George C. Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board (069327)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that New Jersey’s equivalent of LEM deprives the people subject to it “of freedom of movement and the ability to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the constitutional bar against ex post facto punishments may be applied to a civil measure if the purpose or effect of the measure is punitive in nature
• finding GPS tracking law punitive in effect and thus holding retroactive application of law invalid under Ex Post Facto Clause
• finding that monitoring and supervision requirements violated the ex post facto clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions when retroactively applied to a convicted sex offender who A-2252-17T3 8 served his entire sentence and was released under no form of parole supervision
• “The New Jersey Ex Post Facto Clause is interpreted in the same manner as its federal counterpart.”
• “The tracking device attached to Riley’s ankle identifies Riley as a sex offender no less clearly than if he wore a scarlet letter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).