SCOTUS rules on sex offender registration; GPS monitoring

By Burt Rose

Sex offender registration
The United States Supreme Court has decided the case of BILLY JOE REYNOLDS, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES, 2012 WL 171120, No. 10–6549 (January 23, 2012). This decision has reversed a ruling of the Third Circuit, 380 Fed. Appx. 125. Justice Breyer delivered the Opinon for the Court; the vote was 7-2. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg dissented. Click for Opinion.

The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 U. S. C. §16901 et seq, requires those convicted of certain sex crimes to provide state governments with updated information, such as names and current addresses, for inclusion on state and federal sex offender registries. The Act makes it a crime for a person who is required to register under the Act and who travels in interstate or foreign commerce knowingly to fail to register or update a registration. 18 U. S. C. §2250(a). The question before the Court concerned the date on which this federal registration requirement took effect with respect to sex offenders convicted before the Act became law. The Act says that “the Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter.” Therefore, the Court held that the Act’s registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until and unless the Attorney General specifies that they do apply.

GPS monitoring
In UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ANTOINE JONES, 2012 WL 171117, No. 10–1259, the United States Supreme Court decided on January 23, 2012 that the attachment of a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to an individual’s vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constituted a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Scalia wrote the Opinion joined by Justices ROBERTS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and SOTOMAYOR. Justice ALITO filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN joined. Click for Opinion.

In this case, the Government installed a Global Positioning System tracking device on respondent Antoine Jones’ Jeep without a valid warrant and without Jones’ consent, then used that device to monitor the Jeep’s movements over the course of four weeks. According to Justice Scalia and 3 other Justices (not Sotomayor or Alito), when the Government physically invades personal property to gather information, a search occurs, and this conclusion rests upon 18th century tort law, not because of an invasion of Jones’ expectation of privacy.

Advertisement