ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

General News

General Comments February 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of February 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    WOW this might be one of our best works.
    Comments people.

  2. Counting the days

    I think it would be interesting to find out how many of us still support families we are not allowed by our government(or other governments) to be with.
    I for one live in a cheap apartment in a gang neighborhood while making sure my family in Thailand has what they need, puting my niece and nephew through grade school and college, as well as maintaining my mother’s home and her medical expenses overseas. I support my family there. I could forget about them and live a better life here, but I choose responsibility over comfort.
    Mean while we have deadbeat parents here that don’t take care of their kids, fathers that would rather get more women pregnant than take care of the children they fathered. Parents neglecting their kids to get drunk and stoned. But we are the problem. We are the outcasts.
    How many of those deadbeats pay taxes, have jobs, contribute in ANY way? But we are the bad people.

    • kind of living

      yea we all no that women cant be deadbeats , and all around bad people that hang out with thugs , but i have to say your doing right by your family , its good of you to care so much for them

  3. mike r

    I am really liking the part where I use the “modern public square” against them for shaming purposes. How can the court claim it’s the “modern public square” for 1st amendment purposes and not for shaming purposes? I think it must apply just as heavily in both cases other wise they are contradicting their own decision. Isn’t the “public square” where historical shaming took place? Rhetorical question….Of course it is.

    Under the Mendoza/Martinez factors, Plaintiff contends: (1) that IML (International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders,” Pub. Law No. 114–119, 130 Sta. 15 (2016), Compliant pp 37 at 5-17) with its unique sexual offender marked passport; (2) the exposure on the Megan’s Law Internet Website “modern public square”; reaches the threshold of “shaming”. In Packingham the Court stated “Far from merely facilitating access to public records, the Internet is “the modern public square.” Id. (slip op., at 8) (satisfies the Mendoza/Martinez factors for “shaming”).

    • David

      Of course, it can’t possibly be shaming, because that’s not “the stated intent”. Just like it can’t be a vigilante hit list, because that’s not the stated intent. And it can’t be a “Do not employ this person / Do not house this person” list, because that’s not the stated intent. And pandering, lazy judges will use exactly that reasoning, “Not the stated intent.”

      • New Person

        Mike R counters intent with rationality to a statutory scheme: In CA, the CASOMB (California Sex Offender Management Board) have detailed research on registrant recidivism. For two consecutive years (after no longer classifying ‘failure to register’ as a re-offense), CASOMB’s annual research founded that under 1% recidivate, 0.8% in the first year and 0.6% in the succeeding year.

        Thus, CA is imposing the registry upon 99% of that population that will not recidivate.

        The intent has scientifically been proven to be retributive, not statutory.

      • Tim Moore

        And the doctor said it was unfortunate that he lopped off the guy’s arm, but his intent was to remove a splinter in the finger.

  4. David Kennerly, Bull-Splatter Analyst

    Emergency Regulations implemented at Coalinga State Hospital, written in collaboration with Michael St. Martin, Detainee/Patient.

    On January 11, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law issued a “NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY REGULATORY ACTION” which proclaimed: “The Department of State Hospitals is amending section 4350 of title 9 of the California Code of Regulations to address the possession, viewing, and distribution of illicit materials by removing digital memory storage, other means of memory storage, specified digital media players, and digital media burners from the personal possession of patients.” They stated that the possession of child porn had reached “epidemic” proportions.

    The actual “emergency” was, in fact, not an explosion of child pornography possession in Coalinga State Hospital at all but California’s enactment of the “Electronic Privacy Act” which would have prevented CSH from carrying out continuous searches of civilly detained patient’s property at Coalinga State Hospital. Realizing the significance of the Privacy Act and its impact on the Hospital’s policy of treating Patients as if they were incarcerated prisoners without rights, the decision was made to simply outlaw nearly all electronic devices and storage media that were owned by Patients.

    Indeed, since Coalinga State Hospital opened in 2005, only seventeen patients have been convicted of possession of child pornography out of a total number of 2,387 patients (per a Freedom of Information Act request). Over eleven years, seventeen patients can hardly constitute an “epidemic.” Fewer than 1% of the patients had been convicted.

    Armed with this “emergency” administrative law, CSH Director Brandon Price, working with the Fresno County District Attorney, immediately put together a plan to seize the property of CSH patients.

    On January 16, 2018, CSH posted a letter from the office of Lisa A. Smittcamp, Fresno County District Attorney, and authored by Senior Deputy District Attorney, Gregory Anderson, addressed to all patients, staff and law enforcement at Coalinga State Hospital. The letter announced a new amendment to Title Nine, Section 4350 of the California Code of Regulations, making items previously allowed as patient property illegal [see link, below]. The new legislation was legally supported by recent California case law in regard to Robinson 2017 Cal App Lexis 1164 [see link, below] which ruled “The confiscation of contraband electronic devices by the Department of State Hospitals is legal.” It goes on to describe things which can be possessed by Patients.

    Intriguingly, the letter announces an “amnesty/grace period” during which Patients can voluntarily surrender their property without fear of prosecution for possession of child pornography:

    “Starting at 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 19, 2018, and running to 4:00 p.m., Sunday, January 28, 2018, Patients will be allowed to dispose of any of the above-prohibited items without concern of being arrested or prosecuted for the possession of the items or anything contained in these items. These items will be destroyed by the Hospital without being reviewed for content. After 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 28, 2018, possession of any of the above-prohibited items will be deemed ‘possession of contraband’ and Department of State Hospitals shall take any action under the law it deems necessary, up to and including arrests and criminal prosecution. Patients who are currently in possession of any of the above-listed prohibited items may grant consent permission to the Department of State Hospitals for any of the items to be reviewed for illegal material without file, folder or documentation type limitation other than documents protected by attorney/client privilege. The search will be conducted by the Hospital. If no illegal material is found on the prohibited item, they may be mailed to a location designated by the Patient or stored at the Hospital.”

    Under their December 22, 2017 filing for emergency regulations to the Office Of Administrative Law, the Department of State Hospitals quotes a new law, enacted in October of 2015, known as the “California Electronic Privacy Act” which was signed into law by Governor Brown as “California Penal Code Section 1546.1” (2015). It mandates that “Any search of any electronic device is not permitted without permission of the possessor or without a search warrant.” They allege that the new law “further frustrates the ability to enforce facility and public safety.” Their so-called “emergency regulation” is a reaction to this law and is a manipulation by the Department of State Hospitals to circumvent the strongest data protection laws in the country. Their special pleading in arguing for these emergency regulations is clearly that civilly committed sex offenders represent a “crimen exceptum” who should not enjoy the protections of a law that was lauded by privacy advocates and civil libertarians. This amounts to an end-run around the privacy law and was shepherded through an approval process without input from those parties. Their justification is that Detainees in CSH are so dangerous because they have lots of child pornography, stating “It is this revictimization [through the viewing of child pornography] that DSH seeks to prevent as quickly as possible through the adoption of emergency regulations. DSH has been actively working with the Fresno County District Attorney’s office in investigating and prosecuting cases involving child pornography.”

    Unmentioned by them is that the overwhelming number of illegal materials found in CSH were found before 2013, with most of it having been brought in by staff of whom none have been prosecuted. Child pornography was also once used by clinicians in the treatment programs although this practice was discontinued before the treatment program’s move from Atascadero to Coalinga. Child pornography has only been found on the devices of a small handful of Detainees – fewer than 1% – at Coalinga. Nevertheless, the Department of State Hospitals has decided that they will simply eliminate the possession of nearly all electronic devices as a policy going forward in response to the protections afforded by the Electronic Privacy Act. In addition to the electronics, the possession of more than thirty commercially available CDs, DVDs, or Blu-Ray disks are no longer allowed. Even so, many of the patients have now had ALL of their disks confiscated.

    Coalinga State Hospital, “NOTICE OF EMERGENCY AMENDMENTS AND FINDING OF EMERGENCY, Regulations for Electronic Patient Property.” December 12, 2017.
    [ ]

    Office of Administrative Law, “NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY REGULATORY ACTION, Section 4350 of the California Code of Regulations.” January 11, 2018
    [ ]

    California Electronic Privacy Act:

    “California Electronic Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 1546.1” [ ]

    “So What’s in the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act?” [ ]


    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      The two most disturbing points:

      1. “Indeed, since Coalinga State Hospital opened in 2005, only seventeen patients have been convicted of possession of child pornography out of a total number of 2,387 patients (per a Freedom of Information Act request). Over eleven years, seventeen patients can hardly constitute an ‘epidemic.’ Fewer than 1% of the patients had been convicted.”

      2. “Unmentioned by them is that the overwhelming number of illegal materials found in CSH were found before 2013, with most of it having been brought in by staff of whom none have been prosecuted.”

      • AlexO

        Wow! That’s just insane!

        • James

          RE: David Kennerly, Bull-Splatter Analyst Writing on Coalinga:

          Geeze, you do beautiful work!

          Thanks for…at least someone is publishing the truth.

          Best Wishes, James

  5. New Person

    Their special pleading in arguing for these emergency regulations is clearly that civilly committed sex offenders represent a “crimen exceptum” who should not enjoy the protections of a law that was lauded by privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

    Scary how this mimics the registration scheme of circumventing “involuntary servitude” upon a free person. Both cases using fear as the reason (epidemic fear), when in truth rates are far, far minuscule – 1% or less for both the Coalinga patients and the CASOMB reporting.

  6. John

    This was a pretty interesting debate and congrats to Emily Horowitz for persuasively winning the votes to her win. Only paranoid and unreasonable people would consider a registry.

