Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional comment.
Related posts
-
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,... -
LA: Louisiana Supreme Court reverses course; child sex abuse ‘lookback’ window ruled constitutional
Source: kadn.com 6/21/24 NEW ORLEANS (KADN) — On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court has determined a... -
CA: Bay Area Community Services (BACS) is hiring
Source: bayareacs.org The California-based Bay Area Community Services (BACS) is looking to expand our services in...
anyone have new updates on recent Mi, Snyder II or any info on a time frame on a decision, or anything as to how long before something happens with this mess!??? Thanks.
So, in my exploration of CPRA, I have found that my record of registration in California is actually part of my arrest record, which as far as california is concerned, I dont have any arrests in.
If registration is part of a civil regulatory scheme, how can they place my registrations under an arrest record. What would we need to do, to remove law enforcement from being in control of a civil matter?
I think most people here would say it’s not merely administrative, but I’m not sure the above changes the situation. If the government had to create a civil authority to manage this, they wouldn’t be exempt from CPRA inquiries and it would be more clear to legislators how much money is being spent (wasted) since it would have to be justified in a budget.
We have discussed here before those impacted by the registry who are forced to show their phones, computers, etc upon return from international travel at CBP checkpoints for inspections. An Apple employee has taken exception to that and has filed suit with the NoCal ACLU: Apple employee detained by U.S. customs agents after declining to unlock phone, laptophttps://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/03/apple-employee-detained-by-us-customs-agents-after-declining-unlock-phone-laptop/?utm_term=.69d3603b45b0
Even those who have the new passport marker may be more susceptible to this, it doesn’t make it right to do because you still have rights regardless of what others may think or say.
Let’s all just stop paying annual registration “fees” and financially choke them. Make each state’s local tax payers fund this pie-in-the-sky safety fantasy boondoggle.
Does the new tier registration in ca coming 2021 require everyone to submit their internet identifiers?
@AJ or whoever, what do you think about this line of cases when it comes to consequences from third parties and results that are outside the four corners of the challenged statute? Do you think this can overcome the immunity issues? Are these cases solid?
This is further supported in Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87, 100 (1982),
“Here, the District Court, in upholding appellees’ challenge to the constitutionality of the Ohio disclosure provisions [albeit under a different statute, but is apropos here], properly concluded that the evidence of private and Government hostility toward the SWP and its members establishes a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients will subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals. Pp. 98-101.” (emphasis added).
This assertion is further supported by Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2017),
“‘The challenged action need not immediately or directly cause the harm as a first order effect. “[T]hat the potential injury would be the result of a chain of events need not doom the standing claim.” Idaho Conservation League, 956 F.2d at 1515. “The relevant inquiry . . . is whether there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the challenged procedural violation will harm the plaintiffs’ concrete interests, not how many steps must occur before such harm occurs.” Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 975 (internal citations omitted).’”
@Josh “we have filings in the works right now and I will let people know how they turn out..”
So is this a monetary suit? or a suit for relief from registration?
I believe it needs to be both filed separately. One for declaratory and injunction relief, and the other as a USC 42 1983 monetary suit for deprivation of rights “under color of law.”
“The purpose of punitive damages is deterrence and retribution; they punish a defendant’s unlawful conduct and deter its repetition. In Smith v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that Section 1983 authorizes the award of punitive damages against state or local officials in their individual capacity. The Court suggested that punitive damages may be awarded when an official’s conduct is malicious, intentional, or recklessly or callously indifferent to protected rights.”
https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/fpmd/chapter9/section1
Interesting article and there are plenty more. And that would be sweet to be able to use a “Smith” citation for monetary awards for being kept on a registry unlawfully. Irony at its finest….
This fits all these definitions,
“intentional, or recklessly or callously indifferent to protected rights.”
If this is not a “under color of law” suit I sure as hell would not know one if it bit me in the ass then.
I absolutely love that statement, “in their individual capacity”
Frigging sue them individually, not officially so out of their personal bank accounts, into homelessness and destitution.
