and in requiring due process for defendants accused of crimes. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (recognizing that federal bail provisions are subject to constitutional limitations of due process and excessive bail); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (“[Conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention ... implicate ... protection against liberty without due process of law....”). The weight of nisi prius authority is that the Adam Walsh Act is unconstitutional in cases such as the present one, since it requires imposition of electronic monitoring without discretion in all cases falling within the statute’s ambit. See, e.g., United States v. Smedley, 611 F.Supp.2d 971, 974-77 (E.D.Mo.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Merritt, 612 F.Supp.2d 1074,
holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers holding that adam walsh act does not prohibit inspection by defense expert holding that adam walsh act violates fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process holding that an alien is entitled to the fifth amendment guarantee of due process which is satisfied by a full and fair hearing holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment