satellite monitoring implicates a liberty interest). We are also deeply troubled by the policy restricting the interstate travel of the subject being monitored. “The right to travel is inherent in the concept of our country as a federal union; hence the right to travel is a fundamental constitutional right under the federal constitution.” Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn.1993); see also Pelland v. Rhode Island, 317 F.Supp.2d 86, 90 (D.R.I.2004) (“American citizens enjoy the constitutionally protected liberty to travel across state borders.”). Where an individual is still under a probationary or similar term, a state may constitutionally restrict his right to travel. See Pelland, 317 F.Supp.2d at 91; see also United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122, 128 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). However, it is a different situation when a
recognizing derivative standing if the bankruptcy court determines that certain conditions exist and certain prerequisites are met holding right to be fundamental recognizing that the court has the power to grant leave upon certain conditions recognizing conditions of release may curtail certain fundamental rights recognizing a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver of constitutional rights by counsel although certain fundamental rights require personal waiver by defendant