Skip to content
  • Team
    • Howard Kaplan
    • Sarah Grady
    • David Schmutzer
    • Nabihah Maqbool
    • John D. Tinder
    • Sarah Brodwolf
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Prisoners’ Rights
      • Wrongful Death
      • Medical & Mental Health
      • Sexual Assault
      • Failure to Protect
    • Business Litigation
      • Complex Commercial Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Resources
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoner’s Rights Listserv
    • Prisoners’ Rights Resources
    • Press Kit
  • Careers
Call Today
Contact Us
312-852-2184
  • Team
    • Howard Kaplan
    • Sarah Grady
    • David Schmutzer
    • Nabihah Maqbool
    • John D. Tinder
    • Sarah Brodwolf
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Prisoners’ Rights
      • Wrongful Death
      • Medical & Mental Health
      • Sexual Assault
      • Failure to Protect
    • Business Litigation
      • Complex Commercial Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Resources
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoner’s Rights Listserv
    • Prisoners’ Rights Resources
    • Press Kit
  • Careers
Braam v. Carr
37 F.4th 1269 (7th Cir. 2022)

The Court (Sykes/Hamilton/St. Eve, with Sykes writing) affirmed denial of a PI to stop enforcement of lifetime GPS monitoring of folks convicted of sex crimes under the Fourth Amendment. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Belleau, which found that lifetime GPS monitoring of individuals released from civil confinement was constitutional based on proffered evidence about sex crimes generally. The Court noted that considering the totality of the circumstances, evidence cited in Belleau about the high recidivism rate of people convicted of sex crimes and the underreporting of these crimes, along with the state’s interest in preventing these crimes, rendered the lifetime GPS statute reasonable. The Court noted that lifetime monitoring was unobtrusive because the ankle monitor was unobtrusive and not monitored in real time (only every 24 hours). One notable takeaway from this opinion is this statement (about people who have completed their sentences): “Given the diminished privacy expectations of convicted sex offenders…” Slip Op. at 8. The opinion is notable because it (and apparently Belleau before it) says that certain people forever have diminished rights under the 4th Amendment, even after they have fully completed their sentence. Concerning, to say the least.

Braam v. Carr 6.21.22Download
PrevPrevious
NextNext

More
Summaries

Kaplan & Grady Welcomes John D. Tinder, Former Seventh Circuit Judge, District Court Judge, and United States Attorney, to the Firm

February 8, 2023

Munson v. Newbold

October 28, 2022

Williams v. Rajoli

October 28, 2022
join our prisoners' rights Listserv
1953 N. Clybourn Ave., Suite 274, Chicago, IL 60614
  • 1-312-852-2184
  • hello@kaplangrady.com

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome • This website contains attorney advertising

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

This website contains attorney advertising

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

© Kaplan & Grady LLC 2023

Please contact us with information about your case

Your submission will be reviewed and a notification will be emailed.