U.S. District Court Judge Dean Pregerson issued today a preliminary injunction (PI) ordering the CA Department of Corrections and Parole (CDCR) to allow a registrant to attend and participate in church services as well as to access social media. The judge’s decision followed a hearing on December 11.
According to court documents, CDCR prohibited the registrant from attending and preaching at church services although he is an ordained minister. In addition, CDCR prohibited the registrant from accessing social media.
In its decision regarding the registrant’s access to social media, the court cited Packingham v. U.S., a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which determined that the government’s prohibition of a registrant’s access to social media violated the First Amendment. In this case, the court recognized that while the state has an interest in enforcing parole conditions “that promote the goals of deterrence and public safety”, these interests did not justify the “sweeping prohibitions” in the registrant’s challenged parole condition.
In its decision regarding the registrant’s ability to attend and preach at church services, the court determined that the First Amendment “safeguards his ability to engage in religious activity”.
“This is a significant victory for registrants as well as the ACLU that represented him,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We are pleased that the ACLU of Southern California has won an important battle in its first case representing a registrant.”
In addition to ruling on access to social media and attendance at church services, the Court ordered CDCR not to take “any retaliatory or discriminatory measures or other adverse actions” against the registrant. In its decision, the Court noted that CDCR officials threatened to harm the registrant because he requested assistance from the ACLU. In one statement included in the court’s decision, a CDCR official told the registrant that if he kept communicating with the ACLU, “it will be your worse nightmare”.
This is fantastic news. Will all currently on parol benefit from this court decision, or will we each have to fight the same fight individually? I would hope that the CDCR would simply lift the conditions rather than deal with the fight, but that is probably just wishful thinking.
Awesome ruling! The last part with CDCR threatening him is scary. I hope someone actually gets reprimanded for that. Someone seeking legal assistance should never be threatened for doing exactly just that.
I’m also curious how far the Packingham actually reaches? Like, what’s really covered by the First Amendment? Would schools prohibiting RC’s from being there for an official function (meetings, children activist like sports and plays, etc) be in violation of this? I don’t have kids of my own, but I have a young nephew who’ll be starting school next year and I’d love to be there for all his big moments. I know parents/guardians can go as long as they get permission, but since I’m neither I don’t believe I can go at all.
You can have your church and attend it too in CA now. Whoo-hoo?
….
God Bless you, Janice, and all at ACSOL and (I can’t believe I am able to say this) at the ACLU for defending this man’s rights!!!
I am so glad that the ACLU seems to be getting involved more and more in defending the rights of registered citizens.
I pray that the pendulum is finally starting to swing in the other direction. Lord, hear my prayer!
Yep the judges are tired of all this crap and are anxious to kill the registry. Watch, they just need a good argument to come before them, hence my nine claim arguments. This is fantastic, now come on UCLU and any and all other civil rights organizations, come join my case and file briefs and collect evidence to support my claims.
I applaud the petitioner for his bravery and tenacit and for standing up for his rights. I also applaud the ACLU Socal for getting involved and representing this person regardless of his status as an RC and all the social stigmas that go with it. In my eyes, he’s a modern day hero. I’m glad he’s part of our community albeit involuntarily.
Its Great, Looks like the EVIL CDCR has been brought to its knees by this. The CDCR a.k.a parole THUGS (San Diego) Continue to break the LAWS ALL THE TIME and make threats… I know been there done that ! #1 im not on parole anymore and #2 I always beat them at their own game !! SUCKERS !!!!!!!!!!!!
God bless this man for what he has endured and continues to endure. No, the retaliation and abuse have not stopped. I hope he does not become a martyr.
I don’t really see how this helps much when Facebook terms of use explicitly exlude RSOs. I’ve been off parole for 8 years now and I’m still not allowed to use Facebook or any of the social media sites they own.
Well, i`m not certain if facebook can legally exclude registrants or people who have been convicted of a past sexual crime, but the fact is, they don`t ban them all. Roman Polanski and a certain sports figure registrant currently have active and popular f.book pages. Were they granted an exemption because they bring more traffic to the site for advertisers- or a banning of them would bring a public outcry/debate about it? I`m curious about the hypocrisy.
Good! What about Edu?
Education, even CMC won’t allow ANY in a classroom, no matter Male OR Female College Instructors/Prof.
Denial of Education when others could go and would NOT allow coursework in cell or outside Classroom any opportunity, no one wanted my Lawsuit for that.
Of Course, that was decades ago…no online then or social media around except our mouths and hands!
Denied, denied and denied Chapman Orange Coast College and Questa College as the CDC DENIED RSO’s inhouse learn or even further their education except for Prison Industries on how to make Jeans and Shoes.
Wow, what happended to fairness and equal rights? Hmmm
GOOD FOR THIS GUY
LOCKDOWN for us
Disappointed that Sharper Future wasn’t included in the lawsuit. $50 says that they might be part of any past/current/future retaliation against the pastor. But I guess we’ll see…
For all the great minds –
I can’t think of the proper way to phrase this so i’ll just say it.
how is it fair/legal that the gov. tells the public openly about certain people convicted of a crime (the hit list) but yet if I’m the president of a bank and want to employ Joe Shmoe i would have to pay for background screening as Joe’s past Larceny conviction is not openly published like an SO’s is.
so is the gov. discriminating on people by what crimes they have not committed by not openly publishing their past convictions?