Grady v. North Carolina

GRADY v. NORTH CAROLINA

on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme

court of north carolina No. 14–593. Decided March 30, 2015 After petitioner Grady served his sentence for a second sex offense, a state court ordered him to enroll in a satellite-based monitoring program as a recidivist sex offender. The court rejected Grady's argument that the State's monitoring program—under which he would be forced to wear tracking devices at all times—violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Grady renewed his challenge on appeal, relying on United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, in which this Court held that police officers engaged in a Fourth Amendment search when they installed and monitored a Global Positioning System tracking device on a suspect's car. The State Court of Appeals distinguished Jones on the ground that it was decided in the context of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence, rather than in a civil proceeding about monitoring. The State Supreme Court summarily dismissed Grady's appeal and denied his petition for discretionary review. Held: The state courts' determination that a system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a Fourth Amendment search is inconsistent with this Court's precedents. See Jones, 565 U. S., at 404, 406, n. 3; Florida v. Jardines , 569 U. S. 1, 5–6. Under those precedents—which hold that the government conducts a search when it physically intrudes on a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain information—a State conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person's body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual's movements. In concluding otherwise, the State Court of Appeals apparently placed decisive weight on the fact that the State's monitoring program is civil in nature. But “the Fourth Amendment's protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations,” On-tario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746, 755, and the government's purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search. The State's monitoring program is plainly designed to obtain information, and since it does so by physically intruding on a subject's body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search. Because the state courts did not view the monitoring program as a search, they did not decide whether it is reasonable. That determination, which de-

pends on the totality of the circumstances, will not be made by this Court in the first instance. Certiorari granted; 367 N. C. 523, 762 S. E. 2d 460, vacated and remanded.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner Torrey Dale Grady was convicted in North Carolina trial courts of a second degree sexual offense in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in 2006. After serving his sentence for the latter crime, Grady was ordered to appear in New Hanover County Superior Court for a hearing to determine whether he should be subjected to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as a recidivist sex offender. See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 14–208.40(a)(1), 14–208.40B (2013). Grady did not dispute that his prior convictions rendered him a recidivist under the relevant North Carolina statutes. He argued, however, that the monitoring program—under which he would be forced to wear tracking devices at all times—would violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Unpersuaded, the trial court ordered Grady to enroll in the program and be monitored for the rest of his life. Record in No. COA13–958 (N. C. App.), pp. 3–4, 18–22.

Grady renewed his Fourth Amendment challenge on appeal, relying on this Court's decision in United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400 (2012). In that case, this Court held that police officers had engaged in a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when they installed and monitored a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a suspect's car. The North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected Grady's argument, concluding that it was foreclosed by one of its earlier decisions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a–7a. In that decision, coincidentally named State v. Jones, the court had said:

“Defendant essentially argues that if affixing a GPS to an individual's vehicle constitutes a search of the individual, then the arguably more intrusive act of affixing

an ankle bracelet to an individual must constitute a search of the individual as well. We disagree. The context presented in the instant case—which involves a civil SBM proceeding—is readily distinguishable from that presented in [United States v.] Jones, where the Court considered the propriety of a search in the context of a motion to suppress evidence. We conclude, therefore, that the specific holding in [United States v.] Jones does not control in the case sub judice.” 231 N. C. App. 123, 127, 750 S. E. 2d 883, 886 (2013).

The court in Grady's case held itself bound by this reasoning and accordingly rejected his Fourth Amendment challenge. App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a–7a. The North Carolina Supreme Court in turn summarily dismissed Grady's appeal and denied his petition for discretionary review. 367 N. C. 523, 762 S. E. 2d 460 (2014). Grady now asks us to reverse these decisions.*

The only explanation provided below for the rejection of Grady's challenge is the quoted passage from State v. Jones. And the only theory we discern in that passage is that the State's system of nonconsensual SBM does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court's precedents.

In United States v. Jones, we held that “the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a `search.' ” 565 U. S., at 404 (footnote omitted). We stressed the importance of the fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.” Ibid. Under such circumstances, it

We reaffirmed this principle in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 5–6 (2013), where we held that having a drug-sniffing dog nose around a suspect's front porch was a search, because police had “gathered . . . information by physically entering and occupying the [curtilage of the house] to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner.” See also id., at 11 (a search occurs “when the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas”). In light of these decisions, it follows that a State also conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person's body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual's movements.

In concluding otherwise, the North Carolina Court of Appeals apparently placed decisive weight on the fact that the State's monitoring program is civil in nature. See Jones, 231 N. C. App., at 127, 750 S. E. 2d, at 886 (“the instant case . . . involves a civil SBM proceeding”). “It is well settled,” however, “that the Fourth Amendment's protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations,” Ontario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746, 755 (2010), and the government's purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search. A building inspector who enters a home simply to ensure compliance with civil safety regulations has undoubtedly conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco , 387 U. S. 523, 534 (1967) (housing inspections are “administrative searches” that must comply with the Fourth Amendment).

In its brief in opposition to certiorari, the State faults Grady for failing to introduce “evidence about the State's implementation of the SBM program or what information, if

“The satellite-based monitoring program shall use a system that provides all of the following:

“(1) Time-correlated and continuous tracking of the geographic location of the subject . . . . “(2) Reporting of subject's violations of prescriptive and proscriptive schedule or location requirements.” N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14–208.40(c).

The State's program is plainly designed to obtain information. And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject's body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.

That conclusion, however, does not decide the ultimate question of the program's constitutionality. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. The reasonableness of a search depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations. See, e. g., Samson v. California, 547 U. S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless search of parolee was reasonable); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995) (random drug testing of student athletes was reasonable). The North Carolina courts did not examine whether the State's monitoring program is reasonable—when properly viewed as a search—and we will not do so in the first instance.

It is so ordered.