    • Sam

      Finally got around to watching the debate. That Marcy lady…. Her argument was ridiculous. Pulling numbers from the sky from uncited sources. Just saying “science says” when the science Emily presented states the complete opposite

      • AJ

        I haven’t (yet) watched the debate, but what you wrote pretty much sums up the situation we face at every turn!

  7. mike r

    If any one can see any fallacies in my Memorandum feel free to comment. Tomorrow 10 am is the big day. Here is my latest draft.
    Definitely a little nervous about tomorrow.

    • AlexO

      Good luck! I wish you nothing but the best! Maybe the judges thoughts be clear and true.

    • Interested party

      @mike r
      You have a great argument and are well prepared. Speak your mind and may the judge have an open mind.

  8. ReadyToFight

    @ Looking for insight,
    Amen ta That

  9. mike r

    wow I just put that on gofile and checked it to be sure it was a good link and now I’m ar school and it appears to be no good. Damnit. Sorry man I will have to wait untill I get home unless AJ or Chris see this and can post it for me.

  10. mike r

    Here people. A link to my site where you can view the latest, including the Memorandum and Prep for Oral arguments.
    Sorry about the other link, I don’t know what’s going on with Gofile but whatever.

    • AJ

      gofile seems to be shaky of late. I notice that whenever I try to use it and it’s broken, my anti-virus also happens to let me know it blocked a crypto-mining script.

    • lovewillprevail

      After skimming through some docs posted by Mike, it appears both the state and federal gov are hanging their hats on Doe vs Smith so that all of Mike’s claims can go away since Doe vs Smith says civil whereas Mike says punishment. Hopefully the court will take the time to hear Mike’s side and look at Mike’s sources and not just see Doe vs Smith in all the rebuttals before throwing out all claims.

      • Chris F

        My biggest fear is when they play the “it only gets rational basis review” crap.

        Rational basis review is only supposed to be used on laws that affect everyone the same. The judiciary feels that elected officials wouldn’t propose irrational laws or the people would vote them out of office, so they leave it to the judiciary to police themselves on most issues so every piece of legislature doesn’t flood the court by those that hate it.

        The problem is, our issues should get strict scrutiny, because the laws ONLY target a select and easily identifiable, hated, and politically powerless group that cannot change its status by doing anything to get out of that group.

        When you try to claim that, then they will use the “sorry, you are not one of the protected classes like gays, minorities, and elderly”. But that isn’t relevant. That is only relevant for laws made for everyone that would hinder those protected classes. It doesn’t apply to when a hated group is singled out for special attention, and strict scrutiny should apply.

        • AJ

          Yeah, good old “rational basis” review. If they can show just one instance where the law holds, the court throws in the towel and says, “well there you go, it’s rational.” Umm, no. Subjecting (in CA, at least) over 99% of a class to burdens that might apply to less than 1% is not rational. It’s vindictive. Vindictive=>retributive=>punitive. Thankfully, as-applied challenges can avoid some of that hooey.

  11. mike r

    So I wonder will anyone from on here or relevant show up??? 10 am people, Federal courthouse, Sacramento room 26. Guess we’ll see.

    • steve (@miker)

      Good luck Mike.


      Much respect. Good luck.

    • ⛥ MIKE! Details please! ⛥

      ⛥⛥⛥ Mike! Details please! What city?? What day/date?? Tomorrow?? I will do my very best to attend if it’s close to Los Angeles! But give me details! ⛥⛥⛥

      • ⛥ MIKE! Details please! ⛥

        Your missing punctuation threw me off:
        Tomorrow, Feb. 15, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 26 of the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento, California.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      Make sure to dress up nicely. IF you have a suit, put it on. Good luck Mike.

  12. mike r

    Man wtf is wrong with that lady in the debate. This lady straight lost her mind and definitely doesn’t understand what a debate is talking for five or ten minutes about Nasser. Blaming Pen State and everyone else. What the h*&^&% does that have to do with registries? Absolutely Nothing. Irrelevant. This lady has some severe mental disability, Stupid fake unreliable irrelevant studies 1 in blah blah victim of sex abuse, under reporting blah blah. Are these people just on auto pilot? Are they some kind of government robot or something> Same worthless crap spouted over and over.

  13. mike r

    That was an interesting debate. Every time the lady stated this study or that study I wish Emily would have said whoa wait a minute, stop, cite them. Everything the lady stated was conjecture, speculation, personal perspectives. No evidence of anything. I tell you what, that shi&**&&*^ isn’t going to fly with me. I will vehemently object and demand they cite their studies and that they are by government agencies where there determinations can not be refutable or even questionable (this is what the AG even stated). Reasonably relied upon evidence, not speculations. Nice job though.

  14. mike r

    This is from the AG’s own words.
    “The contents of the referenced article (or study) are not the proper subject of judicial notice, because they are not “generally known” and cannot be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(b).

    Burnt, irrelevant and speculatory.

  15. David Kennerly, Escape Nardist

    “MISSING SEX OFFENDER” “87-year old Roger Whaley has removed his G-P-S monitoring device.”
    Run Roger, run!! This is a 2018 version of “Thelma and Louise.” Without the Louise or the bonding. But still… I know who I’m rootin’ for!

    I say we all go and offer our comments of support.
    [ ]

  16. Chris F (@Mike R and all)

    I’m really nervous about the outcome of Mike R’s Pro-Se oral arguments against the request to dismiss his lawsuit.

    This will be a big test to see if a good Pro-Se challenge against an all-powerful Attorney General with tons of legal resources can even stand a chance. I say it is a “good” Pro-Se because of the amount of research Mike has done for years on this, and the help he has gotten from people on here, even though not from any attorneys. On the plus side, by not using attorneys, his attack comes from a fresh perspective and not just re-used arguments that the other side is already well prepared for.

    Best of luck Mike R, we are all counting on you, and you should be in the courtroom right now.

  17. mike r

    Little summary here. The Judge did showed real concern over the attacks on my wife and I and asked the AG “so no matter where Plaintiff moves he will face these kinds of threats of violence and harassment”. She was really reaming the AG on the Millard case. The AG stated the court is bound by CA case law and Smith and the judge referred to Millard and pointed out that they went against case law so why shouldn’t this court consider it. Beautiful, AG had no response and I could tell it irritated the judge even more that the AG didn’t know details of the case, or any other of the cases, but just regurgitated Smith and Elk shoulder are controlling. It was really cool when the judge was reaming the AG on her Motion to dismiss. Told the AG that the court traditionally disfavors Motions to dismiss, especially in Pro SE Complaints and got on the AG about why she needed to file a separate Motion to dismiss in the future and the court “REALLY” (I put all caps because the judge was very condescending (if that’s the right word) to the AG, expressed she was very upset anyway) doesn’t like multiple Motions to dismiss as it complicates the case for Plaintiff and delays disposition of the case unnecessarily. Of course once again the AG had absolutely no rebuttal and didn’t say a word about it, just sat there and took it. Absolutely loved it. We’ll see what happens but from the concerns the judge raised without even reading my Memorandum yet was very encouraging. I have to admit (not just being vain) but I did a hell of a job people. Never faltered, answered every question completely and eloquently, really hit on the main issues, although we didn’t get to the recidivism or efficacy issues simply because this wasn’t the proper venue to discuss detailed arguable facts. But I did read off the summary of all the effects and the judge stated that she, and a district court judge presiding over her, will consider my Memorandum and all the evidence when weighing her decision, so I had to go with my gut and not push the issues during Oral and let it stand in my Memorandum. The judge can read my Memo at her own leisure and the AG won’t even be able to comment or dispute until after the decision on the Motion to Dismiss. So the judge stated that we should have her decision within a week.

    • AlexO

      That’s wonderful and encouraging news!! You’ve done a bang up job on this and I hope it continues in such a positive direction.

      Would you know if your case continues to go well if it will cover all us in general or is this a case more just for you and your situation? Either way, I imagine if you do win and it only applies to you, many more of us will be able to cite your case in our own. But who knows, you might get your own Wiki entry as the person to beat and killed the system 😛

      Congratulations again on a great first day!

    • ⛥ MIKE! Congratulations! ⛥

      Congratulations on making it this far, Mike! And thank you for keeping us updated/informed. What an amazing achievement! Fingers crossed that the judge will rule in your favor! You’re one hell of a fighter, Mike!! 👍
      – David in SoCal

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Wonderful news! I’m glad this first test and hurdle went well for you…and not so much for the AG. Let’s hope the momentum carries through next week and the judge denies the AG’s Motion. Good job, brother.

      Since it’s an “as applied” challenge, the suit truly applies only to mike r. However, anyone similarly situated can use an as-applied court opinion to their benefit. IOW, if mike r prevails, he would be the lone winner…but anyone in a situation to mike r could cite his case and win.

      • AlexO

        @AJ, Thanks for the explanation. Could or Mike r. briefly explain Mike’s situation? I know he’s been building this for a long while but it was a bit too much for me to follow so I’m not sure what his case actually is.

    • New Person

      THanks for the recap, Mike R!!!

      The Judge is protecting the person filing in Pro Se because the AG dismisses that actual damage inflicted upon you as if they did not exist. This is why focusing on a person or a few persons is more effective because it treats you like an individual citizen and why the Judge takes more interest – the full might of the AG applying multiple dismiss motions to make an individual scared to even file. Apparently, that scare tactic irked the Judge as it was being applied to a Pro Se applicant.

      Mike R, what you quoted is the best thing I’ve heard that a Judge will read your plight.
      The Judge did showed real concern over the attacks on my wife and I and asked the AG “so no matter where Plaintiff moves he will face these kinds of threats of violence and harassment”.

      This gives your case hope, and in turn, us hope. Go Mike R!

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      Mike, that sounds great so far. I agree: Keep up the good work and you might have your own Wiki entry one day.

