CO: Judge Finds Colorado Sex Offender Registry Unconstitutional

A federal court judge in Denver has called the public sex offender registry in Colorado “cruel and unusual punishment.” Full Article

Also see:

Millard-v.-Rankin-13-cv-02406-Colorado

Federal judge holds Colorado registry is punishment; violates Eighth Amendment

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Judge-Colorado-sex-offender-registry-12166975.php

https://ijr.com/discuss/posts/964736/colorado-federal-judge-makes-head-turning-ruling-declares-sex-offender-registry-unconstitutional/

Federal Judge in Colorado Rules that the Sex Offender Registry is Unconstitutional

http://blogs.findlaw.com/tenth_circuit/2017/09/federal-court-finds-colorado-sex-offender-registry-unconstitutional.html

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

146 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Finally, a judge who loves our inspired Constitution more than he fears the rabid masses.

How could the life-long punishment of the Registry ever have been deemed constitutional; depriving us of the right to own property, to obtain employment, to live with our families or to travel. When the dust settles, and the Registry has been laid on the rag pile of history… The brave few freedom fighters like Janice and Judge Matsch will be lauded and the US will have yet another black eye to be studied like Salem. Why can’t we learn from history? The Registry monster formed by calculating politicians with the approval of misinformed voters and opportunists has made 5,000,000 (registrants and their families) unable to have life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Twain commented on a similar quandary as it related to debtors prison, “The fact that man invented imprisonment for debt, proves that man is an idiot, & also that he is utterly vile & malignant. How can imprisonment pay a debt? Was the idea of it to pay the creditor in revenge?”
How can Registered Citizens contribute to society when the Registry prohibits them from doing so? Maybe soon, we’ll be solely Citizens… We should all pray for those like Judge Matsch, Janice and other Justices yet to show courage and love for the basis of our nation.

NPS,

I think this case can pertain to you about your loss of job due to being on the registry, especially since you have that affirmation as evidence after dutifully working for 7 years without conflict.

Does someone know where to find the lawyer’s original filing and any arguments that are oral or written so that we can see how the judge was convinced it was punitive, cruel and unusual, and violating Substantive Due Process?

The judge’s ruling has great quotes and references, but I would love to see what got us there.

Interesting tidbit about Judge Matsch. He was born in 1930, which makes him 86 or 87 years old. He was appointed by Richard Nixon in 1974, and most of his career has been considered a “tough but fair judge.” He was the judge of record for the Timothy McVeigh case, and adjudicated his conviction and upheld his death sentence in 2001.

For him to come up with a clear and concise ruling on the obvious merits of Constitutional law is refreshing, and hopefully other justices will see the light of day with his ruling. Alison Ruttenburg deserves every plaudit for engineering a rock-solid case with the greatest implementation of Stung’s Second Postulate (“The more effectively that true recidivism rates of registrants are presented in court, the more likely the case will be decided in favor of registrants.”) that I’ve seen this side of Janice Bellucci and Chance Oberstein.

Everything can be summed up in Matsch’s money quote from his opinion:

“The fear that pervades the public reaction to sex offenses – particularly as to children – generates reactions that are cruel and in disregard of any objective assessment of the individual’s actual proclivity to commit new sex offenses. The failure to make any individual assessment is a fundamental flaw in the system.”

OK, so how can we in Calif go about getting our registry rules as unconstitutional? If there is a cost and each RSO donates $5 what lawyer would take the case of see if we can get the CO results?

AJ…Chris, because I like you..LMAO… I think you like doing this shi..just as much as I do….I really do enjoy it when we collaborate together and come together with great arguments and consensus….Hey, how about that???Cruel and Unusual huh????I think someone in our group thought of this argument too…I was questioning myself after you guys stated I should lose that argument, so much that I removed it from my motion…I haven’t read the decision completely or the briefs AJ provided, but they are downloaded and I might have to rethink adding CaU back in there. I don’t know yet..If I do I am sure I can downsize it and maybe make it short and sweet with the new info…Damnnnn it, just when I thought I was ready to file….

Here’s a chance to ask questions and get clarification of the Colorado case directly from the attorney who won!

This month’s NARSOL In Action will focus on the federal judge’s decision regarding Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Scheme. The guest will be Alison Ruttenberg, the attorney who handled this complex litigation.

Wednesday September 6th @ 6:30 Eastern Time

You are asked to sign up in advance at this link so they have an idea how many will be on the call.

https://nationalrsol.wildapricot.org/event-2653961

The number to call on Wednesday is 641 715-3660 followed by 957605#

Given technology has given people at their fingertips the ability to pull people’s information online, there really is no need for the registry. The registry was a tool in the age when paper and pencil was the way to track someone. Unless you are homeless, you are pretty sure to be listed somewhere online through some database via a utility bill, telephone number, voter registration, marriage, previous marriage, family, etc. So in reality, the registry needs to be done away with because LE can already get the info they want and need without someone having to come in to notify them.

Taking the registry back behind closed doors is unnecessary and a waste of time and money when there is the aforementioned ability currently in addition to the potential continuing ability to monitor someone who is no longer under the need to be monitored once their sentence is complete. Monitoring someone who has committed a sex offense and is out of incarceration is called parole, which already has a check in requirement. Once a sentence is done, it is done. If there is a need for monitoring outside of parole and a completed sentence, then it is a form of civil commitment without the barb wire, steel fences, concrete buildings and psych treatment because the person is still being monitored, every time they register, which still violates my Constitutional rights.

So, just doing away with a public registry is not enough, it needs to be done away with completely.

The more than hour and a half call NARSOL arranged with the attorney on the Colorado case was very informative and I recommend all to listen when they can. I put the mp3 in my car to listen while driving.

https://narsol.org/av/2017/NIA-17-9-6.mp3

I wasn’t able to attend the call live, and am disappointed my question in an earlier post above was not asked, as I emailed it to them and was told it was also forwarded from here.

In case anyone is in the situation to ask an attorney with Constitutional law experience the question, here it is again:
*****
Question: Since it is the specific job of the judiciary to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public during the fair sentencing portion of a trial, and they must tailor that to the individual and not the crime, couldn’t the registry, duration on the registry, and all of the restrictions stemming from it justify a challenge to Separation of Powers since legislature its stepping all over the judiciary’s primary functions and isn’t even bound by the judiciary’s rules that ensure fairness?
*****

I would think with the US v Booker ruling that the court has established that judges must be able to do their jobs to have the sentence fit the crime and circumstances, and the mandatory registry and arbitrary and specific duration to be on the registry takes too much discretion away from the judges.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Colorado case has already received death threats from people that dont agree with her litigating for sex offenders.
http://www.krdo.com/news/top-stories/questions-remain-about-judges-ruling-on-colorados-sex-offender-registry/617206870