IN: Judge orders 3 off sex offender registry

Three men who moved to Indiana and were required to put their names on the state’s sex offender registry are likely to win their lawsuit that claims they wouldn’t face that requirement had they lived in Indiana all their lives, a judge ruled, ordering their names removed. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A bit of sanity!! Refreshing!!

and so it begins…I believe this is the first of its kind ruling that actually prevents the registration requirements against anyone ever…naysayers pay attention….it can’t be done… it wont go away, its here for good, we can’t prevail except on baby steps…by this time next year we will see an enormous amount of decisions like this and within two years the registry in its current form is abolished and a new scheme will be in place that only applies to people who the government can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard pose a threat to the public and that it’s narrowly tailored and that the state shows thru evidence actually achieves a states legitimate state interest …its happening there’s a light at the end of the tunnel and guess what it isn’t that far away anymore….registration is impossible to uphold with the right arguments….

I wonder if this decision could be used in the future to help those who are not required to register in a given state but would like to move to another.

you know what you don’t see happening in this case that is extremely important?? the state cannot and doesn’t even try to justify these laws with their false statistics or the public safety arguments that have been used in every other case….they’re thru and they know it..its just a matter of time now and the right case…

What I see, is an Indiana judge upholding the law as it was written. It is refreshing that the miss-application of their registry laws were not just painted over. I always hope the number of humans out number the psychos. What I hope is not some unscrupulous law writer starts up an amendment. This case is an important litmus test.

Can someone provide links to the arguments and data on this one, I may need it.

I have similar yet different circumstances. My time to register will end soon but almost any other state I move to will require registration to be re-instated. That shouldn’t be possible for a half dozen reasons that violate the constitution. Another state that doesn’t have jurisdiction over my original crime shouldn’t be able to add any sort of punishment under any circumstance, or even a “regulatory measure” without some type of due process.

Mike R, in case you missed my other post in General, look at this for use in your filing:


You can easily replace the words “statutory mandatory minimum sentences” with “SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY and any laws written against those on it” and you’ve got numerous perfect arguments with referenced SCOTUS cases that demonstrate how the registry and all laws referencing it violate the separation of powers.

I don’t know why more Sex Offender cases don’t challenge the separation of powers problem the registry created. Judges are supposed to judge, assess punishment, rehabilitate, and protect the public…not politicians when it comes to the judicial process.

I hear you…I totally agree with you…that’s just another rock solid argument against the registry..its coming. I think Gorsuch is going to be good for us since he is a conservative constitutionalist and I know if the right case with the right arguments are presented it’s a rap…