    • kind of living

      @ Mike r ,,,,, ,, Good job Brother ! sound promising so far , I know you have worked hard on this , you should get a medal , I will be reading your post for sure , you have stayed positive and it shows in your work

    • JM of Wi.

      @ Mike r
      Great to hear your update, thanks for sharing.

  18. mike r

    Thanks for all the support people, it is really encouraging. About dressing up oh yeah had a custom tailored suit from mens wharehouse, looked very professional, it cost me a little over a hundred bucks because I ordered it online. Normally $700,

    • David Kennerly, Bull-Splatter Analyst

      You’re looking great, Mike! Congrats on your lawsuit progress! Now, how do you get a “custom-tailored” suit online? 🙂

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        Were you able to go David?

        • David Kennerly, Fully "Diluted Grander"

          I’m afraid that I could not. Sorry!

        • David in SoCal

          No, by the time I noticed the post and replied to it, the hearing had actually already occurred. I just didn’t realize it.

        • Tim Moore

          There are a lot of Davids here. Unless…there is really just one with multiple personalities

    • Dustin

      @ mike r

      Don’t remember where, but I remember telling you that it was a good sign that the AG found it necessary to file such an extensive (and unpersuasive, imho) motion to dismiss. Most other MTDs are only a page or two long denying everything. Couldn’t have predicted the judge, though. Nice to hear a judge actually admonishing an AG for unnecessary litigation against a pro se opponent – they’re all supposed to do that but rarely do.

      Good work. Assuming the judge will write her own opinion (another thing they’re supposed to but rarely do) and you’ll put it on your wix page when you get it. Looking forward to seeing it.

  19. Counting the days

    My charge ( 311.11(a) ) has been reduced to misdomeanor. I am now looking to leave U.S. for the civilized world. My question is multiple:

    1. What is considered the “friendliest” country to reside. I speak German fluently, and have distant relatives there, so that is very high on my list. But can pretty much accept anywhere.
    2. If living overseas, does the 10 yr. Statute still apply? In other words, can I petition to be removed off federal list. Or do I need to reside stateside to be eligible. My long range plan is to move back to Thailand ( I speak Thai as well) , live in my home , get my business back, and rebuild my life. But I don’t want the burden if the registry or the collateral crap that it drags around with it.
    I currently reside in California, and understand the requirements for state dismissal. No legal mind I have contacted wants to bother with this ( no money in it for them ). Hoping an expat reading this can give some advice.

    • Sam

      @Counting Depending what state you live once you move out of the country you come off the registry. As long as you’ve never had to register in WI, NY, or FL. The fed registry updates as soon as they remove you. Mine currently is completely blank aside from where it says out of country. This is due to NY though if they would remove their claws the fed one would completely disappear.

      The country I’m currently in is one of the newer ones on RTag and very close to your final destination (please don’t ask any more or guess) but getting more than a tourist visa is a pain paperwork wise unless you’re married to a local which is still a bit of a pain but manageable.

      Most people here don’t really ask much about your past unless you share it to them. The most they would ask is why you left the US since its the land of gold and movie stars.

      • Counting the days

        Thx. I was more concerned about interaction with embassy and getting my work visa. I know the locals could care less. So when I clear U.S. airspace, I am then off the radar? This is good news.

        • Sam

          Well, when I’d left they sent their notice and stuff to the Marshalls. Not sure what the Marshalls sent but immigration didn’t even blink. Just looked at my passport, looked at me, scanned it and stamped it.

          I got my visa in the country after I was already here. When that got approved I told then I wasn’t coming back. Then was told I have to remain on the registry in NY and they will list my address overseas. So as long as you don’t come from one of the stupid states that keep you on I think you should be okay.

          Depending what country you go to an incentive to ease the immigration officers nerves will help if there is any trouble. Here would be about 200usd of incentive as that’s the avg monthly income for a lot of them.

        • Counting the days

          BTW, a cali registrant, so non sorna state. And going to tier system. So if I squint and look hard, I can see a dim light in the tunnel ahead of me. RUN TO THE LIGHT!

  20. B.Wat

    Way to go Mike R. I’m happy for you! A classic David vs Goliath story. Good luck and keep us posted.

  21. AJ

    I can’t recall if I or someone else ever posted this paper, but it’s a good read, even if a bit longer: “The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws” ( Some good analysis (from 2012, no less) of where things were headed legally, and also touches on the difficulty of pursuing a SDP claim in court.

    @mike r: This paper is chock full of good court cases and citations, including picking at Smith.

  22. mike r

    You can get a custom suit from online becuase they send it the store where you go pick it up and pay them about $30 to tailor it. Realy nice CK suit. I was really suprised, I got the entire suit, another beautiful blazer along with it and all tailored for about $160 all together. Couldn’t beat it. I have to admit my wife and I looked really good. lol..

  23. mike r

    I was really suprised how much emphasis the judge put on the out of jurisdiction Millard case. But it is sound reasoning and as the judge told the AG was a good example of a district court veering from precedent. She actually clocked the AG when the AG repeated several times that the court was bound by Smith and Elk Shoulder. After stating it a couple times the judge straight told her the court can consider the evidence and come to its own conclusions regardless of precendents. Loved it, shut the AG up on that issue.

    • AlexO

      Yeah, that was a weird thing for the AG to state. If courts were absolutely bound, there would be no appeals or need for any hire court. Being “bound” is just a lame excuse to allow yourself to operate on auto pilot. “I was bound by law and orders when I marched those Jews into the ovens.”

    • TS


      She really wants “stare decisis” (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent; to stand by things decided) in play now doesn’t she? Good grief.

    • AJ

      Right, because once a case has been decided, it’s that way forever. Just like Plessy v. Ferguson (“separate but equal”), just like Bowers v. Hardwick (no right to sodomy), just like Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization).

  24. AJ

    Here’s a case from the 9th that points to there being some conditions (mandatory registry checks by licensing agencies) where MLs meet the “stigma-plus” test and require Due Process procedures: Though SCOTUS reversed the decision, that reversal was about a county or municipality being sued under a particular Federal Law. The stigma-plus analysis and rationale stands…SCOTUS made no mention of it whatsoever.

    When reading the case, save some time and skip down to “II. Analysis”–or if familiar with stigma-plus, skip to “b. Plus”. When reading, replace “CARNA” with “SORA” or “SORNA”.

    • Chris F (@AJ and Mike R)

      Wow AJ, great find and very relevant to Mike R’s case.

      I particularly like this part of B Plus that you mentioned:

      Thus, for example, inclusion on the CACI does not necessarily bar the Humphries from obtaining a license for child care, but it does guarantee that the licensing entity will conduct an investigation anew before issuing or denying the license. However, we need not find that an agency will necessarily deny the Humphries a license to satisfy the “plus” test. Outright denial would mean that a listing on the CACI has extinguished the Humphries’ legal right or status. Rather, Paul provides that stigma-plus applies when a right or status is “altered or extinguished.” 424 U.S. at 711, 96 S. Ct. 1155 (emphasis added).

      We hold that where a state statute creates both a stigma and a tangible burden on an individual’s ability to obtain a right or status recognized by state law, an individual’s liberty interest has been violated.

      Even though it’s in the 9th, it should be able to be used in other circuits right? It’s not as binding as a decision in a particular circuit, but as long as SCOTUS or something else in another circuit ruled much differently, it should hold weight I think.

    • Chris F

      I realized something else about this line of arguments.

      It may also perfectly to IML and satisfying Stigma-Plus.

      Replace the parts that talk about being on the CACI list making employers extremely less likely to employ or be held liable with how the IML notifications make countries less likely to let us in or they are liable after being warned. Wasn’t the right to travel internationally given the same weight as travelling domestically for a constitutional challenge? It’s been awhile, so I don’t remember.

      • AJ

        @Chris F:
        Answering both your posts:
        1. Yes, it’s binding on the 9th, and only persuasive elsewhere….except there are other cases. In the 11th, they found the other direction in Smith ex rel Smith v. Siegleman. Yet in the 2nd, they found in agreement with the 9th in deciding Valmonte v Bane. So we already have a Circuit-split, with the 2nd & 9th on one side, the 11th (surprise!) on the other.

        2. Yes, it very well could implicate IML (or even the 7-day away-from-home notification) with its “altering or extinguishing” concept. A fairly decent paper that addresses all this is: The author does make a brief–and quite erroneous–detour in comparing RC registries with child abuse registries, but it’s otherwise a good paper. There are some footnotes covering the No-Fly list, finding it doesn’t meet stigma-plus because it’s confidential. However this “confidential” avoidance wouldn’t apply to IML, since it flows directly from the public registries. (In fairness to the States and USG, if they made MLs LE-only, all stigma-plus claims would probably disappear.)

        P.S. Yes, international travel is a right. I can find the case again if need be.

  25. mike r

    Even though these codes are not codified in the California statutes they are a direct effect of California’s statutory scheme.
    Has the Supreme Court ever addressed the issue whether an equal protection claim violation occurs when multiple state statutes and codes conflict causing extreme effects that vary for individuals in similarly situated circumstances.

  26. mike r

    Man look how short and precise this is. Any comments? Like I said I don’t know for sure if SCOTUS has addressed the multi state statute conflicts. If not this could be a new area of law. I am sure it just not on an issue where such dramatic differences in penalties were involved.

