General Comments June 2018

(Starting new thread for replies)
@TS:
See current discussion online about Greyhound letting CBP on board for searches at check points. That may help.
There was someone here in the forum recently who did the behind closed door check with LE. I read it, I know I did.
I don’t know if RC checks are fed mandated but state law seems to drive them.
—–
–>The Greyhound instances aren’t too helpful because 1) CBP has SCOTUS case law saying immigration checkpoints within 100 miles of the border are legal; 2) in general, CBP has broad LE authority to board any vessel or common carrier (i.e. Greyhound) within the United States. However, nobody on board the bus is required to say anything to CBP, ever. They can board all day long and be fine regarding the 4th, but everybody on board is free to exercise their 1st and 5th rights not to speak or self-incriminate.
–>Were I willing to engage with LEOs at all, even through a closed door, my words would be limited to, “nobody here wishes to speak with any of you, please leave the premises” repeated over and over. The moment that’s first stated, the LEOs (and the Girl Scouts) are obligated to leave, promptly and directly.
–>I know the Feds encourage them, specifically to let RCs know they’re being watched. (I forget the exact verbiage, but that was the gist!) Likewise, the Feds encourage keeping people on the list after moving away so victims can keep tabs. (What if there’s no victim to follow me, such as with CP or a sting?)
=====
Having read all of Indy v. Edmonds, there are some good things in there. From the case:
*****
We suggested in Prouse [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/case.html] that we would not credit the “general interest in crime control” as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops.
Consistent with this suggestion, each of the checkpoint programs that we have approved was designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint
program is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the program contravenes the Fourth Amendment.
.
.
.
The law enforcement problems that the drug trade creates likewise remain daunting and complex, particularly in light of the myriad forms of spin-off crime that it spawns. The same can be said
of various other illegal activities, if only to a lesser degree. But the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, we must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue.
We are particularly reluctant to recognize exceptions to the general rule of individualized suspicion where governmental authorities primarily pursue their general crime control ends.
*****
For me, “the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose” speaks right to what goes on with compliance checks. If it doesn’t matter the gravity of the threat for someone on the public roadways, where they have a reduced expectation of privacy, then that gravity surely cannot apply at one’s home. Though a LEO has a right to come to my door (just as a police officer has a right to pull me over) it would seem it cannot be done in the interest of “general interest in crime control.”

But wait you say, won’t the LEOs just claim they have an “individualized suspicion”? Yes, they probably will, but would that not require some sort of individualized assessment? I posit that their going to however many homes on a list generated from a database is hardly “individualized suspicion.” In fact, based on the justification for checks (making sure we’ve told the truth on a legally binding form), there’s no basis for suspicion at all! They are, pure and simple, fishing expeditions or, as SCOTUS called it, “general interest” excursions. Though it may not be a 4th violation to come to my door based on “general interest”, I may well rise to “arbitrary power” and “a too permeating police surveillance”– the two concepts refreshed in the Carpenter (cell records) case from last week.

Again, I think it would be a *very* tough case to make, but anymore I do think a competent trial attorney could prevail.

Is Anyone familiar with this SO case (Eaton v. United States) pending at SCOTUS conference this week? https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/eaton-v-united-states/amp/

Today’s Opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf) is chock full of good material to use against marked DLs and IDs. It relies a good deal on Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/781/case.html), which isn’t surprising given that case’s holding that even factual speech is subject to compelled-speech analysis. I have to think anyone in a marked-DL/ID state could easily win a case using this case and its citations, especially if some Wooley v. Maynard (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/case.html) is tossed in for good measure. Marked DLs/IDs are easily intermediate scrutiny material (speaker-based speech), but probably strict scrutiny material (content-based speech).

There are so many gems in this case, but one from Kennedy in his Concurrence (joined by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch) stands out: “Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.” Bam! Take that AL, FL, MS, OK, and whatever other nut-job States have marked licenses.

In the Opinion is a nice phrase to use in a DL/ID suit: California could also inform the women about its services “without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,” [] most obviously through a public-information campaign.
Oh, you mean like perhaps through an existing website that provides the same, and more, information without compelling the citizen to speak the State’s message? For example, IDK, a ML site with RCs on it?

Beyond that, Kennedy’s Concurrence reads like a cautionary tale to our current society regarding its apparent disdain for the First Amendment. Perhaps it’s his swan song, before doffing his robes? (It does seem a little odd that Roberts didn’t opt to write it himself.)

I hope California become the 1st state to drop Megan’s law from their law books.
I think in a way we are getting there.
It too confusing. If I don’t have to register in one state and if i move to another state I have to register.
Just drop the whole thing

Just want to share this with people that yesterday was a bad day and i almost ended it all only reason i did not was because of my aging puppy.

