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.
Related posts
-
FL:What’s behind the recent uptick in local child predator arrests?
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (CBS12) — This week, we have seen an alarming number of child predators arrested.... -
CA: 11/14/24 CASOMB Reports have limited information this month
Source: CASOMB, reported by Janice The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) met on November 14,... -
TX: Texas Cops Fired for ‘Inappropriate’ Sexual Contact With Massage Workers
Source: reason.com 11/13/24 As a result of the internal affairs investigation, three Lewisville officers were fired,...
Does anyone here aware there’s a new SO case currently distributed for conference at SCOTUS? The case deals with several registration issues regarding Sorna. I happened to stumble accross it a few mins ago as I searched SCOTUS docket. The case came from 2nd Circuit Court of Appleal. Case is Gundy v. United States . See SCOTUS link..
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gundy-v-united-states/
I came across it today also in the Relist Watch section of scotusblog.com. I had not heard of it before today. He has several claims. The one I found most interesting was
“(3) whether a defendant travels in interstate commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) when his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence”
For this complaint, he is appealing his conviction and sentence on a failure to register charge after traveling, partly in custody and partly on his own recognizance, from a prison in Maryland, to another prison in Pennsylvania, and thence to a halfway house in New York. He didn’t register in Maryland or in New York as required by SORNA, and was subsequently arrested for FTR.
He lost at Federal district court level and the appeals court. Frankly, I doubt he has much hope of having his petition for certiorari granted.
I don’t see why he would have needed to register in Maryland, since he was in custody there, but it does seem like he should have registered when he arrived in New York.
What I mainly wondered when reading the opinion of the 2nd circuit, is what does “travel in interstate commerce” mean? Do we “travel in interstate commerce” when we travel for personal, non-commercial reasons, such as when traveling for pleasure, or vacation?
A paper titled, “Let the Burden Fit the Crime: Extending Proportionality Review to Sex Offenders” makes an interesting (though at times tough to grasp) argument that SORAs could and should adhere to the proportionality review of other civil sanctions. It’s certainly a novel–and probably quite difficult–way to try to eliminate the “one size fits all” SORAs in existence. (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2416595)
Here’s an answer to my own question about how one could be made whole from a 4th Amdt. violation:
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-a-police-officer-violates-a-constitutional-amendment-during-duty-For-example-if-a-police-officer-makes-an-unwarranted-search
The way this reads to me, it sounds as though the officer could be sued personally. Wouldn’t that be sweet! One or two cases won like that, and I’m guessing they’d act a bit more proper. But, from this HuffPost article, it sounds as though neither the LEO nor the municipality can be sued (see Item 3): https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bernick/is-the-fourth-amendment-i_b_7309308.html
Then again, there’s this: https://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2017/09/15/court-deputies-violated-4th-amendment-rights
In related news:
While doing a search on the above, I stumbled across a news piece from 2016. It’s a sad, though not surprising, turn of events. What got me was the blistering dissent from J. Sotomayor–you go, girl!
https://freedomoutpost.com/u-s-supreme-court-guts-fourth-amendment-sanctions-police-fishing-expeditions-giving-police-more-leeway-to-stop-arrest-and-search-citizens/
Here’s a nice Bill of Attainder case from the 2nd Circuit. Maybe mike r can use it in his suit…in his suit. 😉
https://openjurist.org/292/f3d/338/consolidated-edison-company-of-new-york-inc-v-e-pataki-o-j-d-d-n-l
If anyone can provide a URL for or copy of “Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. 481 (Ky.1833)”, I’d appreciate it. It may also be cited as “Gaines v. Buford, 1 Dana 481 (Ky.)”. My usual sources come up empty.
Los Angeles is now making it illegal for anyone to sleep in a car or RV parked on any residential street between 9pm and 6am or within one block ( 500 yards) of a park, daycare, or school .
Sounds like presence restrictions for the homeless.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-23/la-has-criminalized-poverty-making-it-illegal-sleep-cars-and-rvs
hell ya that’s a good find. Just makes me feel better that came from an order of the court I really like a couple of the quotes.
A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissed as frivolous); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990).
