IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA16-151
Filed: 6 December 2016
New Hanover County, No. 15 CRS 50624
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JOSHUA ADAM STROESSENREUTHER
Appeal by defendant from order entered 29 October 2015 by Judge John E.
Nobles, Jr. in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
10 August 2016.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph
Finarelli, for the State.
The Law Office of Sterling Rozear, PLLC, by Sterling Rozear, for defendant.
DIETZ, Judge.
Defendant Joshua Stroessenreuther appeals from the trial court’s order
imposing satellite-based monitoring. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (2015), which held that satellite-
based monitoring implicates the Fourth Amendment, Stroessenreuther argues that
our State’s satellite-based monitoring laws are facially unconstitutional or,
alternatively, unconstitutional as applied to him.
We reject Stroessenreuther’s facial challenge. That challenge is premised on
the notion that, because the satellite-based monitoring statute does not expressly
STATE V. STROESSENREUTHER
Opinion of the Court
authorize trial courts to consider the reasonableness of the monitoring under the
Fourth Amendment, the law is facially unconstitutional. But the statute neither
permits nor prohibits trial courts from addressing this constitutional argument—it is
simply silent. As a result, trial courts are free to address this Fourth Amendment
issue, and hold a hearing if necessary, when defendants assert it. Indeed, this Court
has issued several recent decisions discussing the procedures trial courts should use
when a Fourth Amendment argument is raised under Grady. These decisions
confirm that trial courts can (and must) consider a Fourth Amendment challenge to
satellite-based monitoring when a defendant raises it. Accordingly,
Stroessenreuther’s facial challenge is meritless.
The State concedes that Stroessenreuther’s as-applied challenge is
meritorious, and we agree. Under Grady, the trial court was required to consider the
reasonableness of the satellite-based monitoring when Stroessenreuther challenged
that monitoring on Fourth Amendment grounds. The trial court did not conduct that
inquiry in this case, and we must therefore vacate the imposition of satellite-based
monitoring. We remand this case for the trial court to conduct the necessary
reasonableness inquiry described in our decisions in State v. Blue, __ N.C. App. __,
__, 783 S.E.2d 524, 527 (2016) and State v. Morris, __ N.C. App. __, __, 783 S.E.2d
528, 530 (2016).
-2-
STATE V. STROESSENREUTHER
Opinion of the Court
Facts and Procedural History
On 29 October 2015, Defendant Joshua Stroessenreuther entered an Alford
plea to one count of indecent liberties with a child and one count of sex offense with
a child as an adult offender. Stroessenreuther stipulated to a prior conviction for sex
offense with a child as an adult offender. The trial court sentenced him to 300 to 420
months of imprisonment and ordered lifetime sex offender registration.
At the sentencing hearing, the State also requested lifetime satellite-based
monitoring because Stroessenreuther had been convicted of a reportable offense
under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–208.6 and qualified as a recidivist based on his prior
conviction.
Stroessenreuther argued that “[t]he satellite-based monitoring statute violates
the Federal and State Constitutions based both on their face and as applied to this
Defendant” because “[t]he imposition of satellite-based monitoring violates the
defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” He relied on
the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Grady. In Grady, the Supreme Court held
that North Carolina’s satellite-based monitoring program implicates the Fourth
Amendment. 135 S. Ct. at 1371.
The State responded that there was no need to address the reasonableness of
the monitoring under the Fourth Amendment because imposition of lifetime
monitoring was required by the applicable statute. The trial court responded “I
-3-
STATE V. STROESSENREUTHER
Opinion of the Court
understand” and entered an order imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring
without addressing Stroessenreuther’s Fourth Amendment argument.
Stroessenreuther timely appealed.
Analysis
I. Facial Challenge
Stroessenreuther first argues that our State’s satellite-based monitoring
statute is facially unconstitutional because it requires the trial court to impose
satellite-based monitoring without permitting the trial court to consider whether that
monitoring is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This, Stroessenreuther
argues, violates the Supreme Court’s holding in Grady, which held that satellite-
based monitoring implicates the Fourth Amendment. As explained below, we reject
this facial challenge because trial courts are capable of addressing any Fourth
Amendment concerns raised by defendants before imposing satellite-based
monitoring.1
“An individual challenging the facial constitutionality of a legislative act must
establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid.”
