The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the decision of a federal district court to block enforcement of Proposition 35 requirements that all registered citizens provide a list of any and all Internet identifiers as well as any and all Internet service providers to law enforcement. California RSOL is a plaintiff in this case and was represented by the San Francisco ACLU as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
According to the decision, the requirements violate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in at least three ways: (1) the requirements do not make clear what sex offenders are required to report, (2) there are insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report and (3) the 24-hour reporting requirement s onerous and overbroad.
“This is a significant victory for all registered citizens in California,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The 9th Circuit of Appeals has clearly articulated that the requirements, if imposed, would violate the U.S. Constitution.”
The Court noted in it decision that the 24-hour reporting requirement of adding or changing an Internet identifier or an account with an Internet service provider is “not only onerous, it is also applied in an across-the-board fashion. The requirement applies to all registered sex offenders, regardless of their offense, their history of recidivism (or lack thereof), or any other relevant circumstance.”
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the balance of equities in the case favor registered citizens “whose First Amendment rights are being chilled. This is especially so because the Act under scrutiny imposes criminal sanctions for failure to comply.”
Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Speech in California Prop. 35 Case (Thanks EFF)
Opinion (Full Opinion, or view below)
Related:
Nov 19
Nov 18
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/California-court-blocks-offenders-reporting-duties-5901370.php
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sex-offenders-20141118-story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/california-can-t-enforce-rules-tracking-sex-offenders-online-1-.html
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2014/11/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-on-first-amendment-grounds-blocking-california-law-requiring-sex-of.html
SCORE!
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sex-offenders-20141118-story.html
RE: Prop 35
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/California-court-blocks-offenders-reporting-duties-5901370.php
Whewwwwwwww..!….Thank You EFF, ACLU, Janice BELLUCCI and staff ….its a HomeRun for our Constitution and everyone’s civil rights …thank NinthCircuitCourt for supporting and Defending the Constitution.
Yes! A win for registrants … it’s a good Tuesday.
Thank you Janice Bellucci!
The real issue is how under the color of law (The Registry) rights are easily violated against those registered citizens that have completed their probation and parole. The nature of the registry encourages local politicians to enact ordinances that violate the rights of these citizens.
Case in Point: All registered citizens were banned from Orange County Parks, beaches and harbors by an ordinance passed by The Board of Orange County Supervisors on April 5th, 2011. Later the California Supreme Court supported a lower courts rulings that stated they were unconstitutional. Why even have a draconian registry for people that have been through the GRINDER of probation, therapy and time served?
According to the Department of Justice the recidivism rates are only 1.8%. Why do we continue to punish these people after they have completed their Parole/probation? The registry is a form of Living Death it is Evil and it is Wrong. TRUTH
I like this part “The requirement applies to all registered sex offenders, regardless of their offense, their history of recidivism (or lack thereof), or any other relevant circumstance.” Hopefully that same thinking will be used in future decisions.
wooohoooo… THank you!
Not exactly the win I was looking for. Appears they left eh door open for the state to amend the law to make it constitutional.
So doe’s this mean that I can have a facebook account with family and friends to interact with or invite them to play video games with?
Congrats!! Janice, CA RSOL, ACLU and EFF, this is big.
Thank you California RSOL (Janice), San Francisco ACLU and The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Thank you.
Wow – I really needed to hear this!!
Boy, I came home feeling I was coming down with something, and then I got this news. I feel great all of a sudden! Whew. Now I don’t have to comply with a law I never understood, and never applied to me. Geez, They didn’t even want my email address or other identifiers (whatever those are) when I was on probation. A blow against ex post facto punishment!
VICTORY DANCE !!!
Hallelu-freakin-Jah. Being honest, I don’t think there is any way I could have conformed to meet the expectations this law entailed. I probably have hundreds of online accounts that I have forgotten about. I wouldn’t even know where to start. Many stores offer discounts or “Club Offers” when you sign up with your e-mail address and I’m not one to turn down a discount.
I honestly hope this precedent can be used by civil rights activists in other states where they’re experiencing these “Freedom of speech” issues. Many thanks to all, including the Ninth circuit, who put an end to this travesty.
R.I.P. Prop 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery.
Thank you, Janice!
Thank you Janice. This one had me worried. I have no idea just how many web sites I am subscribed to or what my user names or passwords are to many of those sites. I hope that Facebook changes their Terms of Service as many public and private services require a Facebook membership.
If this part of the law had not been struck down it would have added an element of danger for citizens posting on this site in my opinion. Who knows what repercussions would have ensued when a registered citizen’s probation or parole officer became privy to the comments left on this site by their parolee or probationer. I find that frightening to consider.
This is the MOST SIGNIFICANT VICTORY so far in the United States for registrants. I personally will spend tomorrow researching EVERY case I can find in the country that involves email or internet violation, locating the attorneys in those cases, and TELEPHONING their offices to let them know of this decision. This is HUGE.
Finally: I was extremely worried about this decision. Only 425 or so days since the case was heard.
I love when I can check this site and get some good news instead of simply raising my already dangerously high blood pressure!
I tiny bit of hope has been ignited in my otherwise hopeless soul.
Thank you for your efforts Janice (and others). At least on a state level we have some protection here in California that others are not as fortunate to have.
Well, this is another example of Judges making the right decision. As I have mentioned before, the race isn’t always won by the swiftest or fastest, but by those who keep running. I just hate it when I hear someone complaining or stating how terrible life is! 2-3 years ago, we where banned from parks, beaches, movie theaters and God knows where else! Things have changed drastically. Furthermore, just imagine what might have been next if these laws had stuck! Banned from driving? Going out a night? I suggest people continue to support RSOL and commend Janice for all the hard work and effort she and her team have put in!
Great News! Thank you Janice!
I just finished reading the court’s decision in it’s entirety and must say I’m more hopeful now than ever before of seeing significant change in the future in the form of legal relief for registered citizens.
The judges were correct to view and treat this portion of Prop. 35 as an attack on the first amendment protections of registrants. Reading the court’s reasons for reaching their decision almost makes me feel as though the constitution actually does apply to EVERYONE, no matter how unpopular they may be in society.
I especially admire the court for rightfully stating “[T]he First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.” “That [the Government] will use the power appropriately is not sufficient”.
Bravo Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals!!! Finally some sanity when it comes to Sex offense legislation!
Janice,
Is it possible that the state assembly and the Governor will simply sign “emergency legislation” that invalidates the court’s decision as they did in the “People vs. Douglas” case? Please tell me that can’t happen?