A prior blog post, “Satellite Monitoring of Sex Offenders Requires Judicial Review,” discussed the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Dykes. On July 24, 2013, our Supreme Court denied rehearing in Dykes and issued a revised opinion adding a new footnote. This new footnote rejects constitutional claims not addressed in the substance of the opinion, including a rejection of a claim that imposition of satellite monitoring, under the facts of this case, violated the ex post facto clause of the United State’s Constitution because the sex offender registry is civil rather than a criminal punishment.
Our Supreme Court’s maintains this view despite the addition of punitive provisions. Some states have reached a different conclusion. Ultimately, this issue will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Disclosure: Charles Grose represented the amicus curie party in State v. Dykes.