ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles last week on behalf of a California registrant who is on parole. According to the lawsuit, the registrant is being denied the ability to access social media as well as to attend and participate in church services.
Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the ACLU filed an application for a Preliminary Injunction this week. A hearing on the PI application will be held on November 27 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 9C in the U.S. District Court, Central District, 350 West First Street, in Los Angeles before Judge Dean Pregerson.
“We commend the ACLU for its efforts to protect the civil rights of a registrant in California,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
According to the lawsuit, the parole restrictions in question are not related to the offenses for which the plaintiff was convicted. That is, the offenses did not take place at a church and did not involve use of social media. The ACLU has argued that the parole restrictions violate several clauses within the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
ACLU’s involvement in the case began in June 2017 when the organization sent a letter on behalf of the registrant to officials of the Division of Adult Parole (DAPO) stating that the restrictions at issue violated the U.S. Constitution. The complaint claims that subsequent to receipt of that letter, parole agents have retaliated against the registrant by increasing compliance checks and searches of the registrant’s personal property including his phone and computer. In addition, the complaint claims that parole agents told the registrant to “leave the ACLU alone.”
The Defendants in the case — Jerry Powers, Karen Thacker, Douglas Broome and Sean Wilson — are employed by DAPO, the agency which supervises all parolees in the state of California. All are being sued in their official capacities.
Manning v. Powers – Complaint – Oct 2017
Manning v. Powers – PI – Oct 2017
Great news. Another First Amendment case, and this time involving a parolee who is still under the supervision of the state.
I’ll read the linked complaint later today. I bet Packingham figures prominently in the ACLU’s arguments.
…and he’s on freaking parole…what about all the BS that’s been happening to people who have been on the list for decades and are still suffering. I’d rather see them go after IML. I seriously could care less about this.
I was told that if you are still “On Paper” then you shut up and obey. Like abiding by stupid Halloween cerfew set by the probation dpt. Proba/Parole can & will “retaliate” if one tries to go to court to have restrictions dropped!!! No way. Not worth it.
As a parolee who must currently adhere to dozens of restrictions not related to my case, all I was ever told when I questioned anything was “You’re a parolee, you have no rights.”
I applaud the ACLU for this lawsuit and standing up for somebody not many people would give a second thought to.
This is very exciting in that it demonstrates that Southern Cal ACLU is willing to take up a sex offender case. Let’s hope for more.
It’s about time ACLU steps up, even if it is just a little tech issue. These people should be able to sue for the retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights. The harrassers need to be prosecuted under the depradation of rights under color of law statutes. It’s a extremely small baby step, but it is a step I guess, I guess they finally feel like they may not get pounded by the public or their colleagues for defending an ex offenders rights.If they really want to make a difference they can join me in my case being heard on march 14, I have already contacted them but after receiving a short “our chapter doesn’t do legal help” I have sen them another reply pleading for their assistance. We’ll see what happens…
Go see this months general comments
“We commend the ACLU for its efforts to protect the civil rights of a registrant in California”
I second that! I wish the ACLU would continue to get involved especially in other states. This is an encouraging step forward.
Wow!! I’m rather surprised that ACLU, especially the Southern California chapter (which is usually NOT friendly to those labeled ‘sex offenders’), decided to defend and protect the parolee. Let’s hope that this reflects a change in ACLU’s SoCal chapter’s attitude in helping said ‘sex offenders.’ Thank you ACLU!
read the story about registration concerning a federal judge Richard P Match who feels the law is unconstitutional very interesting from Colorado The state is appealing and will see what happens He claims this is just more punishment and should be abolished for most offenders.
This is typical of the loser parole office…. They always do this intimidation, tried to intimidate me to, I didnt pay attention to ANY of their BOGUS Rules….. be smarter than they are ! Im no longer on parole (time ran out) but they are a VERY EVIL Organization (here in San Diego). Esp the Chula Vista office putting MANY Rules on people that dont have a NEXUS to their charges… (Example.. Curfew for ALL) etc…
I feel badly for this parloee. He’s about to win a battle and lose a war. I really hope he doesn’t have much time left because they are about to make his life miserable. Unfortunately for him, ACLU isn’t going to be around for the retaliation case.
Finally, ALCU steps up!!
I wonder what finally motivated them to take a SO case in Cali! They’ve been great in other states, but didn’t seem interested in California.
The good thing about it is that they have a tendency to win!
Any win whether it pertains to your interest or not is a win for every situation: there’s a leaching affect! When bozo’s realize they can’t simply run any piece of legislation they wish through a congress that’s a win!
Seems like the sex offender registry is crumbling as we speak, finally an 8th circuit judge declares the registry violates our cival rights this is what it will take to take down registry once an for all. If there’s a way for us to do the same across the United States if we can file in 8th circuit judge stating what Colorado’s 8th circuit judge has declared the registry as ” cruel and unusual punishment” and by that statement the registry is illegal and cannot be applied, I say if we can band together without exposing anyone of us, no law can be applied if it is ruled as ” cruel and unusual punishment” I say let’s all of us on here do diligent research for the false info on recidivism and any other info and any courts ruling in our favor and take all of that info and destroy the registry because it should never have been allowed to exist so I say let’s turn our focus on finding any and all info and cases to help take it down, I am going to find away to make a website for this cause I will keep you posted
They delayed this “at the government request.” Who gives a crap about the “government request.” Just saying!