Damn, so this would have to include the head of the DOJ usually the AG, the individual agent that actually takes and keys in your information to the data base, if the AG or DOJ is using a different gov. entity to maintain or publish the keyed info the individual in charge of that operation and the actual person that enters your info are all liable. I am sure I could think of a few more.
This is the only thing these domestic terrorist understand or deserve. It would have to be pro se because every lawyer out there are scared to death of doing this type of suit. Especially if it concerns the label “sex offender” any where near it. You would have to demand a jury as well and let them decide what kind of damages you should be awarded. You would have to cite other cases where monetary damages were awarded for other deprivation of rights even if not related to any registry. Sure they are out there. I only wish I was out there where you are at, it would already be in the courts. You literally as a matter of law cannot lose. It is just what amount of $$$$ award you will get.
My state has no reg fees and the registry is going strong
In Texas they don’t charge fees, but what they do is expire your drivers license every year, so you have to go pay for a new one and take it to your registration officer.
Right, but then you have the Harris case,
Doe v. Harris, No. 13-15263 (9th Cir. 2014) clearly demonstrates the Court’s consideration of some of the same consequences the Magistrate Judge asserts the Court could not consider.
“But sex offenders’ fear of disclosure in and of itself chills their speech. If their identity is exposed, their speech, even on topics of public importance, could subject them to harassment, retaliation, and intimidation. See McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341–42 (“The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.”)”
“could subject them to harassment, retaliation, and intimidation.”
Doe v Harris seems to undermine the idea that collateral consequences are not to be considered right? How can they say they consider collateral consequences in a first amendment speech issue but not in any other constitutional issue?
Couple that with the private and Gov hostility and the chain of events does not kill standing cases, seems pretty solid to me.
Maybe wrong, but it just seems the only logical train of reasoning. Then you top it off with the Taylor case from CA SC and it seems like a done deal.
Then you throw this in there,
“The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause “ ‘forbids the government to infringe . . . “fundamental” liberty interests’ ” in any manner “ ‘unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest [i.e., strict scrutiny review].’ ” (Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702, 721 (Glucksberg), quoting Reno v. Flores (1993) 507 U.S. 292, 302 (Reno).) (emphasis added).
Remember just because it is a chain of events does not kill standing.
The term “in any matter” is significant in this case as this statement expands the scope of review of a statute to outside the four corners of the statute being challenged with regards to fundamental rights.
Regardless of everything else, at bare minimum bodily integrity is a well established fundamental right so,
Then this set of cases come in play,
See Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 588-90 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiff could sue government when state officer affirmatively placed her in dangerous situation), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 341, 112 L.Ed.2d 305 (1990); L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992) (generally citizens may not sue state employees who fail to protect them from harm committed by private parties unless there is a special relationship between the plaintiff or the state places the plaintiff in danger), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993); “a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200; “If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him . . . it is as much an active tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit.” Bowers v. DeVito 686 F. 2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
In the non-emergency context, the lower courts have consistently held that deliberate indifference or recklessness is sufficient to show liability if there is a state-created danger.
Similar to the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits adopted the “deliberate indifference” or “reckless disregard” standards. Foy v. City of Berea, 58 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1995); Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 1996); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994).
Arguments have been posited, and quite rightfully so, that these laws do not provide offenders adequate protection, and vigilantism against-sex offenders following community notification has been well-documented (judicial notice vigilante attacks leading to great bodily harm and even death), and indeed vigilantism has already occurred to Plaintiff and his family members (documented).
I really cannot see where this quote could be more analogous,
““If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him . . . it is as much an active tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit.” Bowers v. DeVito 686 F. 2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).”
This seems to be analogous as well in that there is a special relationship with registration and the Megan’s Law Website (i.e. DOJ, AG and myself) and the state is putting me in danger on top of it.
“L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992) (generally citizens may not sue state employees who fail to protect them from harm committed by private parties unless there is a special relationship between the plaintiff or the state places the plaintiff in danger), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993)”
Guess we will see….