    (Right to Equal Protection)
    The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violate the equal protection clauses.
    The Sex Offender label is a federally and state mandated label that includes discrimination by the federal and state government against this created class through laws such as in the form of: (a) IML (“International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders,” Pub. Law No. 114–119, 130 Sta. 15 (2016)); (b) federal housing programs denial, Section 578 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) prohibits the admission of lifetime registered sex offenders to federally assisted housing. The regulations adopted by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement the statute became effective on June 25, 2001; (c) Also 42 USCS § 13663 (2004) explicitly purports to deny dangerous sex offenders, but in fact, requires PHAs (Public Housing Authorities) to deny eligibility to federally assisted housing to anyone listed on a state sex offender registry, many whom cannot be considered dangerous, but are guilty of offenses that were non-violent or consensual. See also residency and presence restrictions; (d) EEOC (US Equal Opportunity Commission) web site specifically lists government registries like the Sex Offender Registry as valid research tools to deny employment, even though the lengths of time on the registry often far exceeds the time other criminal convictions can be used to deny employment; (e) and the interference with a plethora of laws targeted at restricting the upbringing of Plaintiff’s children/grandchildren, or any minor.
    While this should only be possible if applied equally to all people in the same circumstances, it is most definitely not. Each state controls what crimes qualify to be on the Sex Offender list as well as the arbitrary duration, and to what information is provided to the public. For a partial list of obligations and statutes see,
    Regardless of another State’s sex offender laws or criteria for inclusion on the national Sex Offender Registry, since Plaintiff is from California, no matter what state he moves he is subject to lifetime registration requirements even though others in the same circumstances, or very similar situations, may get relief after that state’s set duration for registration for the same offense or similar offense as he has.
    Even though these other state’s codes are not codified in the California statutes they are a direct effect of California’s statutory scheme. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue whether an equal protection claim violation occurs when multiple state statutes and codes conflict causing “extreme punitive effects” that vary for individuals in similarly situated circumstances.

    • New Person

      I like the idea, but I think equal protection probably applies to “punitive” consequences, not statutory.

      Yet, you do bring up an equal protection issue when it is a federally mandated statute. By simply relying on a state’s registry, the federally mandated IML has varying statutes that conflict with one another – especially since CA is only a lifetime term whereas other states are tiered. Then you can go into detail such as if your CA crime involved a 16 – 17 year old, but in another state the legal age of consent is 16 years of age.

      And since the IML is federally mandated, then the 2003 decision of Smith v Doe stating that only “convictions” belong to the registry means those in CA who earned a 1203.4 case dismissal should not be on the registry.

      Again, the IML forces all states to be uniform in statutory regulation or else there is equal protection issue at hand.

    • Chris F

      About this part:” since Plaintiff is from California, no matter what state he moves he is subject to lifetime registration requirements even though others in the same circumstances, or very similar situations, may get relief after that state’s set duration for registration for the same offense or similar offense as he has.”

      I don’t believe that’s true. If you move to Texas, Texas won’t put you on our registry if your time on the registry has already exceeded the duration Texas requires. There were some other states that tried to do that and lost in court, so they couldn’t have a different standard for those from their state and those that came to their state later to live. I think I remember a case like that out of Louisiana.

      The best argument on equal protection is your part about how the Federal Government violates equal protection, since it obviously treats similarly situated people different. Against the state, the only thing it may be doing wrong is as the “gatekeeper” to their registry, when they know the federal government will treat the same situation differently, they are still supplying them with their list of registrants to allow that to happen. They could prevent that by not participating or only sending those on the list that every other state is also sending. You would end up with a national registry of a sort of “lowest common denominator” type situation where all states would have to include only those that equal the most lenient state’s registry.

      • New Person

        Hey, I said what you said about the federal government in the comment above. LoL

        “Again, the IML forces all states to be uniform in statutory regulation or else there is equal protection issue at hand.”

        We’re on agreement with that! = )

      • AJ

        @Chris F:
        I’d be interested in the court case you mention.
        I do wonder about a State imposing its registration beyond that what a person carries with him/her from the sentencing State. On one hand, it’s “regulation” so the State can do as it sees fit and necessary…thank you Smith v. Doe. I wonder if one could successfully argue that such a law either deters my exercising of my right to freedom of travel (and migration) or penalizes me for exercising it.

      • CR

        If you move to Texas, Texas won’t put you on our registry if your time on the registry has already exceeded the duration Texas requires.

        I believe you are right about that Chris F. But it appears that Texas will keep you on its registry if you commit an offense in Texas that has a lifetime registration requirement, and you move to another state where you are not required to register. Two former Texas registrants who no longer live in Texas and are no longer required to register in their current state of residence recently mentioned this.

        My point being that if you have a lifetime duty to register, then depending on the laws in the state where you committed your offense, you may in fact still be listed for life, even if you are not required to register in some other state that you move to.

        • Sam

          Or if you go to the happy State of NY with an out of state offense they keep you on even when you don’t live there anymore.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Based on the Humprhies case (child abuse registry), I suspect one could successfully challenge 42 USC § 13663. The law mandates PHAs to consult the list and deny housing benefits to someone on a registry for life. The law improperly (I say unconstitutionally) determines dangerousness by length of time one is “regulated” by a State. Though the Gov’t would probably claim CT DPS applies, I disagree. In CT DPS, there was a complete absence of a dangerouness determination, as stated by CT’s disclaimer. Here, the law’s title says it all: “Ineligibility of dangerous sex offenders for admission to public housing.” The Feds are saying “Lifetime = Dangerous” and have not allowed any sort of Due Process. As well, dangerousness plays no part in CA putting one on ML for life. That, it would seem, is a Due Process violation. (@New Person: Due Process does apply to both civil and criminal law.) One could probably also attack that there’s no objective standard, given the varying registration terms among the states. As well, all it would take is a legislature to re-tier a RC’s offense to lifetime registration, and s/he could get bounced from public housing. (I can already hear the wheels turning in some legislators’ heads about doing this “to save just one child.”) One big concern is a court could say it’s simply Congress exerting its right to determine spending (“the power of the purse”).

      One could perhaps argue a Privileges and Immunities violation. Similarly situated RCs, not subject to lifetime registration, would receive the benefit, thus undermining the argument that “lifetime = dangerous.”

      • AJ

        Section (d) of the law does allow one “to dispute the accuracy and relevance of that information”, but based on how the law is written, it seems to be a “guilty until proven innocent” proposition. It’d be interesting to see how many times a PHA has held a hearing, let alone found for the RC.

      • AJ

        Grr…I did it again. I meant “Equal Protection” where I wrote “Privileges and Immunities.” I cross-wire those phrases (but not concepts) too, too often.

  27. Always the Forgotten

    Yesterday, I watched the movie “Call Me by Your Name”. Beautiful movie, excellent acting. And …… the character of Oliver would have been sent to prison for at least five years for molesting a 17 year old and would spend the rest of his life on a Sex Offender Registry. But while everyone fawns over how wonderful this movie is, no one discusses the consequences that would follow if this happened in real life. Why not?

  28. mike r

    Yep I need help with this one. This is what I have.

    Regardless of another State’s sex offender laws or criteria for inclusion on the Sex Offender Registry, since Plaintiff is from California, no matter what state he moves he is subject to whatever registration requirements that state has in place, and even though others in the same circumstances, or very similar situations, may get relief after that state’s set duration for registration for the same offense or similar offense as he has, it is a crap-shoot whether or not Plaintiff will receive the same treatment as all others similarly situated.
    Even though these codes are not codified in the California statutes they are a direct effect of California’s statutory scheme. This is also a serious issue of federal law about whether multiple state statutes and codes that conflict constitute a violation under the equal protection clause. Plaintiff is pretty sure the United States Supreme Court has had to of addressed this issue sometime in the last 100 years, but I really doubt if they were dealing with a situation where the “punitive effects” differ so dramatically from state to state. I bet this is unprecedented in modern history. Has the court ever addressed the issue whether an equal protection claim violation occurs when multiple state statutes and codes conflict causing extreme punitive effects that vary for individuals in similarly situated circumstances? Plaintiff cannot find any case law that compares to this situation.

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      I think you need to stay away from this in your suit.

      The California AG is not liable for what other state’s do if you move there. Most state’s laws base your registration there on past convictions or deferred adjudication regardless of if that state put you on the registry. For instance, I will be off the Texas registry soon, but if I move to Louisiana they have a longer duration and could require me to register again.

      Your only way to use equal protection is to fight California including you on the registry as the gatekeeper, and thus subjecting you to IML and no federal housing assistance while those from other states that do not put a similarly situated person on the registry causing the lack of equal protection.

  29. mike r

    I also cannot find if the AG can file multiple motions to dismiss under fed rules. Any help???? Doesn’t seem right I know that.

  30. mike r

    This really screwed me when i was doing my habeas right after I got out of prison. I did not have access to a computer since I was not allowed access under parole and I did not know how to file for a certificate of appeal-ability. BS man…. Ninth circuit probably would have reversed, but oh well I guess live and learn right?????????

    Habeas cases. If you are an appellant in an appeal from an action filed
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255, you must first obtain a certificate of
    appealability regarding any issues you want to raise in your brief. If the
    district court has denied a certificate of appealability, you must request a
    certificate from this Court. 9th Cir. R. 22-1. This is explained further in the
    “General Information” section of this document.

  31. ML

    I was watching a program on cbs about the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court case Plessy v Ferguson was the case that gave governments a green light to pass more and more laws as long as services and facilities were equal, hence the term “separate but equal”. That stood for almost 60 years. Smith v Doe is our Plessy v Ferguson. The case that opened the door to the super registration schemes. Plessy v Ferguson affected more people but the affect is similar to what many of us face now.

    • Tim Moore

      Except the services for us aren’t even pretending to be equal. It is separate but “What? You want services? GFYS.”

      • ML

        My point was nothing about separate but equal just the strength of a precedent and once handed down, how it opens the door to much more legislation. The facts of the case in Smith v Doe were dramatically different than what we face today. That case opened the door to all sort of draconian legislation.

