ID: Sex offenders ask court to revive Idaho registry lawsuit

[ – 5/6/19]

A group of 134 sex offenders have asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court to revive their lawsuit against the state of Idaho because they say they were denied their constitutional rights when they were forced to register as sex offenders.

The group, referred to only as John Does 1 through 134 in the lawsuit, notified U.S. District Judge David Nye on Sunday that they would ask the appellate panel to review Nye’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit.

The group originally filed the lawsuit in 2016, contending that Idaho laws requiring them to register as sex offenders for life violated their right to due process, subjected them to double jeopardy and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment among other problems.

Some plaintiffs said rules requiring them to stay at least 500 feet from schools prevented them from exercising their religion because their preferred churches were near a school. Others said they were convicted of misdemeanors or lesser sex offenses but years later were forced to register as sex offenders when lawmakers decided to reclassify the crimes as felonies.

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lots of arrows but we’re any on target?
Judge said no.
Property maintenance, plain indenture, to a database.
FREE men are paid to maintain machine properties.
A sound arrow, just take my word for it. Man will never be truely subservient to machine.

So let me get this straight…

The judge says the suit is being dismissed because they didnt specify exact instances of hardships no matter how obvious and unavoidable (like being shot with a gun does nothing to you unless you specify which organs were destroyed). Then, when they ammend and add the specifics he says “oh, my bad, it doesnt matter because other cases that outlined actual damages were dismissed by other courts so I will also.”

What an idiot. This is the problem when a judiciary already knows what it wants it’s decision to be regardless of facts and just needs to find the excuse to rule that way.

I am betting the cases he is referring to, if disected, would not be an apples to apples comparison too. Most times I trace bad caselaw backwards to its source you end up at some original case 100 years ago that was against a business instead of a person and recieved less constitional protection.

If anyone with legal research skills can find what cases this judge is referring to it would be appreciated.

Sure to be watching this case closely. Anyone have citation to the briefs? I would like to see exactly what they are claiming so if the 9th rejects them I can be sure to make different claims and points when I get there.

I really do not like the fact that they are including so many plaintiffs in the case. This leaves to many opps for the judge to deny which will make it that much more difficult for the next guy.

“Others said they were convicted of misdemeanors or lesser sex offenses but years later were forced to register as sex offenders when lawmakers decided to reclassify the crimes as felonies.”

Are you friggin’ kidding me??? Idaho thinks it can take a misdemeanor and just upgrade it to a felony retroactively???? What the hell kind of crap is that???

“…the challenges the Does allege are the same as those raised by sexual offenders … across the country that have already been considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court.”

WOW…so, apparently Judge Nye doesn’t consider Colorado or Michigan to be part of the United States then. What planet does this idiot judge live on???