{"id":2993,"date":"2022-08-16T16:11:03","date_gmt":"2022-08-16T21:11:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2993"},"modified":"2022-08-16T16:22:03","modified_gmt":"2022-08-16T21:22:03","slug":"braam-v-carr-7th-cir-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/08\/16\/braam-v-carr-7th-cir-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Braam v. Carr (7th Cir. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Braam v. Carr, No. 20-1059 (7th Cir. 2022)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> In this purported class action a group of individuals, who have each been convicted of multiple sex offenses involving children, asserted a Fourth Amendment challenge to a Wisconsin statute that required them to wear GPS tracking devices\u00a0for life, even after they had completed post-confinement supervision.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 alleging that the lifetime monitoring requirement violates their rights under the Fourth Amendment. With their complaint, they submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion ruling that in light of Belleau v. Wall<\/em>, 811 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2016), the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. Plaintiffs appealed.<\/p>\n

Holding:<\/strong> The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that, although lifetime GPS monitoring is considered a search under Grady v. North Carolina<\/em>, 575 U.S. 306 (2015), under the totality of the circumstances, balancing balancing the individual privacy interests and legitimate state interests, lifetime GPS monitoring is not an unreasonable search.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n