ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

National

IL: Supreme Court asked to review McLean County sex offender issue

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case against a Normal man to determine the constitutionality of Illinois’ rules mandating that sex offenders report all their internet activity to authorities. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 
49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

When they started going after juveniles many years ago, I remember thinking ” ahh, their agenda is to get ’em while their young”. To all those unsuspecting parents who were programmed to think the sex offender laws were passed to help keep their families safe- you were duped.

The devil casts a wide net.

Another cert to SCOTUS about another draconian RC restriction. I know many states, including mine, request and hold this type of information (which is bad enough), but to publish it? That’s a whole different matter. SCOTUS sure is getting a boatload of RC cert requests, aren’t they? Good! In some way, they are going to have to address this cancer. In all fairness to SCOTUS, they never said anything about restrictions being okay. They only said registries, and public dissemination of them, are constitutional. It’s the legislative bodies across the country who have run ape-sh*t crazy with restrictions. That these… Read more »

” In all fairness to SCOTUS, they never said anything about restrictions being okay. They only said registries, and public dissemination of them, are constitutional. It’s the legislative bodies across the country who have run ape-sh*t crazy with restrictions. ” This if false. The SCOUTS said it was constitution b/c of the high recidivism rate and that they said legislative bodies wouldn’t go crazy with the rules, which they stated in five factors. They told the lawyers that all the concerns were all conjecture. They srsly talked down to the lawyers who represented the registrants. Go ahead. Read the 2003… Read more »

I read it once. It limits its decision to just making you give your information and it can be applied retroactively. I don’t remember it allowing anything else. It was far from a uninimous decision, also.

@New Person No, what I said it is not false. Having read Smit–and CT DPS–a number of times, I’m well acquainted, but thanks for the suggestion. Smith was about whether AK’s registry was punitive or non-punitive. SCOTUS used the Mendoza-Martinez factors to show why **as it then existed** AK’s registry was not punitive. They found that the burdens placed upon RCs **at that time** did not rise to punishment. Your claim about SCOTUS’s use of the high recidivism rate is the falsity here. They used it as to support how AK’s registry easily met the rational basis scrutiny. The burden… Read more »

I agree with all the points. The sad thing is, we need WAY more than to just turn Smith V Doe around. Since Smith V Doe only covers retroactive application of the registry or laws against us, even if today’s scheme is deemed punishment that can’t be applied retroactively, it would still be applicable to anyone’s crimes committed after the dates on the laws. We desperately need a good challenge to the core registration, publishing, and blanket laws written against all those on it that does not mention retroactive punishment. Ct DPS case was just a bad case. The Justices… Read more »

@Chris F
Thank you for supporting my points, I do trust and value your opinion. I agree completely with yours, too. Personally, I don’t ever foresee Smith getting voided, and yes, SCOTUS pretty much said that CTDPS was attacked incorrectly by Doe.

Your comment about judges’ hands being tied doesn’t apply merely to SOR laws, as I’m sure you well know. Any and every mandatory sentence law does that! As I was enlightened reading the Riley doc you supplied, it also they also violate other Federal laws surrounding the USSC.

–AJ

@Chris F “Since Smith V Doe only covers retroactive application of the registry or laws against us, even if today’s scheme is deemed punishment that can’t be applied retroactively, it would still be applicable to anyone’s crimes committed after the dates on the laws.” The effect of a reversal would be detrimental to SOR laws, period. If retroactive application is found unconstitutional, It would essentially shutdown every registry in the country. There would be no way for any legislature to increase the scope and/or modify future legislation without effecting everyone one the registry. Each time a change is made, those… Read more »

Agreed. Not to say they won’t allow the split to happen, but I can just see the mess that 800,000+ RC’s across the country requiring to be split dozens of categories based on dates of all these various laws. Most states are having hard enough time as it is policing the registry without jumping through hoops on what should apply to whom.

@Michael I second AlexO’s agreement with you. If SCOTUS judges the case(s) on merit(s) and doesn’t pander to popularity or politics–something I think they’re well capable of doing–the difficulty, confusion and opacity RCs suffer trying to navigate the minefield of laws will shift to the State. (Brief moment of crocodile tears.) It may end up causing a huge retrenchment in the laws simply to avoid the risk of LEOs falsely arresting someone, a DA falsely charging, etc. (Hey, one can hope!) If punitive, the Full Faith and Credit Clause will also kick in, making it an even bigger pile of… Read more »

Why a public safety? ” Your claim about SCOTUS’s use of the high recidivism rate is the falsity here. They used it as to support how AK’s registry easily met the rational basis scrutiny. The burden was upon Doe to show that the intent or effect of AK’s registry was punitive. Intent was quickly cast aside, as the legislature explicitly stated intent was public safety. They then studied the effect of the law, and using said M-M factors, found the burden didn’t rise to being punishment. ” There were three factors out of the five that were based upon high… Read more »

@New Person
In the interests of myself and everyone on here: I respect your right to your own opinion, and wish you well.