  32. mike r

    Yep, I think your right Chris. The whole equal protection isn’t workable. Doesn’t have any teeth that’s for sure.

  33. mike r

    Looks like LE is putting the resources in the wrong place if they want to help save the children….. End the registry and take the money saved and put armed guards in schools or train and arm the teachers.

    • Better off dead....?

      Sex offense = new laws & restrictions.
      School shooting = “thoughts and prayers”, but no new laws or restrictions. So, from that analysis, which of these events is really more frightening and significant to parents?

      • Tim Moore

        You know, we got a culture of death. We are able to sacrifice the lives of kids to the gun god, so we don’t offend him. It is much more acceptable than sex.

        • David Kennerly, Bull-Splatter Analyst

          Frankly, I see no way for gun control to reduce gun rampages. Consider that the FBI was already aware of the shooter’s mental state before he went on the school rampage yet did absolutely nothing to prevent it. When you realize, not only how many guns are in private hands in the U.S. but also the fact that they will be more easily manufactured given increasingly ubiquitous CNC machines (computer-controlled milling machines), then nothing short of a mass-confiscation of both guns as well as the equipment and software needed to manufacture them, along with very severe penalties, will make guns less available. At that point, we will truly be living in a police state since police will be the only ones able to possess guns. This will never be acceptable to Americans. Anything short of this dramatic and drastic step, such as greater oversight of gun purchases and mental health evaluations of prospective buyers, will have very little effect on atrocities which, after all, seem to be more of a reflection of the collective mental health of a nation. There really is something wrong with the minds of America and we can certainly see evidence of it in its malign and twisted laws that adversely affect us every day.

    • steve

      “..arm the teachers”

      Yeah until the first psycho teacher shoots and kills a kid for not sitting in his seat. More guns is not the answer.

      • New Person

        Actually, the idea of veterans who get out of service can be the armed guards.

        They already qualify to handle guns and aren’t teachers. We guard banks and celebrities/politicians have armed guards. Apparently, it’s a good deterrent.

        Adding armed guards helps to prevent the escalation of something dire. But that’s not enough. The murderer is the main problem. That also needs addressed. Knowing schools aren’t protected gives the murderer more incentive to attack unguarded locations. I say murderer b/c you don’t need a gun to kill.

      • Tim Moore

        The politicians want to keep us afraid of each other, so we don’t focus on them and their lobbyists pillaging the country. Allowing guns everywhere and doing nothing to stop violence is a great diversion. Even the registry serves that purpose. Keep them afraid and they won’t have pause to question.

      • There's no telling! 😨

        There’s no eay to tell who might become a school shooter. Apparently, the young man in this case seemed normal and well-adjusted, no foreshadowing of what was to planned.
        So how about just taking away military assault-style rifles? Why are the “needed” by anyone other than law enforcement and military??

      • Counting the days

        Or the teacher or guard has a “bad day” and trips off during classes. The U.S. seems to think guns are the answer to EVERYTHING! Too many guns in the street? Then give more people guns!

  34. TS

    From Texas, an atty with an RC on HER staff is challenging Judge in election. Very interesting story for some light reading.

    Contentious 331st District race pits longtime judge against attorney–politics/contentious-331st-district-race-pits-longtime-judge-against-attorney/nFlg33eD3DZyMlFb85hHkI/

  35. AJ

    Just had an attempted compliance check. One deputy (marked SUV) and four USMS (unmarked SUV). I could see them, and completely ignored their doorbell ring and knocks, even as I stood on the other side of the door. I was able to spy on the from the garage, too. What ticks me off is the pricks were walking around my outbuilding and looking into a car I have parked out there, which is *certainly* a 4th Amendment violation, since they have no reasonable suspicion to be searching that area. Hmmm…time to break down and buy cameras…and maybe a locked gate for the driveway so they cannot even enter my curtilage w/o violating the 4th Amdt.

    • TS


      Any cellphone video of this attempt?

      • AJ

        Unfortunately, no; they caught me off-guard since it’s been quiet for so long. I was expecting the UPS man, and based on how my dog was barking (she hates him), thought that’s what was going on. By the time I gathered my wits, it was too late. But it’s definitely being logged and journaled.

        • David Kennerly, A Risk To Whom?

          I have to have one of the most frustrating entrances for the “perv patrol” to conduct their “checks” on me. There is no way to get to my front door unless they pick the lock on my extremely high front gate within an equally-high wall. I’ve got three cameras on the front peering at it from three different angles, all recorded continuously. For the longest time, I didn’t even have a doorbell. That had to be frustrating. I finally got one when I got tired, and frustrated in my own right, of having to traipse down to the post office, UPS, and FEDEX to pick-up packages. Of course, it was a Ring Doorbell.

    • Paul 2 chikity check

      Arlo pro 2 Around the whole house a must

    • Facts should matter

      Never ever answer the door! Let them suffer and get flustered! I immediately unhook my landline phone when I see it’s them because they ALWAYS call the contact number in an attempt to see if anyone is home. This infuriates them even further when they don’t get an answer. HAHA! I always let my dog bark at them and they eventually leave their junk mail card on my door for me to call (which I never do). They then leave and go onto the next person’s house.

      They probably refer to this as “perv patrol” behind our backs. – _ –

      • AJ

        Oh I have no intention of ever answering the door–that’s pretty much SOP around our house unless expecting someone. I just wish I’d been ready for them so I could’ve caught them on video as they violated the 4th Amdt. There is *zero* foundation for them to be snooping around the property. SCOTUS says an officer can walk to the door and knock…and if no answer, leave. So anything beyond my driveway and walk is more than SCOTUS has allowed.
        From FL v Jardines (
        “A license may be implied from the habits of the country,” notwithstanding the “strict rule of the English common law as to entry upon a close.” McKee v. Gratz, 260 U. S. 127, 136 (1922) (Holmes, J.). We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951) . This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 16).
        But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to—well, call the police. The scope of a license—express or implied—is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose. Consent at a traffic stop to an officer’s checking out an anonymous tip that there is a body in the trunk does not permit the officer to rummage through the trunk for narcotics. Here, the background social norms that invite a visitor to the front door do not invite him there to conduct a search.
        It’s my laic opinion that this case could be successfully used to sue any LEA/LEO who does more than what the Opinion says is okay. Peeking in windows? Busted. Checking out the property beyond the path to and from the door? Busted. Searching *at all*? Busted.

        I hope to be ready for the jamokes next time.

        • AJ

          Addendum: Even the dissent in the above case said LEOs are limited in their path and stay.
          Of course, this license has certain spatial and temporal limits. A visitor must stick to the path that is typically used to approach a front door, such as a paved walkway. A visitor cannot traipse through the garden, meander into the backyard, or take other circuitous detours that veer from the pathway that a visitor would customarily use. See, e.g., Robinson v. Virginia, 47 Va. App. 533, 549–550, 625 S. E. 2d 651, 659 (2006) (en banc); United States v. Wells, 648 F. 3d 671, 679–680 (CA8 2011) (police exceeded scope of their implied invitation when they bypassed the front door and proceeded directly to the back yard); State v. Harris, 919 S. W. 2d 619, 624 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (“Any substantial and unreasonable departure from an area where the public is impliedly invited exceeds the scope of the implied invitation . . . ” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)); 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §2.3(c), p. 578 (2004) (hereinafter LaFave); id., §2.3(f), at 600–603 (“[W]hen the police come on to private property to conduct an investigation or for some other legitimate purpose and restrict their movements to places visitors could be expected to go (e.g., walkways, drive- ways, porches), observations made from such vantage points are not covered by the Fourth Amendment” (footnotes omitted)).
          Nor, as a general matter, may a visitor come to the front door in the middle of the night without an express invitation. See State v. Cada, 129 Idaho 224, 233, 923 P. 2d 469, 478 (App. 1996) (“Furtive intrusion late at night or in the predawn hours is not conduct that is expected from ordinary visitors. Indeed, if observed by a resident of the premises, it could be a cause for great alarm”).
          Similarly, a visitor may not linger at the front door for an extended period. See 9 So. 3d 1, 11 (Fla. App. 2008) (case below) (Cope, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]here is no such thing as squatter’s rights on a front porch. A stranger may not plop down uninvited to spend the afternoon in the front porch rocking chair, or throw down a sleeping bag to spend the night, or lurk on the front porch, looking in the windows”). The license is limited to the amount of time it would customarily take to approach the door, pause long enough to see if someone is home, and (if not expressly invited to stay longer), leave.
          This same case references another case that seems to say the “compliance checks” are allowed:
          As we recognized in Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___ (2011), police officers do not engage in a search when they approach the front door of a residence and seek to engage in what is termed a “knock and talk,” i.e., knocking on the door and seeking to speak to an occupant for the purpose of gathering evidence. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 16) (“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do”). See also 1 LaFave §2.3(e), at 592 (“It is not objectionable for an officer to come upon that part of the property which has been opened to public common use” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even when the objective of a “knock and talk” is to obtain evidence that will lead to the homeowner’s arrest and prosecution, the license to approach still applies. In other words, gathering evidence—even damning evidence—is a lawful activity that falls within the scope of the license to approach.
          It seems LEOs can do “knock and talks”–though over and over, not to mention with full lights, weapons and SWAT gear, may be viewed as beyond reasonable (it would seem to rise above a “knock and talk” if coming in such a manner). But they 1) must stay on the path any other visitor or member of the public would use; 2) must not linger or loiter longer than needed; and then 3) must promptly (and, implied, directly) depart.

