Subjecting defendants to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The defendants all pleaded guilty to multiple counts of taking indecent liberties with a child; all of the offenses occurred before the SBM statutes took effect. The defendants challenged their eligibility for SBM, arguing that their participation would violate prohibitions against ex post facto laws. The court rejected this argument, concluding that the SBM program was not intended to be criminal punishment and is not punitive in purpose or effect. The court first determined that in enacting the SBM program, the General Assembly’s intention was to enact a civil, regulatory scheme, not to impose criminal punishment. It further concluded that, applying the Mendoza-Martinez factors, the SMB program is not so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the General Assembly’s civil intent. For related cases, see State v. Wagoner, 364 N.C. 422 (Oct. 8, 2010) (for the reasons stated in Bowditch, the court affirmed State v. Wagoner, 199 N.C. App. 321 (Sept. 1, 2009) (holding, over a dissent, that requiring the defendant to enroll in SBM does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law or double jeopardy));  State v. Morrow, 364 N.C. 424 (Oct. 8, 2010).  For the reasons stated in Bowditch, the court affirmed State v. Morrow, 200 N.C. App. 123 (Oct. 6, 2009) (concluding, over a dissent, that the SBM statute does not violate the ex post facto clause)); State v. Vogt, 364 N.C. 425 (Oct. 8, 2010) (for the reasons stated in Bowditch, the court affirmed State v. Vogt, 200 N.C. App. 664 (Nov. 3, 2009) (concluding, over a dissent, that the SBM statute does not violate the ex post facto clause)); State v. Hagerman, 364 N.C. 423 (Oct. 8, 2010) (for the reasons stated in Bowditch, the court affirmed State v. Hagerman, 200 N.C. App. 614 (Nov. 3, 2009) (rejecting the defendant’s Apprendi challenge to SBM; reasoning that because SBM is a civil remedy, it did not increase the maximum penalty for the crime)). For post-Bowditch Court of Appeals cases reaching the same conclusion, see State v. Williams, 207 N.C. App. 499 (Oct. 19, 2010) (court rejected the defendant’s arguments that SBM violates prohibitions against ex post facto and double jeopardy). For pre-Bowditch Court of Appeals cases holding that SBM does not violate the ex post facto clause, see State v. Bare, 197 N.C. App. 461 (June 16, 2009); State v. Bowlin, 204 N.C. App. 206 (May 18, 2010); State v. Cowan, 207 N.C. App. 192 (Sept. 21, 2010).