@ AJ, Wow, am I missing something? Does ROSS no longer offer case search? I see that it does a relevant passage search now but no more case search.
Yeah this no doubt applies,
“It is likewise well established that a due process violation may occur where ” state action affirmatively places the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Id. (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 201, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989); Wood, 879 F.2d at 589-90) (quotation and alteration omitted).”
State action is both creating and exposing me to dangers that I would not otherwise face. There is no way that you can tell me that my neighbor, the guy down the street, or the guy from another town, would go and get my conviction history and then use that information to assault me without the Megan’s Law website publishing my convictions.
These well established exceptions undeniably apply. I am finding a million cases stating this too.
In order for the 9th to not rule in my favor they are going to have to overturn well settled case law out of SCOTUS and a long list of 9th cases.
One more and I will stop since I know someone will complain (we know who, lol), let me know if you guys think this reasoning is sound. Look this even states unambiguously the the AG should have known that their actions violated my fundamental bodily integrity right.
“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed. 2d 666 (2002). ” For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. (quotation omitted). ” [T]he specific, alleged conduct . . . need not have been previously and explicitly deemed unconstitutional, but existing case law must have made it clear that the conduct violated constitutional norms.” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F. 3d 1055, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2006).”
“It is well established that the Constitution protects a citizen’s liberty interest in her own bodily security.” Id. at 1061 (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673-74, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed. 2d 711 (1977); Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F. 2d 583, 589 (9th Cir. 1989)). It is likewise well established that a due process violation may occur where ” state action affirmatively places the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Id. (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 201, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed. 2d 249 (1989); Wood, 879 F. 2d at 589-90) (quotation and alteration omitted).”
Gund v. County of Trinity, 624 F. App’x. 519 (9th Cir. 2015)
I just CANNOT, no matter how you twist it or try and work it, see how these lines of cases would not apply.
Collateral consequence of a conviction? Well then the state can force me to wear a jumpsuit states sex offender or animal abuser, or child abuser all over it and make me wear it constantly because it is a collateral consequence of a conviction? No there are just to many examples where the state cannot just have unfettered leeway to do as they please because someone is convicted of a crime but no longer under state supervision. Even under state supervision they are bound to standards set by law and cases.
I think this part is extremely relevant as well,
“or exposes an individual to a danger”
So they state does not even have to create the danger.
Sorry I know I said one more up there but I had to throw these in there.
This statement out of the Magistrate’s mouth is just beyond reason and so not at all founded in any case law. She cannot even cite anything but some way out crap from some lower court and some ID even K crap. Can anyone tell me what this even cites to? The only citation to these that I can find are in my case.
“Public safety provides a rational basis for California’s Megan’s Law and SORA, See, e,g,, James v. Gastello,
No. 17-cv-1570-H (NLS), 2018 WL 3546312, at *8 (S.D, Cal, July 24,2018), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-01570-H-NLS, 2018 WL 6018030 (S,D, Cal. Nov. 16, 2018).”
Man that MFR is a joke. All of it.
Hang with me a minute,
“An employer has a duty to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination under state law.
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer can face significant liability if it knowingly employs a sex offender and >fails to take actions< to protect its other employees from unlawful behavior by that person."
The AG stated that it would have to be the employer bringing suit for a vague standing, but this is more than that. This is leaving the employer the enforcer of a state law against a free citizen and is vague to them but yet this effects me, How do I know what action is going to disqualify me? Can they make this law subjective? I thought laws were supposed to be clear in their meaning's, especially on key elements of the statute.
So I was just thinking and can this be done? Can the state create a code section and just let the employer decide what "actions" to take to "protect a person at risk" or face "significant liability."
This leaves the employer "undefined actions" to enforce this statute or face "significant liability" AND leaves me no defined actions to know if I am violating it.. So this is a vague statute for both of us. I believe I have standing with that claim.
This is potentially extreme consequences for the employer,
(4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) (long list of reasons) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
(1) A person is authorized to use information disclosed pursuant to this section only to "protect a person at risk." a term not defined by the Penal Code.