        • Tim Moore

          Then we retain our privacy rights on our property even though there may be nothing explicitly saying that, as per 10th amendment, because to be secure in your curtalage is a traditional right? What if the officer doesn’t get the message and continues to come back? Phones you again and again? At some point, even for someone from the public, this can be traditionally construed as harassment simply be the repetition? Also does a gate have to be locked to say “do not enter” or simply be closed? I know you are not a lawyer, but you do cite cases that can point to answers. Thank you.

        • AJ

          @Tim Moore:
          Funny you should ask about repeated contact and such, since it was in my head overnight.

          NOTE: that follows is assuming a warrantless event. Obviously the game changes if the boys come with a permission slip.

          SCOTUS has ruled that police have the exact same access to one’s front door (a “knock and talk”) and curtilage that any other member of the public does (ex. UPS, Girl Scouts, Jehovah’s Witness). Your interaction with the police is likewise as what you would have with any other member of the public at your door: ignore them, tell them to go away, engage with them, engage with them then cease, etc. (I can find this case law, if need be.) And, like the members of the public, the police must comply…both promptly and directly (i.e. no snooping).

          The phone calls could certainly be considered harassment or illegal if you tell them to stop and they continue. It would probably fall under the same rules that guide telemarketers, which includes your having some sort of *agreed* relationship with the other party. Telemarketers also must limit their calls between certain hours of the day (I forget them offhand), and must remove you from their call list when asked. This would be commonsense applicable to police, but who knows how the courts would twist themselves to continue to allow it.

          Where the knock and talk exception falters, IMO, is when they behave differently than with any other knock and talk situation. When they show up en masse (more than just a partner or two, with full disco lights, brandishing weapons, etc., I’m guessing they’re acting a little differently than usual. As well, such a performance could easily be argued that the reasonable person would think it much more than the equivalent of the Girl Scouts, UPS, or JW. I also think the knock and talk fails when they keep coming back…especially if you have told them they are not allowed back. (Maybe keep a list of officers and badge numbers…your own black list to use and enforce. 🙂 )

          (I would ensure to tell them they and all representatives of their department/agency are unwelcome and not allowed…and then would send a letter to the head of the department/agency. This may not stop them, but it does help establish a legal footing for a harassment suit.)

          So, assuming everything goes poorly and you file suit…what remedy is sought? How do you wish to be made whole for past and repeated (and documented on camera) violations? Do you wish merely to stop the interactions? This could be tough, given the knock and talk exception–they could play ignorant and probably get away with it again, at least for a while. I don’t know what sort of remedy could be reasonably applied for past infractions. Yes, they violated your Fourth Amendment rights on such-and-such date…but gathered no fruit from the poisoned tree. I suppose one could sue for refresher and/or recurrent Constitution training for the department, but that may have little or zero effect.

          In short, the actions of the police are held to the same criteria as if they were any other member of the public. Would the Girl Scouts be allowed to keep calling you when you tell them not to? Would they be allowed to keep coming back when you tell them not to? This is probably the most effective way to address it, and FL v. Jardines is the path to use (pun intended).

        • Tim Moore

          Jardines de santuario, sanctuary gardens. That’s our homes. Cams have become the great tool for defenders of human rights. What would it be like if someone videoed the cops rumaging around in the shrubery and peaking into the windows during these compliance checks and then posted it on YouTube for us all to see.

    • AJ

      Minor update from my Tuesday “fun”: Today the local news ran a story about the Crooks in Blue conducting compliance checks on 60 RCs in the county. They arrested one for FTR, and four have warrants for FTR…they even listed the MIAs’ names and ages on the screen. I was definitely “puckering” a little bit, wondering if my name would appear since I bowed out of their dog-and-pony show. Though I have no desire to wear “chrome bracelets” or take a “Blue-ber” ride anywhere, in some ways an arrest would be an awesome lawsuit. 😀

      • someone who cares

        AJ ~ I could not reply to one of your other comments regarding the repeated “visits” from LE. I brought up our scenario in the past and spoke to TimM on the phone, but I believe that was before you were this active on this site. My guy is not on the public website, he is off probation, but we have had a couple of these compliance checks within just a couple of months, and just shortly after his annual. These visits were conducted by the Orange County division of SONAR ( not to be confused with SORNA ). They come in civilian clothes. The first of these visits in years was shortly after his annual, and they first knocked, then banged on the door. We know our rights and did not open the door. The banging became louder, followed by yelling that it is the Sheriff’s department. They did not get a response and went to the front of the apartment and looked over the high patio enclosure into our living room. The shades were open. We did not open and they finally left. I put in a complaint and was told they only wanted to verify he lived there, and they knew he was home. I explained that he was under no obligation to open the door or answer any questions and that he was current with his registration. The officer was apologetic. A few months later, his partner showed up again, same ordeal, banging, yelling. This time, my guy opened and showed his face, so the officer saw that he lived here. She left after that. My point is that they overstepped the “knock and talk” rule. If nobody answers the door, they need to leave, just like UPS, girl scouts or whoever else. Especially since we have a “No soliciting” sign posted on the door. I documented everything both times. I actually was not home either time, but if I was, and they looked into our living room, I would have felt invaded in my privacy. I will keep documenting these incidents and will file a harassment or defamation suit if necessary if this continues to happen.

        • AJ

          @someone who cares:
          Wow. Blatant and multiple violations of the Fourth Amdt. I’d be sure to send them a copy of the Jardines Opinion with the text highlighted. That text in the Dissent is crystal clear, and the LEOs at your place violated the 4th, no question about it. They are not allowed to keep pounding, they are not allowed to look in windows without reasonable suspicion. It doesn’t matter if they know he’s home or not.

          None of their explanations matter. Absent a warrant, they have no more rights than anyone else who comes to your door. But, LEOs do have a higher responsibility when it comes to their actions. The UPS man can poke and snoop and it’s poking and snooping (or voyeurism…). LEOs do it and it’s an illegal/warrantless search. The Jehovah’s Witnesses may know you’re home, and may just want to share a booklet with you, but it doesn’t matter. The knowledge and/or desires of the visitor do not matter. They may come, knock, wait a brief amount of time to see if anyone answers, and then either engage with you or must leave. Period.

          See also KY v. King (
          When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497–498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”). When the police knock on a door but the occupants choose not to respond or to speak, “the investigation will have reached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants “will have the kind of warning that even the most elaborate security system cannot provide.” Chambers, 395 F. 3d, at 577 (Sutton, J., dissenting). And even if an occupant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the premises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time.
          LEOs will always push things beyond the line, because typically they can make it work. But when someone is in their home, the courts look *very* harshly at LE behavior absent reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant.

          Finally, if it’s so pressing and necessary, there is absolutely nothing that prevents LE from seeking a warrant. Why don’t they? Because it’s neither pressing nor necessary and a judge would laugh them out of chambers.

  36. David Kennerly, Bull-Splatter Analyst

    “Waterville (Maine) weighs restrictions on where sex offenders can reside” A teacher’s request may lead to limits on how close registered offenders can live to places where children gather, such as schools, parks and playgrounds.”

    The telling quote: ”’I think it’s a good idea, by the way,’ Isgro said. Enacting an ordinance would send a message that sex offenders are not wanted in the city, he said.”

  37. mike r

    Man that’s frigging BS AJ. Mans off paper and you still have cops show up at your door without any probable cause whatsoever. There lucky it isn’t back in the day when my dad straight took out his guns and told them to get the hell off his property unless you have a f*&%% warrant. Of course now they would just fill you full of lead, but whatever.

  38. Facts should matter

    If children claim they reserve the right to feel safe in their schools (so they can learn and function without fear of being killed), then we reserve that SAME right for us and our families to feel safe in our own HOMES and places of employment.

  39. David Kennerly

    From Bill Dobbs:

    FINAL performances this week of America Is Hard To See, a new Off-Broadway play that takes on a very thorny topic – sexual wrongdoing – and it’s a mind-opener! Here’s hoping the play gets another bigger run in NYC, and goes on the road. Closing night is Feb. 24th. There’s more about the play (it’s based on a real life community-in-exile) and how it was made in the reviews and video linked below. -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire

    TICKETS (get two tickets for the price of 1, use code 2FOR1)


    TheaterMania review by Zachary Stewart: A Colony of Sex Offenders Takes the Stage in America Is Hard to See

    Gay City News review by Andy Humm: Off-Putting Topic, Terrific Show

    New York Times review by Laura Collins-Hughes: An ‘Our Town’ With Sex Offenders, in ‘America Is Hard to See’

    How the play was created

    WLTV TV News: Florida sex offender story moves to New York stage (Video)

  40. NPS

    Just an FYI for everyone. This past weekend, I did some local shopping, and folks are out with ballot initiatives to gather signatures for the next election on various topics.

    I signed all initiatives except one. One of them is about restricting parole for non-violent offenders, authorizing felony sentences for some misdemeanors, expanding list of offenses to disqualify inmates from a parole program, etc. You can find more about it here:

    Just put the word out to your circles not to sign this initiative.

  41. David Kennerly

    “The Promise and Potential of Circles of Support and Accountability: A Sex Offender Reentry Program”

    What’s interesting to note here, regardless of your views on “Circles,” and pro-treatment propaganda, is that this a publication of the American Enterprise Institute, a more-or-less conservative think tank. They are on the “thinking” side of the conservative movement, however, although not quite libertarian. This is actually kind of significant coming from this group (although I haven’t read it yet).

    • Interested party

      Really good article for purposes of research and declaration of registry and assorted add-on laws as punishment and retribution.

      Also, makes the argument based on actually accomplishing a stated goal and Return ON Invesrment – arguments seldom used in discussions on legislation.

    • Tim Moore

      The cost/benefit analysis is a great tool and needs to be applied more to sex laws. That’s why we have government departments to create such tools. Indeed thinking conservatives do sometimes come in favor of so called liberal issues like the environment or prison reform, when it is clear the action accrues an overall benefit to most everyone, even conservatives.