And I think this is going to be his and my strongest argument.
In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that NRS 213.1243 violates his substantive due process
rights because the conditions imposed on him will infringe on his fundamental right to travel and
live with his family.
Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary and unreasonable government
action which deprives a person of life, liberty or property. Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17
F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff may proceed with a substantive due process claim.
This is kind of crazy that we even have to go through this motion to dismiss process and than have to go and re argue it over and over again just in different ways and adding or getting rid of crap. It’s stupid and a waste of tax payer dollars and time and resources. Just let somebody file a Complaint, make the Defendants answer the complaint and decide on it already. Guess that would be to easy and the average Joe might get a shot.
Here’s a paper that talks about a SCOTUS case that is essentially an “implied Bill of Attainder” situation:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/936/. You gotta stick with it a while before it all comes into focus, but he makes an interesting argument.
Another wannabe sex offender expose site…
https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/18/02/r11255573/golookup-announces-nationwide-sex-offenders-search
I don’t know about this case. Is it standing law? If so they cannot ever dismiss a complaint under a motion to dismiss.
“A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even though inartistically drawn and lacking in allegations of essential facts, it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party be able to recover.” JOHN EDWARD CROCKARD VS. PUBLISHERS, SATURDAY EVENING POST MAGAZINE OF PHILADELPHIA, PA (1956) Fr Serv 29, 19 F.R.D. 511, DCED Pa 19 (1958)
Just like how lawmakers sometimes slip up and go off script, admitting RC laws are punishment, so apparently have an AL Sheriff and DA regarding civil asset forfeiture:
*****
Sheriff Dave Sutton and District Attorney Brian McVeigh, however, claims the laws shouldn’t change. They argue both that forfeiture is essential to effectively fighting crime and that police need a monetary incentive to do the procedures.
“Sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state’s General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don’t receive proceeds to cover their costs?” they ask.
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/police-op-ed-begging-alabama-keep-civil-asset-forfeiture-reveals-ugly-truth/
*****
What incentive? Umm, how about IT’S YOUR JOB AND SWORN OATH! Public safety? Sure, but only if it’s profitable for us…
The City of Coalinga and Coalinga State Hospital leans on State Representative Arambula of Fresno County to carve-out an exception forbidding civilly-committed Detainees from voting in the county of their actual domicile which is Fresno.
He introduced into the Legislature AB2839
<< http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2839
Glad this guy is going away for awhile. One less vigilante us registered citizens have to worry about. https://floridaactioncommittee.org/ak-man-who-attacked-sex-offenders-sentenced-to-23-years/
Sexting increasing among teenagers, new research finds
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sexting-increasing-among-teenagers-research-finds-221204148–abc-news-topstories.html
“Almost 27 percent of teens are receiving sexts and almost 15 percent are sending them, according to findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics.”
“Twelve percent of teens have forwarded a sext without consent – sending sexually explicit material on without asking permission of those involved, and 8.4 percent had one of their own sexts forwarded without their consent.”
How will legislation keep up?
Someone said more registries here, soooo…
Early warning sign? More states consider animal abuser lists
http://journalstar.com/lifestyles/early-warning-sign-more-states-consider-animal-abuser-lists/article_0c9b8281-75cd-529c-81b1-267e5760e35a.html
“Keep violent sex offenders locked up”
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article201464089.html
This morning in an opinion authored by Samuel Alito that Immigrants detained for removal proceedings may be held indefinitely and are not entitled to a bail hearing. The ruling means that immigrant detainees, who are sometimes held for months and years on end, have no recourse to challenge their confinement. I know this may be a bit of base, but justice breyer was so upset that he stand up and read his dissent by saying “We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable Rights,’ and that among them is the right to ‘Liberty.’”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/27/supreme-court-oks-broad-immigrant-detention/
Check out a couple of cases the CA AG relies upon in support of their Motion to Dismiss. This is only the two go to cases and the others are just as bad for them as well.
