ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
11/17- Phone
, 12/08 – San Diego

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

Registration Laws for all 50 States

National

CO: Aurora middle-school parent mislabeled as sex offender when visiting son’s school

Staff in an Aurora school office staff mistakenly flagged a man as a registered sex offender when he and his family went to his son’s middle school for a recent event. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Harry

    What Mr. Michael need to is get a lawyer and sue this school for many millions of dollars. The school hired the screening company, therefore, the school is responsible.

    • TS

      White guy – check
      Facial hair – check
      Receding hairline – check

      It’s a match!

      Wait, what?
      Eye color – huh?
      Age – huh?
      Registration – huh?

      I don’t know if CO has third party liability laws where Raptor could be held responsible too here in this deal but they too should be on the hook, maybe after the guy takes on APS.

      The guy should also ask for drug screening of all who were involved since MJ is legal (rec n med) in CO and could’ve influenced any decisions based on their potentially impaired judgement.

      • Nicholas Maietta

        Not to mention that these companies providing this “service” are copying records from the registry for their own profit. This information is often outdated.

      • Dustin

        I think it would be federal or TX liability law that would apply, since the “screening company” is in Houston.

        • AJ

          Sue ’em in CO, site of the harm, so they have to travel…or face possible default judgment.

        • E @ AJ

          If my state of conviction keeps me registering (actively so… only two options, right?), should I sue them in my state of residence as that’s the location of harm?? Wonder what a federal court here would say about a suit like that against a state not within their jurisdiction. Interesting premise.

        • AJ

          @E:
          Even though Article III, § 2, of the Constitution seems to indicate to this layman that it could be done in Federal Court….
          *****
          The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
          *****
          ….however the 11th Amendment throws a wrench in the works:
          *****
          The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
          *****
          The 11th Amdt gives States immunity from being sued by citizens in Federal Court, and that extends to State officials acting in their official capacities. As such, you’d have to sue the State officials acting in their personal, or individual, capacities. (See: Ex Parte Young, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Young.) You can be sure the Defendants would move for change of venue to a “home” District Court. I gotta think that unless you could show good cause why it shouldn’t be changed, they would probably prevail on the motion.

          Long story short: it sure seems it’s technically possible, but it may be exceedingly difficult in practice. Suing the company would be easier since, in law, a company is a citizen/person. Therefore the phrase in Art III, § 2, “between Citizens of different States,” would apply. They would also probably have a tougher time getting a change of venue, given their established, and continuing, commercial presence instate.

        • E

          @AJ. Thanks…. and wow! 🙂 As I follow you, probably sue in their federal jurisdiction, not mine

        • TS

          Thanks @AJ for the explanation on the suit across state lines from an individual citizen against another citizen. Raptors parent company has a presence in CO from TX thus being able to be sued is akin (in my mind) to being forced to pay sales tax collected from the people in a state the company sold to (e.g. Wayfair, etc v ND), which is what is now happening. That may be off in my mind, but I do see the reach you describe.

        • AJ

          @E & @TS:
          While reviewing SCOTUS cases yet to be heard, I stumbled upon something related to this topic. In Nevada v. Hall (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/410/#tab-opinion-1953069), SCOTUS held that a State’s sovereign immunity does NOT protect it from being hauled into another State’s state court system against its will. So @E, under Nevada v Hall you could sue your former State in your current State’s court system–just not in Federal Court. How you’d leverage that to your advantage, IDK, as I’m guessing your current State would say it’s an issue between you and the former State and you need to sue there (also, your former State would need to be violating a law of your current State).

          BTW, the way I stumbled upon NV v. Hall was due to a case accepted but not yet scheduled for argument this term. Franchise Tax Board of CA v. Hyatt (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/franchise-tax-board-of-california-v-hyatt-2/) specifically asks SCOTUS to overturn NV v. Hall.

          @TS: yeah, same concept just different sections of the Constitution. In fact if you were a resident of FL harmed by a CA company while visiting KS, you could choose to sue in Federal Court in FL, CA, or KS. That’s diversity jurisdiction in full effect.

    • Dustin

      Most courts would let the school slide, figuring they can do whatever they want as long as they intend to “protect children.” Whether they actually do or not is irrelevant.

      Sue the company that made the program. Can’t think of any reason they shouldn’t be liable.

      • TS

        Thanks @Dustin for that. Would be an interesting reach for him to do that from CO to TX.

        However, I don’t see him doing much beyond the mtg he has with the school district to avoid this again for him and maybe others so he can continue to work with schools across the state as he does for his career.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          “Would be an interesting reach for him to do that from CO to TX.”
          —–
          Not at all. It happens quite often in Federal Court thanks to diversity jurisdiction. See my monologue above to @E.

  2. Eric

    Just more evidence of how dangerous the registry is. Zero evidence that it helps, tons of evidence that it is dangerous and life damaging.

  3. Tony

    I guess every other felony conviction is deemed safe and doesn’t need to be checked. What about checking if a family owns a gun and if somebody in their family has a diagnosed mental illness?

    And how do these schools have the money to pay for this expensive system? Are they allowed to spend tax dollars this way? That money could be used for books, school equipment, and maybe better pay for teachers.

    Article can’t even find a legitimate reason why this system was put into place to begin with. ‘Just because…reasons’ I suppose.

    I sincerely hope that policies like this are taken to court and deemed unlawful and unconstitutional.

