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

OK: Tenth Circuit COA upholds Oklahoma driver’s license requirement

[NARSOL]

By Robin . . . Unpersuaded by the court-appointed counsel’s encouragement to read a prison inmate’s pro se lawsuit liberally enough to include a First Amendment complaint, the Tenth Circuit has affirmed a lower Court’s judgment dismissing a challenge to Oklahoma’s requirement that citizens convicted of an “aggravated sex offense” must have their driver’s licenses (and state-issued identification cards) stamped with the words “Sex Offender.”

The National Association of Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL), represented by John J. Korzen (Wake Forest School of Law) was joined by its state affiliate, Oklahoma Voices, in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, Ray Carney, an OK inmate scheduled to be released in January, 2018. The ACLU of Oklahoma, represented by Brady R. Henderson, filed a separate amicus brief also supporting the plaintiff-appellant.

Mr. Carney, who filed the original complaint and proceeded below without the benefit of counsel was represented on appeal by Atty. Andrew D. Barr. It was Attorney Barr who approached NARSOL in the Spring of 2017 about submitting an amicus brief 1) demonstrating that recidivism rates among convicted sex offenders are lower than generally accepted and 2) providing statistical support dispelling any connection between odious requirements (such as the driver’s license law) and a reduction or prevention of repeat offenses.

Read more

 

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.  
 
37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Next they’ll require all registrants to wear pink triangles on their clothing or face “Failure to Notify” criminal charges.

They have already try to pass a law on a pink licence plate several yrs ago in ohio, but pink for breast cancel group protest the pink color, so the bill did not pass. I will not be suprised there will be a different version of the bill at some time in the future. Just google pink license plate for SO. You will see ton of articles about it.

For those of you who say that I am crazy to believe that RFID chips are coming, just wait. They are. As soon as all passports are labeled, and then all driver’s licenses, the chips will come. If we don’t get together as one national group, and get in the fight right now, it’s only a matter of time. I give it less than five years.

@Matt

You mean the e-passports already on hand at DHS with biometric data, etc? They are already in use.

TS, I am talking about any new technology that will be used against us. At some point, sooner than later, I think we can expect to be monitored in real time, 24 hours per day. Those bulky ankle monitors that some are forced to wear while on supervised release will be a thing of the past. At some point, all of us will wind up with a chip, implanted, etc., that we are forced to submit to. Because remember, “It’s just monitoring”.

@Matt:
You may want to consult case law. GPS tracking of someone who is not under supervision or without a warrant has been found unconstitutional in various courts, including when it comes to RCs. As a side note, every citizen–RC or not–should be closely watching Carpenter (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402), argued on the 11/29/2017. It’s the Court’s next big step into Digital Age rulings. Gorsuch’s angle on it was interesting, and reinforced my beliefs he’s a strong Originalist and wary of Government.

Oddly, the Oyez page seems to be strangely vacant on Carpenter vs. U.S. Here’s the audio: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2017/16-402
and here is Scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carpenter-v-united-states-2

What is missed is the fantastic Oyez feature which identifies each speaker as you’re listening to arguments as well as transcribes it in real time. I’m less enamored of “originalism” by the way.

I went looking for the Oyez page this morning, and found it. The audio and transcript link from this page is working for me:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402

Maybe they were late in getting it up, or the link from scotusblog is bad.

I’m with you as regards originalism, btw.

Regarding Neil Gorsuch as an “originalist” I will say that I have fairly high hopes for him despite the fact that Clarence Thomas is an Originalist, Scalia was an Originalist, and Robert Bork was an Originalist (Yuck!). There are different interpretations of what Originalism means, thank goodness. Gorsuch does not seem to go off on tirades against “judicial activism” from what I’ve seen and unlike the gratefully departed Scalia. This is the source for hope, in our regard. Jonathan Adler at Washington Post seems to agree: “Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy is like Scalia’s — with one big difference”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gorsuchs-judicial-philosophy-is-like-scalias–with-one-big-difference/2017/02/01/44370cf8-e881-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.07a3a4c2c44f

Originalism has its place, just like anything else. I’m more enamored with Gorsuch’s seeming mistrust of Government and its use of power. That, I believe, may play in our favor. Actually, Originalism may as well, given the writers (the original Originalists 🙂 ) of the Constitution didn’t seem to think one should keep paying and paying and paying for a crime.