–AJ

What irritates me is this punitive/non punitive dicotomy that doesn’t reflect how things are in practice. The main duty of penal institutions is not just to make people suffer. They call themselves corrections institutions. Their other goal, and I would say their main goal they are funded for, is to prevent re-offense. Sure, people like to see people suffer for their crimes, but if the system did not promise to reduce crime or keep crime at bay, the public would surely not continue funding it as solely a torture chamber for public retribution. Preventing re-offence is a public safety goal… Read more »

Regarding Factor 2 and restraint: The Supreme Court was either using a straw man excuse or the attorney for plaintiffs in this case sucked. ( I suspect the former) First off, they knew and know damn well that the sex offender registry is a metaphysical restraint. Whether it is “punishment” or not is irrelevant. To employ a litany of psychological restraints on a person with sanctions of physical confinement and call it the least restrictive type of restraint, is disingenuous. It is akin to assault and torture. Furthermore the restraints of sex offender laws have absolutely no effect on the… Read more »

@AJ

“The burden was upon Doe to show that the intent or effect of AK’s registry was punitive. Intent was quickly cast aside, as the legislature explicitly stated intent was public safety.”

That’s what I find laughable. The idea that the laws are not punitive because they are applied civilly under the guise that these registries protect public safety is akin to Donald Trump stating his travel ban executive orders were not a Muslim ban. Legislators say one thing, but the application of the laws suggest another. I am dumbfound as to how the most courts don’t see that.

….

It’s like that Gingrich interview about violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

Reporter: Crime is down
Gingrich: Nuh-uh
R: Yes, it is. These are facts.
G: Yeah, well people feel otherwise and feelings are more important than facts.

@Michael
Totally in agreement. It’s just one more “civil regulation” end-around on the Constitution. Just like eminent domain, just like civil asset forfeiture (which it appears Justice Thomas is aching to take up).

I think some of it boils down to the judges would prefer to have the vigilantes after us than them. Also, with judges in many places being elective offices (a huge mistake, IMHO), they are more likely to pander to public opinion.

–AJ

Smith v. Doe challenged the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s retroactive requirements. The question was, is permitting inclusion of the names, addresses, descriptions, and other private information in a sex offender registry broadcast over the Internet violative of the U.S. Constitution.

The appeals court found that the information to be included in the registry was too broad, and that the methods of gathering that information were extremely burdensome. SCOTUS held that it was not broad nor burdensome.

….

The IL Supreme Court is also taking up the People v. Pepitone case in which an IL appellate court found the statewide park restrictions to be unconstitutional:
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/3rdDistrict/3140627.pdf

Briefs in the case are due in the next 2 months.

If there is an unfavorable opinion then this park restrictions case could also be heading to SCOTUS.

-Scott

@commenter1 (Scott) Thanks for the link to this case. I’m thinking that no matter what, this case will head to SCOTUS, as there will be an unfavorable opinion for one of the two parties. Neither party will let it lie–Pepitone because he’s right, the State because it’s stubborn and will never cede an inch on SOR laws. Good thing the IL legislature is reconsidering some of this via that task force. Bonus item from an IL lawyer website: “The sex offender registration laws distinguish individuals who have moved to Illinois prior to 2012 and those who moved to Illinois after… Read more »

Sounds a bit how a portion of the Static-99r works. Static-99 is done at the time of release (release means released onto probation or parole; when on probation, “release” generally means the same date as conviction while for parole it means when you’ve left prison), not when the offense occurs. For 8 of the 10 questions release date or crime date won’t change the facts. However, the first two questions, your age and long-term partner, can very directly be effected. For example, I scored a 4. I got a +1 for being under 35 by two years. If I were… Read more »

@AlexO
So really, one’s Static-99 is subject to the whims of a parole board. Suppose you and I both go before parole boards and have identical records. Same age, same crime, etc. My board grants me release, and yours holds you for a year or two or whatever. We would have different scores? IOW, our scores would be subject to whether the parole board members got up on the wrong side of the bed, are tired, don’t like our appearance, etc? How perfectly objective!

–AJ

It’s not that arbitrary. They can’t give you a +1 or -1 just because. I was more talking about the actual guidelines. Static-99 is supposed to be calculated at the time of your release which can result in two identical cases having different Static-99 scores. Let’s say you and I were exactly the same (same age, same crime, same age victim, same personal relationship status, same overall criminal record, etc) and we were both given the same sentence in prison of say 3 years and both came up for parole at the same time. However, you were a perfect model… Read more »

Bah! I basically repeated what you said because my reading comprehension is apparently bad lol

I’m confused: when entities such as Facebook ban registered citizens from using their site and actively hunt them down and delete their accounts, why is this important? The government says it’s ok to use but they don’t let us use it

“The government says it’s ok to use but they don’t let us use it.”