Even though I’m not in an isolation prison cell i’m still very much isolated! for 6 years now after my SO passed away from a heart attack at age 43 we were very best friends and together since we were kids.

arrested in 1998 went to court in 1999 was offered to plead guilty to attempted L&L with a child under 16 and receive 3 years probation and 5 years on the hit list or go to trial and lose and i would be in prison at least 20 years. (now if they really thought i did it would they offer this plea ) anyway, i took it and they changed the hit list law to 10 years then to 15 then to 25/life.

i don’t do anywhere on fb to keep up with whats in the little rural community i’m in. like when the hurricanes come through was without power for a week. found out through facebook that red cross dropped food off for our little community that was the only way through social media to find out about needed assistance and the local elected county gov. official provided much-needed info on social media as well. yet if i provide the state with my username, etc… on social media i get booted off and if the state finds out i’m on it i go to prison! i’m ridiculed and shamed in the community i talk to 1 neighbor lived in same home for 15 years and been here longer than 80% of my so-called neighbors. I’m just tired of it all! most likely within 2 weeks after my aging puppy passes (over 11 and a big dog) i will most likely pass on also. family don’t bother with me unless i continue to give them stuff. some stole money some borrowed $$ and never paid it back. so i’m in 99% total isolation even though i’m not in prison i guess you could say i’m in public, community and government isolation. Well after almost 20 years and no reoffence it looks like the Gov. is going to win again! and i’m will have no will so my family that doesn’t talk to me unless they want something can fight over my small home! well enough rambling if anyone was able to or is still reading this here is a copy of email to NASROL and FAC yesterday that i received a reply from only NASROL about 15/20 hours later

I wish someone with know how could do a site with a chat room feature or add chat rooms to the few more popular SO sites like this or FAC, etc… as it may save a life or two

here is what i emailed and no, i’m not looking for compassion or anything i just feel/felt the need to share and if this is not approved to be posted i understand!

“are you aware of any SO sites that have chat rooms?
I’m feeling really down today and if it wasn’t for my aging puppy today would probably be my last day on earth!
Don’t know how much i can handle being in isolation! I’m sitting here with tears in my eyes first time in a very long time. I’m just so tired of being in isolation! arrested in 1998 plead guilty in fl. in 1999 to attempted L&L with a person under 16 was told like 5 years on the hit list and did 3 years probation then it was changed to 10 years, then 15 then 25/life. they keep making these laws worse. they want all email so they can report it to fb so not suppose to be on social media but that is the only way for me to have a sense of belonging, being informed of whats going on in the community, etc… as i live by my self, don’t go out to bars, etc… every now n then i’m shamed by my on community for being an SO I’m just so sick and tired of it as there is no one locally i can talk to. arghhh wish there were chat rooms and then also broken down by state also i’m just so sick and tired of it all being in isolation. guess thats the way they want it so we either end up in a for profit prison or 6′ under ground (well in my case i would be burned as there is no one to claim my body!
witts end”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday he’s retiring at the end of July.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html

Look out, this will be a roller coaster ride.

AJ, sorry, I’ve been away on a family vacation and getting ready to move, so I’ve been out of the loop, but wanted to comment on the Compliance Checks discussion.

Another thing to consider about compliance checks is they actually are effective to some extent. Most of the success they have had from them is from when they knock on a door and someone new that is living there tells them they have no idea who they are asking about, and a warrant gets issued for the sex offender. So, they don’t really care about sex offenders not answering the door or telling them to go away, though I know the officers enjoy the harassment aspects too. They are really hoping average citizen Jane Doe answers and doesn’t know who they are talking about or even better, knows exactly where Mr S.O. moved to without telling LEO.

I suppose someone could put up both signs for No Soliciting and a sign directing police to also go away or call their attorney if they have any questions, but nobody wants to advertise on their front door that they don’t talk to cops. Probably best to just ignore.

I wouldn’t want Compliance Checks challenged in court directly, because I think it is far better to use in a bigger case against how all restrictions cumulatively demonstrate Government Supervision when government supervision was supposed to end with the end of the judicially determined period of probation/parole and the “troubling fact” that it has not is priceless ammunition.

Here’s something to ponder……

You file a SAILING plan with harbor master. Once you are in international waters, it seems to me you are free to port at any harbor. If they question, then take on supplies and head out to next destination. An ocean going craft is way cheaper than a house( $50- $200,000, depending on length and amenities) and you can hire a sailing master to teach you (my service buddy did it) for around $3000, And you can anchor in international waters and not be hassled. Most sailboats are electronic and one person can easily handle them. It is a nomadic life, but if you have S.S. it can be done. At least I suppose it could.