    • Anonymous

      Tony, we think very much alike. Remember though, politicians live without sexual sin, so they can impose these laws without guilt.

      • TS

        This is also the state where the “Guvnuh” vetoed the polygraph bill that would’ve done away with polygraphs for registrants due to conflicts of interests. The legislature passed the bill but he didn’t sign it. He’s term limited and on his way out in two months but he’s thinking of running for POTUS in two years. He has committee looking into it.

  4. JUST THE FACTS

    ……AND ‘T H I S’ is just a perfect example of ‘W H Y’ the BS registry exists (……and will ALWAYS exist) because of the Billion Dollar company’s that Profit off of it.
    Like other Groups and Organizations, they are heavily involved (behind the scenes) pushing money and fighting to ‘keep’ the registry; because after all, if it would be abolished, their ‘system’ would no longer work.
    I personally have experience myself here in PA with an exact type system, but from a competitor. I couldn’t get “in” for my child, but contractors ……and others were able to get ‘checked’ , and continue on into the school (……and NO metal detection equipment).
    Seems to me, i’m always reading in the news somewhere a sexual incident involving a teacher or other school employee …OR… an incident involving a weapon in the school. Neither of which this system protects against.
    And hardly ever (none that I can recall) of reading a story of a registered person going into a school, snatching a kid and raping them.
    So the schools spend money on a system; to solve a “problem” that doesn’t really exist. Instead of metal detection equipment, which DOES frequently occur across the US.

    Looking up the Word “SCAM” in the dictionary, ……and this system would be an example.

    • Tim

      IMHO it most resembles a protection racket, supported by big data and big labor.
      The proof is enshrined in the 94OMNIBUS. The creation of the ambitious electronic market to advance the causes of electronic Surveillance Saints with the ultimate goal of continuous electronic searches up on the people as a whole. They’ve already been getting away with it for two decades. (See EFF.org)
      Also:
      http://ncrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/State-v.-Griffin-NC-COA.pdf

  5. bob jones

    We all should add OUR FAVORITE POLITICIAN as a ALIAS to our profile !!! 🙂 ahhahah

    • JM from wi

      And their address as our vacation home

    • ieee

      Absolutely, add many aliases. And if LE ever asks you about them, refuse 100% to answer anything. Do nothing but write them down.

  6. American Detained in America

    So if someone is not on the registry, it’s humiliating to be labeled and that humiliation is not acceptable, but if someone is on the registry, the humiliation is considered no problem at all.

    • CR

      @American Detained in America:

      Recall that Kennedy, writing for the majority in Smith v Doe, said “… the attendant humiliation is but a collateral consequence of a valid regulation.”

      So I’d say your conclusion is correct.

      • Facts should matter

        Yet regulating humans with this arrogant and selfish imposition doesn’t serve a legitimate government interest, much less minimize risk or offer any tangible preventative benefit.

        • CR

          I very much agree with you. Smith v Doe was incorrectly decided. I hope that SCOTUS comes to this recognition too. But public records are still public, so even without the help of a public registry, it may not be possible to stop this kind of pointless exclusion whether it makes sense or not.

  7. TS

    Father wants son’s school to apologize after he’s mistakenly identified as a sex offender

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/11/07/father-wants-sons-school-to-apologize-after-hes-mistakenly-identified-as-a-sex-offender/23582852/

    The apology should be in the court room IMO

  8. C

    What’s the big deal? Being a registrant is no big deal. It’s like a Price Club membership so he should not be ashamed feel like there’s a cloud hanging over him.

    I can’t go on my kids’ campus and I doubt he feels sorry for me or supports my efforts to end these humiliating restrictions. F him and the school. I’m unsympathetic.

    • ieee

      IF this guy likes the Registries and this technology then I agree with you – F him to hell and back. I would be very happy that he was harmed. And F the schools regardless. Let’s all help them fail. And keep them broke.

      But we can’t assume that the guy likes the Registries. If he doesn’t, then we should all feel bad for him and his family.

      This article did demonstrate that every single person who is listed on a Registry needs to have a LOT of aliases. Perhaps 20 or so. The only requirement to have an alias is to call yourself the alias. I would adopt the names of various politicians.

      Lastly, you ought to post a comment at the article where people will see it. That would be cool.

  9. David

    So each school spends $90k+ to procure 4he Raptor System and $30k a year to operate it. And “Neither local school or state public safety or education officials could point to data showing how many registered offenders try to seek access to schools, or if a registered offender visiting a school has ever harmed a student in Aurora or Colorado.”
    Jeez, Colorado, it seems you’re wasting a bucketload of money for a feel good technology to protect against something there is no record of ever happening. (But falsely labeling a parent has happened, Colorado.) Bully for Colorado – the only offense was their own.

    • JUST THE FACTS

      ……And, the other thing I forgot to mention in my original Post. Their “scam/ system” utilizes the PUBLIC Websites to evaluate the ID information, etc.
      So, any of the States who do NOT list registrants (such as Tier-1’s) on the PUBLIC website will come up “Clean/ No Record”.
      My conviction was in NY as a Tier-1 ; so I WASN’T listed on public sites and had No issues whatsoever entering child’s school. Then, when moved back to PA, I got listed (cause PA posts everyone); so now, i can no longer enter.
      So….. their “scam/ system” isn’t COMPLETELY “Protecting” the school(s) from ALL registrants.
      TOTAL waste of money for schools…….. for a “Feel Good” matter.

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 *