The Ninth Circuit made note in Clark v Ryan 836 F.3d 1013, 1017 (9th Circuit 2016) citing State v. Henry, 228 P.3d 900, 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) when considering if registration was an affirmative disability “In Henry the court reasoned that the Arizona legislature “has taken steps to tailor the statutes to serve more precisely their nonpunitive ends.” Id. The Clark Court noted “For example, mandatory notification is required only for offenders who are deemed to pose a high risk to the community” Id.
This is what I wrote.
No steps have been taken to narrowly tailor the State statutes as applied to Plaintiff. The Henry and Clark courts were dealing with a completely different set of facts then what we have in Plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff is far from being high risk and in fact scores on the very low end of low-moderate on the State’s own Static 99R test. See attached Static 99R score- two points at EXHIBIT H. That test doesn’t consider time offense free in the community (approx. 12 years). Plaintiff is extremely low (to no) risk to re-offend according to the government’s own reports and sources. See Supra.
Plaintiff has submitted extensive out of state government reports (EXHIBIT K) and Academic empirical evidence (EXHIBIT J) which conclude (or at the least very persuasive) that sex offender registration and notification is ineffective and may even be counterproductive, which undermines Defendant’s claims even further that registration serves a compelling regulatory or civic purpose.
Then check out Hatton.
Hatton v. Bonner, 356 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.2004) which was decided right before CA passed their Internet publication law and places emphasis that the registry was not available through the Internet.
“Unlike other states that post their entire registries on Internet websites, California limits the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may disseminate information from the registry, id. § 290.45, and regulates public inquiries to the registry, id. § 290.4. Agencies may disseminate certain information about serious offenders only when they reasonably suspect that an offender poses a risk, and only to institutions and community members that are likely to be at risk.4 Id. § 290.45(a).”
“California allows public inquires to the registry in only two ways: through toll calls to a telephone number or in person at a local police station. See id. § 290.4(a)(3)-(4). The California statute requires members of the public to satisfy certain conditions in order to obtain access, and it restricts what information will be released to members of the public.” See id.
Sure seems as though the 9th is and was concerned about the dissemination of personal info for anyone not deemed high risk.
How hard is it to get excluded from the public registry in CA? I I am thinking about visiting a friend who lives in a condo community. He knows about me, but I would not want to alert/alarm his neighbors. I read that if you were convicted of CP possession, you can apply, if victim was 16 or older. My yearly registration forms say that, but I don’t know if I can come up with a “certified copy of a probation report filed in court that clearly states that all victims involved in the commission of the offense were at least 16 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense.” My conviction was in another state 12 years ago. I know I would have to register when visiting CA. Should I talk with a lawyer before coming to the state?
Between the 9th’s decisions and language in Packingham it would appear to be a slam dunk. It MUST be narrowly tailored to pass constitutional muster. The AG straight lies that Juvenile Male found these laws constitutional. It most certainly did not and the AG should be held accountable for misleading the court.
Just received my season subscription renewal for the Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago and look what the first play of the season is: “Downstate” by Bruce Norris September 20 – November 4, 2018
“In downstate Illinois, four sex offenders sharing a group home in a neighborhood that doesn’t want them, and they must negotiate their place in a society that doesn’t want to forgive them. A man shows up to confront his childhood abuser–but does he want closure or retribution? This provocative new play by Pulitzer Prize-winning ensemble member Bruce Norris pushes moral boundaries as it questions what happens when society deems anyone unworthy of forgiveness.”
Bruce Norris is a brilliant and sensitive playwright, and from the description it sounds like this will be a sympathetic portrayal. I guess it’s a measure of how our plight is beginning to get recognition in the courts, news opinion pages, and now the theater. But, somehow it will be very unnerving to watch.
I’ve just made a donation to the ACSOL and wishing them the best of luck in their battle against the IML. 🙂
“The Case for the “Self-Driven Child” “In a new book, an argument for giving children more of a sense of control over their lives”
“Research on motivation has suggested that a strong sense of autonomy is the key to developing the healthy self-motivation that allows children and teens to pursue their goals with passion and to enjoy their achievements. ”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-the-ldquo-self-driven-child-rdquo/
West St. Paul (MN) easing tight restrictions for convicted sex offenders
https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/28/west-st-paul-easing-tight-restrictions-for-convicted-sex-offenders/