Not sure which government you are referring to. Most states restrict social media access to sex offenders.

As far as Facedbook is concerned, they can do whatever it is they want. It’s their website.

….

FB and other private companies can’t ban someone based on sex, race, religion, etc, because they’re all protected classes against discrimination. RSO’s are not a “protected class” so these companies can do just about whatever they want. In some states though, going on social media for RSO’s is against the law. That’s another case currently waiting to be heard by SCOTUS.

@Jo This is also why Packingham may end up being a somewhat empty victory. SCOTUS may well rule that the State cannot prohibit anyone from accessing FB, etc. But that in no way will change what others have pointed out, which is FB can deny service to pretty much anyone not in a protected class simply by choice. And if you think they cannot, I suggest you go argue with the cruise industry about it, too. FB probably has an even stronger case than cruise lines, as FB is not engaging in any sort of commerce with the user (or… Read more »

@AJ Jo’s comment had nothing to do with the government legally blocking access to Facebook. Her comment was: “The government says it’s ok to use but they [Facebook] don’t let us use it.” Her question was: “… when entities such as Facebook ban registered citizens from using their site and actively hunt them down and delete their accounts, why is this important?” Packingham has absolutely nothing to with her question. Packingham has nothing specifically to do with Facebook banning sex offenders. The answer that best answers her question is, Facebook can do whatever it wants. You’d have the burden of… Read more »

@Michael Settle down, brother. 1. I was addressing Jo as I replied to AlexO’s post. So my tangential reference to Packingham was just fine, tyvm. 2. Your diatribe which started with, “Facebook can do whatever it wants,” was pretty much what I said that in my post (“FB can deny service to pretty much anyone not in a protected class simply by choice”). They cannot, however, deny service due to someone being a member of one or any federally protected class. Nobody can. If you think FB or any other online presence can, I suggest you do a bit of… Read more »

@AJ 2. That’s just it. How do YOU prove discrimination? I can’t see you. I can only assume you are male because you use a male’s name as your moniker. I have no idea what your race is, or if you are disabled. You could post an image of a fat, black woman in a wheelchair on Facebook, but that does not prove you are fat, black, female or disabled. Up until just recently, Facebook allowed advertisers to target users based on their race, their gender, or a medical condition. No one cared. No one sued. Also note, I looked… Read more »

“[Y]ou use a male’s name as your moniker.” Somebody should let AJs Applegate, Lee, Verdelle, Khan, Bailey, Lynn, Cook, Michalka, Langer, and Odudu, among others, know that they are using “male names.” “[F]at, black, female or disabled” Apparently “fat” (whatever objective standard that is) is now a protected and/or suspect class. I may or may not be “a website developer and hosting provider” and/but I understand logic and if-then fallacies. (http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logical%20fallacies.htm#if-then): “IF A, THEN B” does not mean “IF B, THEN A.” Or in example, “IF bigot, THEN says Barry O.” does not mean “IF says Barry O., THEN bigot.”… Read more »

Your case is unmeritorious. You can be blocked from any website for any reason and there isn’t anything you can do about it. Period.

….

@Michael
Your reply to the post I made to the board in general (thus the lack of @_______, such as you see above) has no connection to what I wrote. I made no mention of a case, “mine” or otherwise, nor of any website. Not wanting to assume, judge, or ascribe traits and behaivors to anyone without cause or merit as some people are wont to do, perhaps you meant to attach it to a relevant posting somewhere else?

–AJ, who may or may not follow the nesting of posts and replies this site allows.

@Michael “You can be blocked from any website for any reason and there isn’t anything you can do about it. Period.” You seem to think the CDA grants absolute immunity and protection. If so, you may want to rethink that. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/dangerous-trend-us-courts-may-have-consequences-online-speech Or, if that’s not enough: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/06/wtf-is-going-on-with-section-230-cross-v-facebook.htm Back to the quote of yours at the top of my post. What do you suppose will happen if you have a website that bars members of a protected class from information regarding housing opportunities? To help you with your verification process to keep out Asians, or Hispanics, or those of Middle Eastern… Read more »

@Michael “Up until just recently, Facebook allowed advertisers to target users based on their race, their gender, or a medical condition. No one cared. No one sued.” Another falsehood from your fingertips. If nobody cared, did such functionality just stop on its own? That Facebook stopped allowing such targeting demonstrates someone within the company cared. It’s doubtful it was anyone in marketing or sales, as those departments are not in the habit of killing money-making endeavors. It would more likely have been legal and/or public relations, or perhaps Mr. Zuckerberg himself. Regardless of the argument of legality, someone did care.… Read more »

I have been a website developer and hosting provider since 2003. I can tell you that you have no constitutional right to access any other website. You have no constitutional right to speech on any other website. So, Facedbook can ban/block you for any reason it wants.