  42. steve

    So I’m going in for my Costco membership renewal tomorrow in Van Nuys. I was curious about some post from a few weeks back about having to sign/initial something about leaving the state. I want to refuse but need to know the law for sure. I thought the person who posted that was in Riverside I could be wrong.

    • Mr. D

      @Steve – I did mine 3 weeks ago and nothing regarding the out of state travel. In fact my forms did not even have the 21 day IML requirement as they gave me last years forms. I asked the Detective I deal with about any out of state notifications for a regular business trip or vacation and he said there are none on California’s end. I believe the individual who encountered that topic registered recently in Lake Elsinore.

    • James


      I didn’t see anything like that. There is a change in residence provision of course, but simple travel inter state, No, I don’t think so. Nor international travel. There is the 5 day rule, but that seems to relate to establishing a new residence, or that’s how I read it.

      Best Wishes, James

  43. steve

    Had my membership renewed. Asked if there was anything about travel and the pages I initial, she said “No nothing has changed”. Then I asked about IML and 21 day notice she said “You can take the paperwork home and read it” (They obviously have no clue) I chuckled and said “That’s the last thing I’m going to do.” In and out in 20 minutes. The Van Nuys store is professional and pleaseant. I do the 5:30 am and there were 3 other guys there, when I walked out there were at least 10 waiting to go in braving the freezing cold.

    Question if the state makes us have to initial everything so we understand the rules, why don’t we have to initial anything for IML?

    • Will Allen

      F the criminal regimes that have Registries. F their law enforcement criminals. Keep them broke and dysfunctional.

      I would recommend reading all of their laws and papers however. Not because they are moral or the right thing to do, but simply because they are weapons of war that will be used to attack you. You need to neutralize their weapons.

      I’m not exactly sure why these criminal regimes ask/force people to initial each aspect of their laws. I have always heard that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and so it doesn’t matter if you know the law or not, you are required to follow it. I would think that the “initializing” could just be that they are trying to help Registered People (RPs) by doing a little bit to help keep them informed. But the criminal regimes are scumbags so surely they have no interest in helping people. I would think they would be happy if a RP did not know part of the law so they could arrest them.

      So I fully expect “initializing” is to cover their rear ends and make it easier for them to convict you of something, if needed. That must be the true purpose.

      I do wonder what would happen if you refused to initialize any of it. I know the law in the state where I live does not say anything has to be initialized or that any other random thing has to be done. All it says is that you have to give the criminal regime certain information. So you ought to be able to say “here is the required information, I will do no more”.

      And along those lines, ALL of the forms that I have seen from various law enforcement agencies have in every instance operated OUTSIDE the law. They are so immoral and such a criminal regime that they can’t even follow their own laws. ALL of them have ask for more information than is required by law. I personally never give that information but I expect that most people do.

      I firmly believe and follow that RPs should give the information that is required by law and then not allow one single, tiny shred more. Never all them to speak to you and certainly don’t allow them to ask you questions. Never allow them on your property or anywhere near you. If you are able, surround your property with a wall or other fencing and never speak to any government employees there. Before I was able to effectively keep government away from my home I did consider hiring an attorney to send them a letter telling them that they were never welcome on my property and that if they came out it, it would be considered trespassing. Not sure how effective it would be. It would be fun to try to get a criminal restraining order against them also.

      • steve

        Never, in 21 years of membership, have I had a Costco employee visit me at my house. I answer the questions that are required of me and I create small talk just to show them whatever pre-conception they have is wrong. It humors me.

        • Tim Moore

          Whatever the law says, these are stressful encounters. It is like your abuser coming back and trying to start up the relationship again. I know the violence done to our lives was legal and even sometimes justified, but the psych just remembers the pain inflicted,and putting the abuse in perspective only helps a little in coping. If one can’t get over it or fight it, flight or fight, one’s judgement will be adversely impacted. I hesitate to say this, because the pseudo feminists patriarchs in the victims groups hear this and cheer it on as retribution. In an ideal world, everyone should just get over this. Life is too short.

      • C

        Law enforcement criminals?
        But, not only is the policeman your friend, this virtuous soul would never succumb to temptations of the flesh and engage in unlawful sexual activities. They are above us, but nothing it seems, is below them.

      • AJ

        @Will Allen:
        I’m not exactly sure why these criminal regimes ask/force people to initial each aspect of their laws.
        Because SCOTUS has ruled that sometimes ignorance of the law *is* an excuse (even for non-LEOs*!), at least when it comes to registering. See: Lambert v CA ( or This is also why some (many? all?) States have you sign/initial that you understand you must register in other States if traveling/moving.

        * Remember in the old days, they were “peace officers”? Then “police officers”, now “law enforcement officers.” So we’ve gone from peace to force…

      • lovewillprevail

        You are correct in that the forms usually ask for information outside the law. I have read many times the law in Texas as to what can be on the forms and in what method certain changes must be reported. For example, the state specifies in the statutes that certain changes must be done in person and other changes just have to be reported (not specified to be done in person). And concerning one specific change, the state leaves it up to local law enforcement on reporting or reporting in person.

        But the state agency that develops the form for law enforcement to use requires multiple changes to be done in person that the statute does not specify or require to be done in person. And the form requires one to initial that the sex offender is aware that all changes must be done in person and is to follow the notice.

        So last time I had a change not required by the statute to be report in person but just to be reported, I just reported (not in person) as I was busy. The local sheriff made it very clear that I had initiated the form and implied she would have me arrested if I did not comply with the form. But the f…ing form does not comply with state law!

        So it was either do what the state agency says to do (which they had no authority by the state legislature to do) or get arrested and pay an attorney to fight in court, or do what I was told to do and then later hire an attorney to fight in court.

        So I think it is bulls__t that I have to spend my own money to protect my rights under state law. So to keep from being arrested and not currently in the mood to spend thousands of dollars with an attorney in order to attempt to stand up for my legal rights, I let the state agency do whatever it wanted to me.

        The local law enforcement is just doing what the state agency is telling it to do. It is bad enough that the state laws suck, but it is worse when state agencies exceed the boundaries of the statutes and unless on is willing to spend thousands of dollars, one is stuck having what rights left, violated.

  44. Mike S

    Hey, I don’t mean to derail any thread but was wondering if anyone in this board was involved in any of the lawsuits against the website $exoffenderarchive?

    Im dealing with this POS now and this website is the last one that is refusing to remove my info and picture after I was removed from the PA registry.

    Surprising, after a number of emails to hosting companies, website owner and Proxy blocking companies, I have had a good amount of success getting my info off of some of the “mainstream” sites that publish this “so called” protected info.


    • Paul 2 chikity check

      I do not see anything on new bill about 21 day notice to travel?

      • Paul 2 chikity check

        Looks like they didn’t amend that section it will prob stay the same not sure how long it will take to put amendments on web?

      • Registries for all! 😡

        Paul, International Megans Law (21-day notice, marked Passorts, etc) is a federal law, not a State law. Therefore, it would not need to be included in the State Bill – as a federal law, it stands on its own.

        • Paul 2 chikity check

          It would because the federal law can only make people notify the authorities in their state if they were convicted in federal court. If the state you are in does not have a law stating you have to notify them 21 days in advance of int travel and your conviction was in that state not federal The federal has no jurisdiction to make you notify anyone in your state. If PASC rules that the PA law forcing people to notify 21 days in adv is unconstitutional per the PA constitution or the legislature removes the law Then anyone convicted in PA would not to inform anyone. The IML is pretty much a guideline for states and law for people convicted federally.

        • Robert

          “International Megans Law (21-day notice, marked Passorts, etc) is a federal law, not a State law. Therefore, it would not need to be included in the State Bill – as a federal law, it stands on its own”

          That not a true statement. If a state does not have the 21 day notice in its state statutes, the feds likely cannot enforce it. Nichols v. US (2016) (oral arguments were posted on ACSOL)

        • AlexO

          It’s this. Because California isn’t SORNA compliant, we live in two worlds just like marijuana use. While in California the federal SO laws don’t apply to us, even if there would be harsher or lesser restrictions placed on us. But as soon as we leave our boarders we have to comply by the federal and/or other states laws in which we’ll be. So while California doesn’t require a 21 day notice to travel internationally, the Feds do. And since to travel internationally means leaving California, we have to comply with it. It’s one of those billion rules that we have to know at all times that in no way what so ever infringe on our ability to travel freely. Just don’t break a single one of them as “ignorance is not an excuse”.

        • AJ

          @Registries for all:
          Spot on, friend. By amending a Section of AWA (34 USC 20914, “”)IML also mandates, through amending AWA (34 USC 20914), the citizen supply the State with documentation. Unlike States, which have “immunity” from having to comply with federal regulations due to the Tenth Amendment, individual citizens have no such immunity. Therefore, regardless of the AWA-compliance status of one’s State or Commonwealth of residence, the citizen must comply with IML.

          What, if anything, the State does with that information is another matter. IMO, someone in a State or Commonwealth that doesn’t collect such information could sue the Feds, arguing it’s impossible to comply with the Law. Unfortunately, the light cast on the “problem” would probably cause more States or Commonwealths to add the requirement.

          I recommend extreme caution following the advice of anyone advocating a citizen can ignore the requirements of a Federal Law.

        • AJ

          @Robert (and at least one other):
          You may want to (re)read that Opinion. From the PDF link you provided:
          Congress has recently criminalized the “knowin[g] fail[ure] to provide information required by [SORNA] relating to intended travel in foreign commerce.” International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders, Pub. L. 114–119, §6(b)(2), 130 Stat. 23, to be codified at 18 U. S. C. §2250(b).
          Nichols “got away with it” because Congress apparently flunked English. They have since “fixed” things.

