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.
Next they’ll require all registrants to wear pink triangles on their clothing or face “Failure to Notify” criminal charges.
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 if the general public were able to act on things that sound good without repercussions.
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 wasn’t able to raise the “easiest” item to attack: compelled speech (1st Amendment). Given how 1st-Amendment-centric the Roberts SCOTUS is, that would seem to be the best angle. The courts may still find it acceptable, but being compelled speech would require the State to show compelling interest, and would need to narrowly tailor the law to achieve the goals. Given they must also use the least burdensome means, I don’t see how they can claim a marked DL does that–they already have a thing called ML that is less burdensome (and under the control of the State, not the citizen!).
There have been so many Due Process failures, it almost doesn’t seem like it’s worth using…but then again, you have to include it, just in case.
All in all, a troubling setback for not only marked DLs/IDs, but passports.
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.
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 have acted immediately with some type of amendment. but relying on weak connections to equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment claims. Two of the hardest scrotus precedents to overcome to even be considered violated. Another one lost before words ever hit paper…immense amounts of citations and incredibly articulated law theory made out by the justices just for me …I can hardly believe this…
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.”
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 the least an order to show cause why they used language and arguments that seem to be so blatantly inept. While making incredibly articulated sound reasoning of law without stating obvious constitutional violations and issues. Like I stated, either completely incompetent or unethical, one or the other. No ambiguity about it either.
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