ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


NC: Sex Offender Premises Restrictions Revised in Response to Doe v. Cooper

The General Assembly amended G.S. 14-208.18, the law that makes it a Class H felony for certain registered sex offenders to go certain places. The changes are a response to Doe v. Cooper, a federal case in which the trial judge enjoined every district attorney in the state from enforcing the parts of the law he found to be unconstitutional. Today’s post takes a look at the revised law. Full Article


NC: Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of Sex Offender Premises Restriction

NC: Bans sex offenders from spots children gather

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I don’t understand how any restrictions can be placed on “registered” sex offenders.

It should be a constitutional violation of Due Process to subject anyone to a deprivation of liberty after they have completed probation and re-entered society unless they have specifically had a fair hearing to determine that they are a current threat to society.

Look at this case for instance:

U.S. v. DAVIS•452 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2006)

Federal law requires the district courts to consider the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” when crafting a special condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(d)(1); cf. United States v. Heidebur, 417 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2005). That inquiry must take place on an individualized basis; a court may not impose a special condition on all those found guilty of a particular offense.

Appropriating the reasoning from DAVIS permits Plaintiffs to argue that if a probationer may not have special conditions imposed on all those found guilty of a particular offense, then a person who has completed probation and been determined fit for release into society has the same, if not greater, interest in being free from restrictions imposed on all persons defined as “sex offender” when the term “sex offender” refers to not just one particular offense, but a large group of offenses arbitrarily chosen by legislature to have a sexual component, and for an arbitrary duration unrelated to an individual’s present dangerousness.

Janice, would my above example apply to the IML case as well since they are essentially placing burdens on all of those convicted of certain crimes without looking on an individualized basis?

With IML, isn’t it also a violation of Equal Protection clause since different states set different criteria for inclusion on the registry and for different durations? That means someone that did the exact same crime in one state could be excluded while someone in another state gets a notice sent and their passport marked.

I hope Janice reads most of the comments here.

If not for laws like these, then I’m sure that tens of thousands of children would be attacked and killed by registered citizens throughout North Carolina each year. So, WHEW! I’m glad that at least some of this law survived!!! [TOTAL SARCASM]

Yeah, I am wondering how our ancestors survived without registration laws.

They didn’t, everyone died from the anarchy that ensued. 🙂

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x