Also, then it goes on to state paragraph (2) except as authorized under paragraph (1) use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
So it is defining the statute unambiguously for para (2), but (1) has no definition.
I would think that the law on the face looking at the text alone would be vague. They cannot write a statute using undefined terms as the main elements. What is this an APP act violation as well?
(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
(A) Health insurance.
(B) Insurance.
(C) Loans.
(D) Credit.
(E) Employment.
(F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
(G) Housing or accommodations.(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment..
Ughhhh I need to vent. Ever since the AWA got enacted here in NV my fiancee cant find any work. Were barely getting by right now. Idk how much longer I can keep us afloat on my own. And if we lose our house no one will rent to him so we will be homeless with a 2 year old
I know everyone says moving is our best option but that is not an option for us. You need money to move and we now have none. I have written countless letters to all the state reps to beg for the to repeal this stupid act. My fiancee has never reoffened. Hes not a danger to his community and now even though he has been good and stayed out of trouble we face losing everything. Im.so worried and upset. This is so unfair. Everything was so good before the stupid AWA. Now it feels like everything is ruined. We cant be homeless with our son. I cant put him through that. I just dont know what to do anymore. I can only keep us above water for so long until we drown. And no one cares. The emails and letters I right go unanswered. No one cares about redemption or good behavior. I’m just so very at a loss.
I have been reading up on case law as to what qualifies as a residence. In. People v. Gonzales, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) it states “We reject this contention. In McCleod, supra, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1205, the court stated that the term “residence,” as used in section 290, was a commonly understood term, without technical meaning, that did not have to be defined by the court. The McCleod court concluded the term was easily understood by persons of common intelligence as connoting “`more than a passing through or presence for a limited visit.'” (55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1218.)”
What I haven’t found is any case addressing the line between limited visit and residing.
Residing being according to the jury instructions, ” As used in the instruction, the term `reside’ or `residence’ means a temporary or permanent place, which one keeps and to which one intends to return, as opposed to a place where one rests or shelters during a trip or a transient visit. Depending upon the circumstances, one may have a single place of residence or more than one place of residence.”
So, for instance, how many minutes can I spend at a family members house during the year before i reside there. If I regularly attend holidays? How many?
Of course i dont see any cases that have been litigated so perhaps they arent being charged for visiting family.
2) what about a place of employment. Do people reside at employment? (As defined by law)
I had heard rumor about AirBnB excluding RSOs and in researching this I learned it it true and that the popular neighborhood-networking site NextDoor.com also prohibits RSOs (and ANYONE from their household!) from joining the site.
As all of here are disappointed at the litany of restrictions placed on us, we could probably see how the uneducated public could be duped into believing how some of these are necessary safeguards (schools, volunteering at a library, etc). However, now we’re just getting silly and petty (and, yes, PUNITIVE!). It saddens me that so many in our society are so anxious to have someone to put down and continue to “extract a pound of flesh” wherever possible. What possible, far-fetched harm could possibly come from being part of an online network (NextDoor.com) that is intended to foster information sharing among close neighbors? Looking out for a lost dog; recommending a good sushi restaurant; selling a used couch.
There will always be those that want everyone convicted of a sex offense stranded on a desert island, castrated, or hung (or all 3!). But maybe as more and more restrictions are levied, reasonable citizens will begin to see the futility of the entire process and help to bring it down.
Just out of curiosity, why are they talking about Nipsey Hussle for a week, celebrating and praising him, when he is an EX gang member, who killed, saying he turned his life around? So, how come we can’t have turned our lives around after years of being crime free, having families, friends, etc?
The last couple years, doxxing has become a “thing,” to the point there either has been or is legislation pending here and there attempting to outlaw it. It’s stalking and cyber-bullying, donchaknow? But hang on a sec…. Isn’t doxxing simply, “dissemination of accurate information [] most of which is already public”? And isn’t any, “stigma [the] result[] not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination,” of that info? Huh. So it’s legal for the State to do it with RCs, but not for private citizens to do it themselves.