Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / Criminal Practice / Criminal Practice –Search & Seizure – SBM – Recidivism – Efficacy – No Evidence

Criminal Practice –Search & Seizure – SBM – Recidivism – Efficacy – No Evidence

During its argument in favor of satellite-based monitoring (SBM), the state mentioned studies and statistics; however, the state did not introduce those studies or statistics into evidence, and those studies and statistics did not show that SBM was effective at preventing recidivism. Accordingly, the state failed to show that SBM was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

We reverse the trial court’s order requiring defendant to submit to SBM.

Where (1) the studies mentioned in the state’s argument were not presented to defendant or the trial court, (2) the state did not request judicial notice, (3) the trial court made no indication it was taking judicial notice of the studies, and (4) the risk of recidivism by sex offenders is subject to extensive reasonable debate, the trial court did not take judicial notice of the studies.

State v. Anthony (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-217-19, 11 pp.) (Donna Stroud, J.) Appealed from Rowan County Superior Court (Lori Hamilton, J.) Sonya Calloway-Durham for the state; David Andrews for defendant. N.C. App.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *