The court sided with an offender who argued that being forced to wear a location monitor for the rest of his life is unconstitutional.
Hopefully this will simply result in a modification of the wording. It means that the convicted criminal as a condition of parole consents to the GPS anklet, or serves more of their sentence. The anklets are only there for people who are at risk of re-offending and I would have thought home detention would be preferable to being in jail.
These challenges are a legitimate way of making sure that the wording of a sentence is legal and if not, the wording needs to keep up with changes in technology. Thousands of people would still be in jail without the chance to redeem themselves and start fresh lives if it wasn’t for GPS anklets. Recidivist criminals would otherwise have conditions including daily reporting or have to be checked to make sure they are still at home or where they are supposed to be and often without a deterrent, would violate their conditions, with the consequence that more police are required to watch parolees instead of being out and about preventing or resolving crimes.