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
Wow, maybe we should all shift our focus to this. If a Federal judge is saying this, it could really branch out to the whole system. If the Supreme Court takes it on and sees the same, the registry is over.
This is outstanding! I just mentioned this in general and I am glad the moderators are quick in getting these posted here.
Can someone find the court papers on this? I really want to see the real filing and judge’s decision so we can figure out why it worked this time and hope people will file in other districts.
Mike R has this challenge in his lawsuit and before he files it would be nice to see what this one had.
Seems that the pendulum has picked up some serious velocity our direction!!
If Colorado can do it, maybe California can too.
Someone, please pinch me. This can’t be real.
Tenth circuit baby WHOOOOOOHOOOOO! Thank you Jesus. Oh sweet Korean Jesus thank you!
“magistrates put the burden on the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not likely to commit such an(other sex) offense”
Yep. It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden is on the State to prove ones current dangerousness, not the individual to prove otherwise. This , I have always thought is the weakest link in the registry scheme. Is their creepy, trendy sex offender list in the beginning of its death throes?
Wow….just WOW!!!. I’ve always wondered when this day would come. It is here. Amazing!
This is simply amazing! Here in Indiana we can petition to get off the registry 10 years after having been out of prison and off parole/probation. I would think this can be added into said petition or at least mentioned in the argument as to why one should be allowed off the registry. It’s impossible to say someone wont commit a crime since another crime hasn’t been committed. For the government to even use that type of logic to get off the registry is idiotic. Its one thing to be on the registry, but the truth is my wife and kids are affected by it as well everyday. Its not easy telling or getting your 7 year old daughter to understand you cant go to open house at her school or other programs there or your son you cant go watch his football game due to an incident almost 20 years ago. Then your wife pointing out homes that would be nice to buy, but you having to remind her that due to the registry, it may not be the best place in order to save the children from nosy neighbors scrutiny due to something outside their control.
Thanks Moderators for posting so quickly and getting the opinion added.
I finished reading the judges opinion, and it is GROUNDBREAKING!
It isn’t mentioned in the article headline for some reason, but they also concluded registration VIOLATES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS for all 3 plaintiffs! It’s not just Cruel and Unusual Punishment that was determined to make it unconstitutional.
The judge correctly sites all of the recent decisions and opinions in cases like Packingham and Snider.
Mike R will need to adjust both his Cruel and Unusual and Substantive Due Process claims to include all of the case references and new quotes from this judge.
Something that may not pertain to Mike R since his internet identifier isn’t required, but for others that want to challenge the registry, would be to bolster the judge’s use of Packingham by also pointing out that Facebook and Nextdoor (the two most influential TOWN SQUARES of the modern world) deny access to those labelled “sex offender” not only because of the public disclosure of the information, but also because the government purposely sends the internet identifiers to Facebook.
The dominoes are starting to fall quickly now. Let’s just hope any more challenges that make it to SCOTUS are argued well and point out ALL of the negatives of registration so the Justice’s can’t hide behind ignorance and just pass things off as “collateral consequences” of committing a crime.
This is very welcome news. We should tear through this case and decision carefully and construct a similar attack to be filed in every circuit in the U.S.
OMG!
“I think we always need to keep in mind that victim’s should have rights too. The victims didn’t choose to have this happen to them. Offenders made a choice to commit a crime and THIS IS PART OF THE PUNISHMENT,” Franklin said.
“The judge found the posting of sex offender information to be a violation of two different amendments. The suit asked only for the three offenders’ information to be removed. It was not filed as a class action.”
Could this be filed as a Class action?
This is where we need to go. We have been hoping for an unconstitutional tiered registry that will be a little less punitive for a few, but that is wrong. The entire tiered system and any registry is unconstitutional. Every crime should be dealt with individually. My actions and punishment cannot be based on the hysterical fear of the populace over what someone else might have done at sometime in the past.
I’m still in shock. Truly. Shock.
If Snyder does get picked up, maybe the justice who had that parenthetical quote about service to the state continuing past their custody could also now cite this case? (I still have to read it.)