        • Notify notify notify

          Give your minimum 21-day international travel notice to your LEO regardless if not in a SORNA compliant state because it is 1) Fed law to do so for all US States, Territories, & Tribal Nations; 2) Saves you (and your travel companions) the hassle and embarrassment of getting pulled off the plane by the USMS in front of everyone for not having done so; and 3) Carry with you on your person, in your satchel, and in your luggage copies of all notification docs showing your effort to comply even if your LEO office has no clue what to do with it.

          How you notify your LEO is up to you, e.g. registered mail, UPS, or Fed Ex, but use a trackable service. Make them work for you, do your part and notify.

  45. AJ

    I see the Gov. of MO has been indicted (and led away by LEOs) for invasion of privacy (
    [The Governor], a first-term Republican, photographed a nude or partially nude person without the person’s knowledge or consent in 2015, according to charging documents released by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office. The indictment said [the Governor] then transmitted the photo in a way that allowed it to be seen on a computer, which prosecutors said made the crime a felony rather than a misdemeanor.
    Uh oh. This sure sounds like a registerable offense…

    • TS

      Is this a case of regrets for the affair and associated photo or a case of the “Show Me” state motto going a bit too far for the Gov? Grand Jury indictments are not a small deal. Grab your beverage and snack of choice, ladies and gentlemen, this could be very interesting for the citizens of MO to see how they are handled vs the way elected officials are actually handled (which could be the opposite way they are supposed to be like the citizens).

    • AlexO

      I really hope that’s how it’ll go. I think the clincher for registration will be the internet portion (I’ve seen plenty of cases that were from upskirt photos, to bathroom taping, to even intercourse with someone under 18 that didn’t result in registration because the person was over 16 years of age).

    • mike r

      That is a pretty big deal that a Gov. was indicted. This just shows that times are a changing even in the upper echelon. These corrupt officials are not going t get away with the BS forever.

  46. AJ

    Rats. I just discovered SCOTUS denied cert in Christensen v. TN. ( This makes it even harder to keep LEOs (or anyone, really) off your property. The means and methods required vary from State to State, but it appears the only sure-fire way to do so is via the “Kennerly Method”: high walls, and a high, locked gate with some sort of intercom (e.g. Ring Doorbell) system.

    • Tim Moore

      Yeah, I am looking into a locked gate. I wish I had the dough to build a medieval castle, stone walls, motes, etc. Keep the barbarians out.

      • David Kennerly

        If you can, use a high-security lock such as an Abloy or Medeco. They are extremely difficult to pick and used ones can be found to make them much cheaper. They are vastly better than any hardware store lock, especially Kwikset. The other option is to use a Schlage electronic lock. I’m pretty impressed with the one that uses WiFi and it seems to have a pretty good core that is fairly pick-resistant. You can also use a combination of two-or-more locks, one high-security and one electronic. That’ll slow anyone down.

        • Tim Moore

          I have a lot of yard and would like to not be bothered in it or locked inside. We have had an unseasonably summer like winter here and it is nice to be outside. Thinking of an automatic gate for the drive, when I can afford it. Also, a client of mine made security cameras from old cell phones and put them up on the eaves of his house and connected on his WiFi. That might work for us budget conscious. I have just purchased a Ring doorbell to record any conversations at the door. My “curtalage” ends at the property line. I like the Mediterranean abode, an oasis or sanctuary surrounded by unassuming walls. Heck, we all need that kind of space in some form at some time.

      • AJ

        One shouldn’t have to go too far overboard, as courts resoundingly use the measure of “would a member of the general public reasonably believe they are allowed to enter?” So in many cases, a locked gate blocking routes of entry (driveway and walking path from the curb) could be sufficient. It’s all fuzzy, but the more hard barriers there are, the less reasonable it is to believe one is allowed to enter. I’d definitely check CA case law to see if/when/how “no trespassing” signs and the like have been deemed effective.

        • Alexo

          @AJ, in your general understanding, if a traditional 3′ wooden picket fence and gate was locked in a manner that would require a key or code to open it, would it be trespassing to step over it? I’m going to replace my fence soon and I want to consider this to keep potential LE checks at bay, especially if I’m really am going to be stuck as tier 3 in a few years (I have a feeling once the tiered registry kicks in, tier 3’s may get more frequent visits).

        • AJ

          Given what even the SCOTUS *Dissent* said in FL v. Jardines, I believe any intrusion over the fence or locked gate, by anyone not given permission by the property owner, would be illegal entry. The gate being locked is key (no pun intended), as an unlocked gate could actually be turned around on you. “We reasonably determined he was permitting entry, or else he would have had the gate locked. We determined the gate was simply directing us to the exact point and method of entry the owner requested.”
          A visitor must stick to the path that is typically used to approach a front door, such as a paved walkway. A visitor cannot traipse through the garden, meander into the backyard, or take other circuitous detours that veer from the pathway that a visitor would customarily use.
          See my post for more detail about this text:
          Even if it doesn’t violate the US Constitution (which I believe it would), it may violate the State one.

          P.S. Picket fences (if wood) are royal PITAs to maintain and mow around. Consider some sort of hardscape underneath so you don’t have to mow and weed-whack the pickets.

        • Alexo

          @AJ, awesome and thanks! That’s what I was hoping for. Another case of a technicality. I have no illusion that my small fence will actually offer any real security, but I will be building a gate with a lock for technicality trespassing reasons specifically for these LE checks.

          I’m going to convert my yard to a drought landscape and will be using rocks with a tarp for mulch to avoid any unwanted plant and weed growth. I’m actually going to apply for the California drought conversion program for this. It’s been around for a few years and offers $2 per sq ft reimbursement for up to 1000 square feet. If anyone is also interested in doing this here’s the program link.

        • TS


          Signage recommended, e.g. No trespassing, watch for dogs, premises being recorded, don’t feed the crocs/gators, watch for electric fence, etc?

        • AJ

          Signage is always helpful, though depending on your State or Federal Circuit it may not be binding. I’m both surprised and disappointed that SCOTUS denied cert in the case, given there are State-State and Circuit-Circuit splits.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if LEOs then decided they “need” to use a bullhorn to try to get your attention from outside the gate. Of course, that’s rubbish since it’s not what a reasonable person would expect a visitor to do. I would recommend having some sort of intercom or doorbell at the gate. This would almost assuredly increase a reasonable person to find that to be the means and location to “knock” on your door.

          P.S. What’s a drought? 🙂 Just yesterday, we got about 3″ of rain; we’re around triple monthly rainfall already, with more coming tomorrow and into Sunday.

        • Tim Moore

          Need any help, AlexO? Xeriscape is my specialty. Snow level at 12% of normal in the Sierras, meager rains, looks like another year of drought and watering restrictions. You are wise. For security plant prickly pear and agave. Nasty thorns, but beautiful with rocks. More impenetrable than a high fence. I would like to see an intruder try to get past them to look in a window. Ouch!

        • AJ

          I recall in Africa and the Caribbean (probably from Africa via hurricanes) there is a cactus-type tree/shrub used as fencing. Not only does it have some nice thorns, but the sap causes skin irritation and burning…possibly even scarring if not treated. I have no idea the name of the plant, but one gives it wide berth. I’m sure there are other varieties out there. (Being from a more temperate part of the country, my knowledge on cacti is limited to Christmas Cactus, which is actually a succulent.)

        • Tim Moore

          Poison oak grows wild here. Plant it (carefully) and it can be something for the intruder to remember you by.

        • David Kennerly

          Tim, AJ: I have a backyard which has become overgrown with blackberries whose thorns are wickedly sharp. This serves as a nice complement to my high-walled front-of-the-house. I have a very high fence around the backyard, too but the blackberries are sort of like the landmines in no-mans-land from the old Berlin Wall. Even I don’t venture back there anymore.

    • David Kennerly

      The Ring Pro makes a lousy intercom, I have found. No one on the outside can hear it because the speaker is ridiculously tiny and underpowered. So I’ve added an Echo Dot that can be used like an intercom. I have concealed it within an enclosure just inside the gate. Also, regarding security cameras, the Ring, of course, uses wifi but that has its downsides and is pretty flakey as a continuous video feed. It’s not continuous, for that matter.
      Still, it’s fine as a doorbell. The other two cameras I use are EZVIZ which are hard-wired using coaxial cable and are much more consistent and continuous. EZVIZ are performing great and are very affordable.

  47. TS

    South of MO is AR and this little dandy. You can’t make this up but it does sound like the plot to a legal drama novel. You won’t think of community service the same way again. He may live long enough to register, if required, too.

    As an Arkansas judge, he dismissed sentences for sexual photos. Now he’s going to prison.

    Ex-Arkansas Judge Receives 5 Years for Coercing Sexual Acts From Defendants

  48. C

    The policeman is your friend and is often all that stands between child killers and our children…

  49. Illinois Contact

    Can anyone come up with a list of states where you can move and be credited with time served in another state and get off the registry after 10+ years. I know Georgia seems possible. Are there others. Seems to me that might be the only solution for escaping the IML.

    • AJ

      @IL Contact:
      One or both of the resources ACSOL links ( should get you headed in the right direction. Then it’s going to have to be a reading session, seeing what each State says about duration and when the clock starts. I vaguely recall MD being a State that was okay. I think MN makes you list for the longer of their term of the term from the convicting State, but Tier I’s (and II’s?) are not publicly listed. NV seems okay, depending on the offense type and whether a misdemeanor or felony.

      P.S. Out for sure from your search should be FL, AL, MS, and LA. (What’s with the Gulf Coast? Something in the water?)

Leave a Reply

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 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *