Document: Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TORREY DALE GRADY v. NORTH CAROLINA ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO No. 14–593. Decided March 30, 2015 PER CURIAM. Petitioner Torrey Dale Grady was convicted in North Carolina trial courts of a second degree sexual offense 1997 and taking indecent liberties with child 2006. After serving his sentence for the latter crime, ordered to appear New Hanover County Superior Court hearing determine whether he should be subjected satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as recidivist sex offender. See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§14–208.40(a)(1), 14– 208.40B (2013). did not dispute that prior convictions rendered him under relevant statutes. He argued, however, program—under which would forced wear tracking devices at all times—would violate Fourth Amendment right free from unreasonable searches seizures. Unpersuaded, court or- dered enroll program monitored rest life. Record COA13-958 (N. App.), pp. 3–4, 18–22. renewed challenge on appeal, relying this Court’s decision United States Jones, 565 ___ (2012). In case, held police officers had engaged “search” within meaning when they installed Global Positioning System (GPS) track- ing device suspect’s car. The Appeals rejected Grady’s argument, concluding it foreclosed by one its earlier decisions. App. Pet. Cert. 5a–7a. decision, coincidentally named State 2 said: “Defendant essentially argues if affixing GPS an individual’s vehicle constitutes search in- dividual, then arguably more intrusive act affix- ankle bracelet individual must constitute well. We disagree. context presented instant case—which involves civil SBM proceeding—is readily distinguishable [United v.] where considered propriety motion suppress evidence. con- clude, therefore, specific holding Jones does control case sub ju- dice.” ___, 750 S.E.2d 883, 886 itself bound rea- soning accordingly challenge. 6a–7a. Caro- lina Supreme turn summarily dismissed appeal denied petition discretionary review. 367 523, 762 460 (2014). now asks us reverse these decisions.* only explanation provided below rejection is quoted passage Jones. And theory we discern State’s system nonconsensual entail Amendment. That inconsistent —————— * aims decisions both appellate courts. 1. Because treat dismissal lack substan- tial constitutional question merits, court’s judgment, rather than judgment Appeals, subject our review 28 U.S. §1257(a). R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Durham County, 479 130, 138–139 (1986). 3 precedents. “the Govern- ment’s installation target’s vehicle, use monitor vehicle’s move- ments, ‘search.’ ” S., (slip op., 3) (footnote omitted). stressed importance fact Government “physically occupied private property purpose obtaining information.” Id., 4). Under such circumstances, necessary inquire about expectation privacy movements order occurred. “Where, here, obtains information physically intruding constitutionally protected area, has undoubtedly occurred.” n. 6, 3). reaffirmed principle Florida Jardines, 569 ___–___ (2013) 3–4), having drug-sniffing dog nose around front porch search, because “gathered . entering occupying [curtilage house] engage conduct explicitly or implicitly permitted homeowner.” also id., 9) (a occurs “when government gains evidence areas”). light decisions, follows conducts attaches person’s body, without consent, movements. otherwise, apparently placed decisive weight nature. App., E. 2d, (“the proceeding”). “It well settled,” “that Amendment’s protection extends beyond sphere criminal investi- 4 gations,” Ontario Quon, 560 746, 755 (2010), government’s collecting method collection search. A building inspector who enters home simply ensure compliance safety regulations un- doubtedly conducted Amend- ment. Camara Municipal City San Francisco, 387 534 (1967) (housing spections are “administrative searches” comply Amendment). brief opposition certiorari, faults failing introduce “evidence implementation what information, any, currently through pro- cess.” Brief Opposition 11. Without acting obtain argues, “there no basis upon can ‘search’ offender enrolled program.” Ibid. (citing 5 7, 5) (noting intrusion unless “done information”)). other words, cannot sure offenders collects any information. If very name suffice rebut contention, text statute surely does: “The shall provides following: “(1) Time-correlated continuous geographic location “(2) Reporting subject’s violations prescriptive proscriptive schedule requirements.” §14–208.40(c). plainly designed infor- mation. since so effects conclusion, decide ultimate program’s constitutionality. prohibits searches. reasonableness depends totality including nature extent intrudes reasonable expectations. See, e.g., Samson California, 547 843 (2006) (suspicionless parolee reasonable); Vernonia School Dist. 47J Acton, 515 646 (1995) (random drug testing stu- dent athletes reasonable). examine reasonable—when properly viewed search—and will do first instance. certiorari granted, vacated, remanded further proceedings opinion. It ordered.

Category: 0