Around the Web

Sentencing Law and Policy has a story out of Indiana where "[a] convicted sex offender banned by a city ordinance from entering parks has asked a judge for permission to watch his son play baseball at a Little League complex."  A hearing on the man's request for an exemption will be heard on April 11.

A jury in Florida has found a man guilty of murder for killing a convicted sex offender with a 42-inch samurai sword.  The man wanted to protect his young daughters from the registered sex offender, although his attorneys argued that he didn't mean to kill him.

How Appealing points out an essay in The New Republic by Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen entitled, "Legal Bondage: Why we like restrictions on sex." The article specifically discusses Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas which Scalia argued "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."  Professor Rosen argues that "Scalia had it entirely wrong...the days of morals legislation are hardly over."

The ACLU of Indiana is challenging a new provision of the state's sex offender law that will require those who register to agree to searches of their computers.  The lawsuit argues that "placing the restriction on sex offenders who aren't in probation or still on parole violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures."  The Indiana law requires sex offenders to register for 10 years after their release from prison, though some must register for life.

Comments

There is much more to the 42-inch samurai sword murder.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/apr/02/jurors-weigh-intent-swordsmans-trial/?

[Mark]

"state's sex offender law that will require those who register to agree to searches of their computers"

To agree? that is more then just unconstitutional, if its a valid law wouldn't they be able to just go into a search offenders home and search the computer without making them 'agree' to it? This is like blackmail or extortion - A either don't sign it and go to jail for not folllowing the sex offender registration law or sign it and give part of your constitutional rights.

[Alan]

you know what bothers me is that these judges and lawmakers are just singling out sex offenders. I wish these judges would go after Exon,Mobil and the gas companies with the same fervor that they go after sex offenders!But wait! sex offenders don't have multimillion dollar lawyers and lobbyist.!The judges and congressman who make these laws can go to their kids baseball games and say "good game son" . but sex offnders will have to watch their kids from a 1000 ft. away!!Why is Timmys dad way over there? he must be a sex offender.Have a good day!

[Ilah]

The Indiana law is indeed a hoot. There are more than enough lawyers in the state lege who know better--but they supported the law in spite of such knowledge. As for those state lawmakers who honestly say they didn't know better--that's just plain scary.

[Bennie Walton]

For the ACLU to win a case like this the argument must be correct. It should not be about someone wanting to protect private business information. It must be about illegial seizures and searches, or governmental coersion. Something tied directly to constitutional questions and concerns.

I also believe an argument must include an effective argument concerning parole and probation respecting person's no longer on parole or probation. On the one hand there is monitoring that is legal while a person is in parole or probation, and on the other hand, the end of legal monitoring under existing laws.

In a very real sense people that are required to register are under a form of legal monitoring, but a new law would be something after the fact for many and would take on a retroactive reqirement.

I can see where a judge sympathetic to legislators and their stated purpose of "for the public safety" or something to that effect that is seen in legislations to get over the hurdle of Ex Post Facto violations and due process violations. No matter how the ACLU may tackle this, it will be tricky.

[Ilah]

Bennie, Indiana ACLU has done a good job of presenting arguments in the past, so I'm sure they've their ducks in a row for this one. And really, a court would have to go through some interesting shuffle-steps to explain how the state REQUIRES one consent to a search that would be illegal without consent.

Protecting private business information is part of a successful case. It falls under being secure in one's papers.

[Bennie Walton]

I here you. I have become pessimistic seeing how particularly the US Supreme court and other courts, not all, have deferred or acquiesced to the states, not actually deciding upon the merits of a case but saying in effect - since the state has said it is for the public safety .... This is what was done in Alaska v. Doe or Smith, I don't recall, and it has been done too many times for my liking depriving person's of due process, and doing end runs around ex post facto, and other legal rights almost everyone else has, at least more so than people labeled as sex offender. I do actually support the ACLU here in Colorado, and nationally, they are amongst the few voices or entities that are willing to get in the ring and fight.

[jjoe]

The other concern is that the U.S. Supreme Court has discretion in what cases they choose to hear. How many times did they deny cert to criminal defendants making the same argument that was eventually accepted in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, regarding the "appears to be" language?

Of course, that was the government petitioning for cert because the Ninth Circuit found the language unconstitutional.

For laws like this that are so blatantly unconstitutional, they should make the lawmakers pay the court costs.

[Ilah]

"This is what was done in Alaska v. Doe or Smith, I don't recall, and it has been done too many times for my liking depriving person's of due process, and doing end runs around ex post facto,"

I understand. It's important to remember, though, that SCOTUS didn't exactly find offenders had diminished rights in either Doe case. (IIRC, the wording was a "diminished expectation" of privacy, based solely upon the true fact that convictions are already public records.) Instead, the Court found there was not a single right violated by the publishing of truthful information, and a reporting requirement that was, by the letter of the law being challenged, far less onerous than filing a tax return.

The Indiana case does not turn on the malleable notion of privacy (i.e. the desire to keep one's residence from the public's knowledge). The law's very wording is an admission of its Constitutional breach. It does not infringe upon a right; it dismisses it fully.

Could a state court decide the law is Cool Beans? Sure. Heck, a judge in a residency case found the state had the power to regulate folks because of "distinguishing characteristics." But if that's the case, it really won't matter what the ACLU puts together...until it's appealed to a higher court, at which point jjoe's observation comes into play.

However, I don't think any state court WANTS a registry-related case up before SCOTUS. States like Maine are instead choosing to change their laws before even their state court has a chance to rule against it. States like Missouri have decided it'll be easier to pass a constitutional amendment than appeal.

[Ilah]

"This is what was done in Alaska v. Doe or Smith, I don't recall, and it has been done too many times for my liking depriving person's of due process, and doing end runs around ex post facto,"

I understand. It's important to remember, though, that SCOTUS didn't exactly find offenders had diminished rights in either Doe case. (IIRC, the wording was a "diminished expectation" of privacy, based solely upon the true fact that convictions are already public records.) Instead, the Court found there was not a single right violated by the publishing of truthful information, and a reporting requirement that was, by the letter of the law being challenged, far less onerous than filing a tax return.

The Indiana case does not turn on the malleable notion of privacy (i.e. the desire to keep one's residence from the public's knowledge). The law's very wording is an admission of its Constitutional breach. It does not infringe upon a right; it dismisses it fully.

Could a state court decide the law is Cool Beans? Sure. Heck, a judge in a residency case found the state had the power to regulate folks because of "distinguishing characteristics." But if that's the case, it really won't matter what the ACLU puts together...until it's appealed to a higher court, at which point jjoe's observation comes into play.

However, I don't think any state court WANTS a registry-related case up before SCOTUS. States like Maine are instead choosing to change their laws before even their state court has a chance to rule against it. States like Missouri have decided it'll be easier to pass a constitutional amendment than appeal.