Yeah, well notice how it didn’t seem to work to the advantage of us, or gays, or criminal justice, for that matter, when it came to most of Scalia’s or Thomas’ rulings. Yes, there were exceptions but they tended to be federal vs. state authority issues in which they joined with state authority over federal authority.

Here’s a timely piece, from Reason, of course:

“It is libertarians (such as Randy Barnett) who have consistently espoused “principled judicial activism” over the conservatives’ beloved “judicial restraint.” Principled judicial activism is the maxim that judges should refuse to defer to the people’s legislatures when freedom is at stake. It is otherwise known as the presumption of liberty.”

The article can be found here: “Libertarianism Has Nothing to Offer Populist Authoritarians” ______
http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/03/libertarians-and-the-right?utm_medium=email

Thanks for this, fellow libertarian. I find it odd that, for the most part, humans as individuals interact in libertarian ways, yet when formed into groups, tend to want to impose some sort of way of life on others.

I don’t understand this one bit. Individuals interacting with each other is a group.

Well, passports for the last ten years HAVE had an RFID chip in them. It is clearly visible on the passport. RFIDs are little circuits that, when illuminated by an interrogating device located immediately nearby with electromagnetic waves, spits out data that can then be received by that device. The RFID requires no power source itself getting its power inductively from the interrogating device.

It’s constantly disappointing that LE and courts are not subject to the same guidelines as private citizens. “But the federal courts, thus far, have seemed to suggest that “harmful and damaging” is not enough to outweigh the supposed benefit of greater public safety. Judge Kelly expresses the sentiment thusly: “There are several rational reasons why Oklahoma enacted this law, principally among them the safety of the community. We therefore find that the license requirement is not unconstitutional . . .” The court has no data other than that it sounds good. And because it sounds good screw the constitution. Imagine… Read more »

It all boils down to just a bunch of old white men in black robes circling the wagon around this profitable, security theater boondoggle know as Megan’s law.

They are dismissive and indifferent to any logic and reason.. but anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the “benefits” of community notification will always be baseless and void of merit.

Old “white”men? If they do happen to be white, what does their color have do with anything? Do you also complain about the old white men on your money? If so, please send it to Janice and free yourself of the burden of carrying images of geriatric, slave-owning, Anglo racists around with you. Otherwise, GFY.

Both the right and the left among us wants to blame the other for the sex hysteria industrial state. It just doesn’t work; the base for hysteria is much broader than either one individually. The right is, however, more responsible for the worst excesses. However, both are extraordinarily intolerant and willing to use the levers of government to oppress others.

Something that caught my eye–and should the eye of ANYone suing: “The outcome serves as a useful lesson about the need to preserve ALL possible claims at the initiation of a lawsuit even where some of them, as expected, are likely to be rejected. Failing to mention a claim renders it virtually impossible to recover on appeal…even despite the very best efforts of competent and capable attorneys.” So, just as mike r has done, one must throw every single thing into the initial suit, or face a high risk of losing because of this or that. It’s sad that he… Read more »

@AJ

Excellent commentary. Landmines known now for other efforts to mark DLs, etc

Couple of thoughts: 1) The door is open then for a First Amendment challenge in OK I would think from the outset by someone then and rerun the lawsuit. Yes? 2) A non-aggravated RC could run the suit from other perspectives. Yes?