This federal judge just opened the flood gates of justice and fairness. God Bless him.
The news done spread out Californey way;http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Judge-Colorado-sex-offender-registry-12166975.php.
God Bless her!!!!
“Ruttenberg said that faulty research claimed that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate when the opposite is true. She said only 5 percent of convicted sex offenders are arrested for new crimes.”
“I would characterize this as a landmark case. My goal eventually is to get rid of this sex offender registration altogether, at least as it applies to a public registry that people can pull up on a website,” Ruttenberg said Friday. “I would be surprised if the state doesn’t appeal the decision.” -attorney Alison Ruttenberg, the attorney for the three plaintiffs.
Link to article
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/01/colorado-sex-offender-registration-act-unconstitutional/
So I finally read the whole thing once. It was amazing how they tore through the 7 factors of MM determining regulatory vs punitive and finding 6 out of 7 were punitive. The Snyder case being cited just shows how relevant that case can be used in other states.
So I’ll be going off on a tangent here. This case states that the registry is the lack of privacy. Also, denotes Due Process, or there lack of.
1. Privacy issues. (Ca. Const. Art 1, Sec 1) —————-
In Ca, its own state constitution protects the right to pursue and obtain privacy. In fact, it is an inalienby right! With that stated, there should never be a lifetime registry because it inherently depicts a loss of privacy for life. This means no way to pursue and obtain privacy. Why are we not using the California Constitution to fight the California Registry? Registration is a privacy issue!
Currently, all registrants in California are subject to “lifetime registration”. In the proposed bill, only Tier 3s are subject to “lifetime registration”.
It boggles my mind that we don’t use the California Constitution to refute the California Registry.
2. Due Process. {Ca Const. Art 1, Sec 7 (a and b)} ——————
What more burden of proof does one need to be de-register? That’s what Mr. Vega’s complaint was and was denied.
In California, if one has earned the 1203.4 (case dismissal), then it is implied you are rehabilitated and are restored your rights due to your conviction. Somehow, this was denied to registrants as there was no hearing to state you are still a danger at the court hearing for earning the 1203.4. This is similar to Mr. Vega’s situation of completing everything asked and still are denied to de-register.
Yet the California Constitution goes further in protections of due process. In subsection (b) of Section 7, it states the following:
==================
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
==================
There are some convicts who cannot qualify for the 1203.4. Fine. But all those who do qualify should share the same immunity. Therein lies the problem with registrants. They are excluded from the immunity of all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense that others who qualify do receive from 1203.4. In-person registration has already been deemed a disability.
.
.
I just find it irksome that other states are using their state constitutions to refute the registry and California is not when its state constitution provides stronger protections for registrants!
I want to hear legislators tell all Californians that the California Constitution is wrong. If not, then why are they not abiding by it.
Attention Miss Victims right advocate in this story, EVERYONE has rights! And no, just because you did the crime, supposedly, because there are some people that have been wrongly accused and convicted thank you very much, your attitude that if you did the crime then you have to except the punishment it. No there was no registry on the Internet that ruined peoples lives and lost them their jobs and homes before 2006. So no it does not fit the crime sweetheart. You do not get to plead to a crime back in the 90s and then decide later 20 years later OK let’s go ahead and plaster your face on the Internet. That was really ignorant and really really low on your part. That’s exactly why society gets away with putting people on this registry after the fact because of the mentality of people like you.
Traits of probation and parole.
I like how this court addressed it. They stated that you are still being monitored because of your yearly registration. If anything changes, then you must go back into the police department and re-register.
In my official letter from San Bernardino County, it states:
=================
Please keep in mind for any changes in address, employment, or vehicle updates in the future will also require an appointment.
=================
The county is monitoring my vehicle and employment. There is no other explanation for wanting such information other than to monitor. That is a probationary/parole trait.
Next, compliance checks to housing. This was specifically addressed in this case. Welp, cops do come around to do compliance check at least once a year for some of us in California. This still is a form of monitoring. The fact the cops do come in their uniform and cop cars does bring alarm to the neighborhood. Instead of coming around once a month for probation/parole, the cops in their uniform and cop cars come around once a year.
