The ACLU and EFF seem clearly to be in the right here, and the district court ruling seems pretty straightforward. Here&#x27;s a quick sketch of the facts of the case:<p>* The plaintiff is a serial child molester, convicted once in the late 80s, again in the 90s (for which he served a 10-year sentence), paroled in the early 00s, and had his parole revoked after he sought contact with 4-5 year old children and admitted to considering molesting them.<p>* Following his sentence, he was committed involuntarily to a psychiatric facility after a hearing with a jury found unanimously that he was a danger to the community and likely to offend again.<p>* As was his right, he annually challenged his commitment, and in 2010 had an evaluation that determined that while he was more likely than not to offend again, his condition didn&#x27;t then meet the standard required to confine him at the psychiatric facility, and he was released.<p>* At that point in 2010, he was as a matter of law free, &quot;maximally discharged&quot;, with no lawful encumbrances remaining on his whereabouts or activities.<p>* During the time he was committed (but after his criminal sentence had expired), Wisconsin passed a law requiring lifetime GPS monitoring for people convicted of the kinds of crimes he was convicted for.<p>* The state contends that because he was involuntarily committed fairly as a matter of law, and because the hearing that released him from that commitment was aware of the GPS monitoring law when they determined he could be released, the GPS monitoring act was fairly applied to him.<p>* The state also contends that the GPS monitoring requirement isn&#x27;t a &quot;punishment&quot; but rather a public safety mechanism.<p>* The court roundly and vividly rejected the idea that the GPS bracelet wasn&#x27;t punitive, and found that because his commitment followed from a criminal conviction for which his sentence was entirely served, he couldn&#x27;t be punished retroactively.<p>* The court also determined that because SCOTUS had already established that merely attaching a GPS monitor to a car temporarily constituted a 4A search, there was no possible way the state could prevail in any argument that suggested that lifetime GPS monitoring of a person was <i>not</i> a 4A search.<p>As EFF says, this case is really more about retroactive punishment than anything else. This plaintiff if a corner case. 10 years from now, we can expect lifetime GPS monitoring to be the norm in states like Wisconsin.<p>Irrelevant but interesting note from the article:<p>Pedophilia is a diagnosis recognized by the court as warranting involuntary commitment, but the state cannot premise arguments on the idea that pedophiles will <i>compelled</i> to molest children. If they were, pedophiles could evade criminal convictions by pleading insanity.