@TS: Thanks for the kudos. Yeah, I agree with you on both points. Someone could take Carney’s filing, polish it up, add Compelled Speech, and give it a whack. Being a “regular” RC would help…but only if they, too, have a marked DL. I haven’t read OK law or the Opinion, but the article gave me the impression only “aggravated” RCs get the special treatment. The Equal Protection rationale the 10th used seems circular. Let’s use a pre Brown v Bd. of Educ. example and change a few words and phrases: “Mr. Carney, an [African-American citizen], cannot state an equal… Read more »

@AJ

From a OK lawyer website:

“In Oklahoma, if you are convicted of a Level 3 sex offense as an aggravated or habitual offender, you will have SEX OFFENDER emblazoned on your driver’s license. “

A pink license plate! That can’t be a coincidence now, can it? It tells you much about the barely concealed contempt for homosexuality that underlies much of the animus for sex offenders.

Screw the legal system. It was unable to end slavery, it will be unable to end public shaming by government. Words are simply twisted to serve the status quo. Before you can shed light on human suffering you must burn the Constitution.

The Constitution isn’t bad, but the people who manipulate it to deviate from its original purpose are bad. As much as registrants are bashed, Peckingham happened. NC said it was constitutional. NC was wrong. The Constitution held.

That’s the funny part of it though, isn’t it? For slavery to end, it wasn’t the Constitution that had to burn, but rather nearly everything else.

Stepping outside of SO laws for a second, the US is building a society that looks strikingly like that of 1859 antebellum USA. The trenches are dug, the positions are armed, and nowhere the twain shall meet. It only takes a spark for everything to burn. I am not encouraging this. Simply observing that it is inevitable.

Well the Constitution did have to be modified after to keep the Union. It was nothing but a barrier to healing the rift.

Then let’s hope it can be modified again… or re-emphasized! ** The relevancy for this article is at the end. ** The parenthetical quote made by justice Kennedy queries why someone who is no longer under custody still subject to restriction/supervision? “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.” For all registrants no longer under criminal custody, then they are no longer subject to any type of custody, or I call it service. Under Megan’s law, it states specifically it is a registrant’s duty to register. If you do not register, then it is considered a crime. That domineering… Read more »

My god I am glad I read the briefs in this case…This is incredibly value citations and legal theory laid out by the breifs and the decision..This guy never stood a chance for every sound reasoning the justices pointed out. A cruel and unusual punishment claim. Ha the attorney appointed and even the amicus attorneys should be disbarred for arguing such a claim on such a weak constitutional right, if not having a mark can somehow even be considered some kind of rjght》》》????, Not bringing the first amendment claim, fatal mistake….he probably could have corrected that mistake if he would… Read more »

Even if the First Amendment claim was asserted in this case, properly, it would have been a non-starter. This is the Court of Doe v. Shurtleff, and they have already ruled that sex offenders do not enjoy absolute rights under the First Amendment, as long as the restriction is “rational.”

@JohnDoeUtah

Freedom from compelled government speech is an absolute right on any sort of ID.

Tell them that. I tried in 2008 and they said no. And, then SCOTUS let it stand.

@JohnDoeUtah: Please clarify this statement: they have already ruled that sex offenders do not enjoy absolute rights under the First Amendment, as long as the restriction is “rational.” 1. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution, whether for RCs or “normal” citizens. SCOTUS has long, and rightly, limited some in order to allow society to function. 2. If one makes a First Amendment speech challenge, it’s subject to intermediate or strict scrutiny, not rational-basis. As for compelled speech, I think it behooves all of us to keep close tabs on what SCOTUS says in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The outcome may… Read more »

You are correct TS, but this guy has been adjudicated as a aggravated offender and they never actually his situation at all other then to try and situate him in the same circumstances as non aggravated offenders for equal protection…They would have to show that those who are considered more dangerous or have more serious offenses are treated with lesser punishments or apications of law. Sure as helllll not the other way around as thet did in this case. Like I said the attorneys should be disbarred, once again in another case, for being completely inept and incompetent, or at… Read more »

I am thinking about filing a lawsuit against Federal and State Governments for Defamation of Character, Slander/Libel – Is this possible? email answers to ranjaysaunders@outlook.com

It’s possible if they are, indeed, slandering, defaming or libeling you and not just saying something which is clearly factual such as stating that you have been convicted of a sex crime. However, even if they are saying something untrue about you, good luck getting any traction in court.

37
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.