I can block entire cites, states or countries from accessing any server in my control, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

….

This will be the second time SCOTUS has been asked this question. They refused to take cert in Doe v. Shurtleff. Wonder if they will refuse this one as well.

@JohnDoeUtah Thanks for that reference to the prior case with Shurtleff (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1546640.html). There’s a major difference between IL’s current law and UT’s law back then: IL releases the Internet IDs to the public. As quoted in the case, of which Gorsuch was one of three trial judges, “the legislature amended Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act, or GRAMA, to designate certain information provided by an offender, including internet identifiers, as private.” The footnote to this citation goes on to explain that, “[i]nformation designated as ‘private’ by GRAMA may only be disclosed in limited circumstances such as when requested by… Read more »

We shot back at the Statement by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in our petition for cert., that the State publicly releasing the information was irrelevant. The United States Constitution does not protect my First Amendment rights when it comes to the public – and thus the 10th Circuit’s reasoning completely missed the mark and scope of the First Amendment. The First Amendment places the restriction against Congress (Legislature) from violating our rights to free speech, not the public. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Prior SCOTUS rulings specifically stated that the right to anonymous… Read more »

In Texas, and likely many states, they ban us from Facebook their own backhanded way.

They provide all social media with our list of email addresses (they aren’t listed on the public registry) and those sites remove our accounts.

I would imagine this should be challenged, but I’m sure the government would find some excuse not to apply strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny and allow this by claiming it’s regulatory to allow businesses to monitor sex offenders and protect their customers.

@Chris F I guess I’d first find out what the law says they can and will do with it, i.e. how private is the data. Given that in the eyes of the law a corporation is a person, how can the State release data one person (FB, etc.) and not to another (John Q. Public)? Good old Citizens United confirmed that FB is a person in the courts’ eyes. I’d also poke into the extent to which the State is perhaps giving active notification to certain persons and not others. That said, yes, some wrongs just aren’t worth the cost… Read more »

@NEW PERSON “Factor 2 lists the basis for the scheme to be deemed regulatory. The SCOTUS lists specifically WHAT NOT TO DO!” That is incorrect. SCOTUS lists items that weren’t done that would make them more likely to consider it punitive or resembling the conditions of parole/probation. They did not say those things would make it so on any individual or even cumulative basis. That was an opinion written by one Justice no matter how many others agreed and can’t be taken as setting an agreed on barrier for legal battles, only consideration. I am glad they listed those things… Read more »

@Chris F
Thanks for taking the baton. 🙂 Just remember what George Bernard Shaw said: “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

–AJ

@AJ

I guess I like to make sure opinions that may be somewhat correct, but get exaggerated, are brought back down to Earth. After all, it’s exaggerations that got us in this mess, but I’m hoping sticking to real un-exaggerated facts will get us out of it. So in a sense, I guess that means I don’t mind jumping in and getting dirty with the pigs now and then, so it’s all good. 🙂

@Chris F

It’s also been said that one can’t fight city hall, or fight his way out of a wet paper bag, but that has never stopped anyone from trying to fight… city hall anyway.

I don’t know what it’s like being in a wet paper bag, but if fighting to get out of one is anything like debating AJ… 😛

….

@Michael
“I don’t know what it’s like being in a wet paper bag, but if fighting to get out of one is anything like debating AJ…”

…it’ll be a miserable failure.

–AJ

Chris F wrote: ” 1.That is incorrect. SCOTUS lists items that weren’t done that would make them more likely to consider it punitive or resembling the conditions of parole/probation. 2.They did not say those things would make it so on any individual or even cumulative basis. 3.That was an opinion written by one Justice no matter how many others agreed and can’t be taken as setting an agreed on barrier for legal battles, only consideration. ” Sentences 1 and 2 contradict each other. Let’s use the converse of your first statement: SCOTUS lists items that [were] done that would make… Read more »

Sorry, I hadn’t been back to this post to see responses. I don’t see how sentence 1 and 2 contradict. I merely pointed out that the items may make it more likely SCOTUS sees it as punishment, but that it wasn’t guaranteed. The examples SCOTUS gave as clues to what they think are punishment weren’t explained further to include what weight any single item had or even how many items were needed to tip the bar to being punishment. They may very well be way more than enough to be punishment now. My point was that their mere list wasn’t… Read more »

49
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.