their minds. I am sorry for what they have been accused of, but the courts have once again ruled we have zero rights when convicted of a sex crime. Furthermore, since many of us have lifetime registration, they have made no distinction of those who have moved on and done their time and those who are repeat offenders. Where is the fairness?
Jack, don’t expect fairness in our justice system. If there was fairness half of our politicians would be in prison. The only way we will achieve fairness is through legal fight after legal fight. That is why I consider FAC and NARSOL as Heaven sent…sorry if I offend anyone with my referral to Heaven but I cannot deny my faith.
Never apologize for your faith.
He said “If you are ashamed of me before men, I will be ashamed of you before the Father”.
Stay strong and stay in the fight my friend.
We don’t have a justice system, as it is subjective, but merely a legal system which we live under by the laws on the books.
Just another sad day in America. It will only get worse before it gets better, it’s just a matter of how long worse will last.
Ben
Wait until someone gets the bright idea to issue hunting licenses once a year to track us down. Sort of like the movie “The purge”.
Whenever something crosses the desks of a judge having to do with anything sex offense related, I am sure they scoff and gag. Is there not any that can at least listen? I was fortunate enough to get my sentence cut short by a justice who actually listened and cared. Now he is retiring 🙁
Don’t give the government any ideas. I can assure you there is a vigilante group in FloriDUH I have monitored for years that has openly discussed numerous times over the past decade about their wishes for a legal purge.
Of course, if the Purge did exist, and all crime was legal, my guess is lots of folks would just be engaging in illicit sexual acts rather than murder.
Can you recruit that judge to be part of our movement?
His name is Alan Lawson and he is currently a Fla Supreme court justice but retiring as of August 31st of this year. When I went before him on appeal 20 years ago, he was a circuit court judge.