Can California simply copy and paste all of Colorado’s work and fight the registry here?
“While it might feel safer to have a registry and know where those sex offenders are, those are only offenders who have been caught and convicted and are required to be on the registry. There are still a lot of other sex offenders out there we don’t know about … Sometimes there’s a sense of false safety of being able to go out on a website and say, ‘now I know where everybody is.’ When in fact we don’t know where everybody is.”
Because I don’t see bearded ladies roaming the streets does not mean there are a lot of bearded ladies.
People really need to start calling beguilers like Brie Franklin out on the facts. Are there people who have comitted crimes and haven’t been caught? Undoubtedly. There isn’t a registry for most of them. Facts is facts. Most victims of sexual offneses know their abuser.
“Offenders made a choice to commit a crime and this is part of that punishment.”
That’s something Brie Franklin was telling the truth about. Sexual offender registries are punishment, which make them uncomstitutional. If she had half a brain she’d know that and would lie about that too.
….
It just occurred to me too, that since Colorado’s people can use this ruling to defend themselves against a failure to register charge, they will. So she can do nothing, and let the registry gradually die out on its own (IE nobody being on it) or she can just try to take it to the 10th circuit and lose. Now that is what I call having your tit in a wringer.
THIS is a far better thing for us than a tiered registry could have ever been! The more this happens, the closer we come for the registry disappearing for good!
@mike r:
Yeah, using this case as source and citation, a C&U argument may well have some legs. I really like that this judge took the C&U well beyond punishment coming directly from the Government, instead including the peripheral and ripple effects the government fosters and abets through non-governmental entities (private citizens, websites). (Essentially, the Government is “contracting out” some of the punishment to vigilantes and h0mefacts.) I also like that the judge understands how things have significantly changed from Smith, where Kennedy said the activity required to do an internet search was essentially the old paper process streamlined and made electronic, to the push (passive) notifications we now have. I think both of these are key to any C&U argument made.
I think someone in the 10th could take this declarative relief, supply the requisite information for items (2) through (4) the judge mentions, and get injunctive relief. Personally, I say the judge’s statements in his opinion give the necessary arguments to fulfill these items.
As I’ve said before about other RC/ML cases, this one will be appealed as far as possible, because neither side is willing to accept a loss. The State won’t give in because it’s so entrenched in its position that the laws are civil and needed for public safety; the RCs won’t give in because they are fighting for their constitutional rights. What I foresee happening over the course of the next few months is: 1.) SCOTUS accepts Snyder in their Sep 25 conference (I feel this is guaranteed, given Ginsburg and Breyer dissented in Smith, Sotomayor is of similar bent as them, and Kennedy has apparently seen the light.); 2) PA petitions SCOTUS re: Muniz, prior to Oct 18; 3) SCOTUS accepts Muniz*, and rolls it into Snyder**; 4) SCOTUS rules (6-3 or higher) for us, with Kennedy writing the Opinion, and rules broadly enough to strike down the existing registries across the board, citing real data, not the stuff from Smith. They could do this quite easily simply by ruling that each and every RC must receive due process through individualized risk assessment. This would still give the Government the ability to restrict RCs who have been found truly to be risks, and would also place that judgment back in the hands of…judges, of all people! It would also mean anyone traveling or moving would not have to worry about the matrix of whatever RC laws exist across the land: Full Faith and Credit and/or Double Jeopardy would apply. Legislatures could still try to dream up whatever “for the children” laws they want, but the laws would have to survive intermediate or strict scrutiny (i.e. burden falls on the Government, not on the citizen).
* I’m now of the mind SCOTUS will not issue a Stay in Muniz, as it doesn’t and cannot change a thing due to the state-level ruling by PASC.
**The drawback to Muniz being rolled into Snyder is that it adds delay, as oral arguments would be pushed back to give the Muniz parties and amici sufficient time to file briefs (and supplementals?).