Click here to read prior post on the workings of SBM.
In State v. Bowditch, the NC Supreme Court today ruled that Satellite-based monitoring of sex offenders, ordered on cases prior to the enactment of the SBM law, does not violate the ex post facto clause, as the purpose of the program is not punitive in purpose or effect, but rather a regulatory scheme.
Justice Hudson dissented, joined by Parker and Timmons-Goodson, on grounds that SBM has marginal effectiveness and thus is "excessive in its purpose"--one of the grounds necessary for establishing a regulatory scheme.
The court also, per curiam, with the same dissenters, resolved 4 cases on the same grounds:
State v. Hagerman, State v. Morrow, State v. Vogt, Jr., State v. Wagoner.
Will post on the other decisions soon.