1Section 1–267.1(a1) of our General Statutes provides that “any facial challenge to the validity
of an act of the General Assembly shall be transferred . . . to the Superior Court of Wake County and
shall be heard and determined by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Wake County.” But
subsection (d) of the statute provides that this rule “applies only to civil proceedings” and “[n]othing
in this section shall be deemed to apply to criminal proceedings.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1–267.1(d).
Although imposition of satellite-based monitoring is civil, not criminal, in nature, this satellite-based
monitoring issue arose during a criminal sentencing proceeding. We interpret Section 1–267.1 to
permit a criminal defendant to assert this type of constitutional challenge before a single trial judge
during sentencing without having to transfer the issue to a three-judge panel.
-4-
STATE V. STROESSENREUTHER
Opinion of the Court
State v. Whiteley, 172 N.C. App. 772, 778, 616 S.E.2d 576, 580 (2005). “The standard
of review for alleged violations of constitutional rights is de novo.” State v. Graham,
200 N.C. App. 204, 214, 683 S.E.2d 437, 444 (2009).
Stroessenreuther contends that, in our State’s satellite-based monitoring laws,
“there is no opportunity provided for the state to present evidence to meet its burden
of proving that the imposition of [satellite-based monitoring] is reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment” and “no provision allowing the trial court to consider the
reasonableness of [satellite-based monitoring] under the Fourth Amendment.”
We agree with Stroessenreuther that the satellite-based monitoring statute
does not expressly set out a procedure for hearing a Fourth Amendment argument
challenging the reasonableness of the monitoring. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–208.40A.
But the statute also does not prohibit a trial court from hearing and considering that
Fourth Amendment argument. This is a critical distinction. If the statute precluded
trial courts from considering the reasonableness of the monitoring, the statute would
be unconstitutional on its face. Grady, 135 S. Ct. at 1371. But merely lacking an
express procedure for evaluating the reasonableness of the monitoring does not
render the statute facially unconstitutional. There are countless examples of courts
considering constitutional arguments despite no formal process for doing so. See, e.g.,
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015); State v. Davis, 96 N.C. App. 545,
386 S.E.2d 743 (1989).
-5-
STATE V. STROESSENREUTHER
Opinion of the Court
Indeed, this Court has vacated and remanded several satellite-based
monitoring cases to permit trial courts to engage in the proper analysis required by
Grady. See Blue, __ N.C. App. at __, 783 S.E.2d at 527; Morris, __ N.C. App. at __,
783 S.E.2d at 530; State v. Collins, __ N.C. App. __, __, 783 S.E.2d 9, 16 (2016). These
cases illustrate that trial courts can, and must, engage in that reasonableness inquiry
when the defendant asserts a Fourth Amendment challenge, regardless of whether
the statute sets out an express procedure for doing so. As a result, Stroessenreuther’s
facial challenge to our State’s satellite-based monitoring statute is meritless.
II. As-Applied Challenge
Stroessenreuther next argues that the satellite-based monitoring program is
unconstitutional as applied to him because the trial court imposed that monitoring
without first considering whether it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The State concedes that, in light of Grady, the trial court erred by failing to engage
in a reasonableness inquiry once Stroessenreuther asserted his Fourth Amendment
claim. We agree. As in Blue and Morris, we vacate the order imposing satellite-based
monitoring and remand for a new hearing in which the trial court can engage in the
analysis outlined by this Court in those cases. See Morris, __ N.C. App. at __, 783
S.E.2d at 530; Blue, __ N.C. App. at __, 783 S.E.2d at 527.
-6-
STATE V. STROESSENREUTHER
Opinion of the Court
Conclusion
We vacate the trial court’s order imposing satellite-based monitoring and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.
-7-