A Long Island sex offender who faced home visits from a private nonprofit contracted by his county did not endure an unconstitutional search, the Second Circuit affirmed Wednesday.
Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Christopher Droney noted in the ruling that in this case, public-safety interests outweigh the offenders’ rights.
“In sum, the program advances the government’s substantial interest in reducing sex offender recidivism by improving the accuracy of the registry,” the 29-page opinion states. “Thus, the program serves a special need ‘beyond the normal need for law enforcement.’” Full Article
Related
I’ll be operating my own civilian DUI checkpoints this weekend. I believe doing so will advance the government’s substantial interest in public safety and reducing DUI accidents. Anyone want to join me??
Yikes. What the Megan’s law people were doing doesn’t concern me, it’s what constitutes “seizure” in there and the finding they’re permissible under the special needs doctrine. Does that mean that police can just barge into a person’s house without securing a warrant in New York now?
“Jones was removed from the registry in 2016 after serving the required 20 years. ”
If he was removed from the registry, then WHY THE FU** are they still knocking on his door and harassing him???? This bullshit defies logic!!!
Question: The last paragraph indicates that he came off the registry in 2016. Is he still subject to Laura Ahern’s smelly nose tramping around his living room every few months?
Only people convicted of sex offenses need this type of monitoring?? Defies logic your honor. Lol
“Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Christopher Droney noted in the ruling that in this case, public-safety interests outweigh the offenders’ rights.”
Bullshit. Public safety interests were misleading since 1986.
If you do not have a gate beyond the front door, knocking on the door is not trespassing. Also, if they are not demanding entry into the home, there is no privacy expectation.
However, it is disturbing that this court has rubber-stamped the exception to the rule that there be individualized suspicion of a crime prior to a seizure.
I had one situation days before I was removed from the registry. I’ve had home checks before, usually a few questions and that is it. But, I had just bought this house and just registered it 3 days prior. Barney Fife in the new jurisdiction pounds on my door like it owes him money. Asks me the customary questions, and then demands that I sign his form. That was a first, I refuse. I stated I just signed a form three days ago at the station and nothing in the law required I do any more. “Well, this is how it is done here…” I ask why he even came my house, what on my new registration form warranted the individualized suspicion that I committed a crime? “Sir, this is just how we do it here…” Well, sorry, but I’m not signing your form, and I clearly live here, so unless I am being detained, you need to leave. He protested. I’m a veteran, so your yelling doesn’t intimidate me and you’re not going to out-alpha me. He was pissed, but he left.
A week or so later his Sergeant calls me, and inquires about the “confrontation.” I was like, well, I was removed from the registry a day or so ago, so I’m not so sure how relevant this conversation is going to be on the matter. He agreed, and “noted,” that he “realized” I was no longer required to register, and we ended the conversation. My guess was they were trying to cause some issues for me and realized they would get no where and let it go.
Do NOT stop here, take it to the supreme court.
Knock, knock!
Who’s there?
The police.
The police? What do you want?
We need to search your house for illegal firearms, explosive devices, and potentially dangerous meth labs.
What?? Do you have a warrant?
We don’t need a warrant. The 2nd Circuit just ruled that public safety interests outweigh individual rights, so open the door before we have to break it down!
The entire system lacks any kind of logic. So you’re saying that this guy is so dangerous he needs to be monitored that you’re going to send some fat nosey untrained housewife to his home to do some kind of security check?
The need for public safety outweighs constitutional discipline? I’ll buy that.
Well, you have to commend Laura Ahearn for being able to create a career of fleecing dumb Amerikans. Parents for Megan’s Law (PFML) has stolen a lot of taxpayer money and kept these marginally-employable losers employed. “non-profit” rackets that fleece taxpayers are disgusting.
PFML might be trying to do some decent things but it is a shame that no decent person can support them because of their support of Registries. That makes them harassing terrorists that deserve to be attacked.
PFML has been trying for a good while to re-brand itself as the Crime Victims Center. Is that because they know only true idiots support Megan’s Law? Megan’s Law is a dead end. There aren’t any intelligent, moral people who are ACTUALLY serious about public safety or protecting children who support Megan’s Law or Registries. None. So Laura Ahearn is smart to try to distance her fleecing and theft away from Megan’s Law and the Registries. They need to keep trying to steal what they can because of the Registries but they surely also want to expand the scope of their theft.
I wish I lived near them so I could help make them 100% ineffective. Those scumbags would never set foot on any property I owned. No RP or family ANYWHERE in the United States should ever allow PFML, law enforcement, criminal regime employees, or anyone else associated with the Registries to go on their properties or near their families. Not ever. Unless the people are FORCED by law. But is that the case anywhere? Is there anywhere in the country where people think they are FORCED by law to allow these harassers to get near them? I’d like to hear.
If the RPs who are subjected to PFML’s theft are allowing them to get anywhere near them, then I’ve got to say perhaps they just deserve it and shouldn’t complain about it. If you are going to allow it, then don’t complain about it.
I visited a couple web sites where PFML operates their theft. I’ll likely post some good feedback for them in the near’ish future. I’m sure the snowflakes won’t accept it, but it will still be fun. I’m also going to check out their sponsor list and see what I can do about avoiding and harming those places. Here are a couple of their theft sites:
https://www.facebook.com/ParentsForMegansLaw/
https://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/sponsors/
I put the “sponsors” there just because it is a nice display of their address and other contact information. Better than their “CONTACT US” page actually, although that has some good stuff on it as well. If you want to see some of the actual sponsors that they fleece, just look at the graphics on http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org. Everyone can have fun with these thieves.
“The special needs doctrine”. Isn’t “special needs” synonymous with “retarded”, just a more PC way of saying it? So in essence this could be called the retarded doctrine. Sounds about right…
We just need to put this to a stop!!
Sex offenders have an unusually high rate of
18 recidivism. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 103 (2003) (“The risk of recidivism
19 posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” (quoting McKune v.
26
1 Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)).
Something is wrong here… People V. Diack 2015 has already settled that state law preempts local law regarding SORA. While Diack’s argument was over the fact that state law does not provide for any residency restrictions in New York, the court’s emphasis was focused on the fact that local municipalities may not enact ANY local laws regarding SORA because the state claims the entire field. NYS SORA does NOT provide for ANY at home residency verifications. The law is clear in that the registrant must appear at the local PD to verify his residence. THAT’S IT! NY SORA makes no provision for Laura Ahern’s good friend, County Executive Steve Bellone, to hire her to stalk registrants to verify their residence! Also, since when does “public safety” outweigh anyone’s “rights”? Rights are guaranteed, safety is not! New York’s Court of Appeals put Ahern’s business out of business and her buddies in the second circuit still got her back! Incredible!
Every response here has been very informative and on point. Thanks for the great reads and info everyone. In some way, it may help bring and end to Ahern’s unconstitutional tactics and NY court’s & Judge’s (corrupt?) nonsense.
This seems to have been a poor lawsuit to file, given SCOTUS’ Jardines decision which has been discussed ad nauseum here. There absolutely was NOT any 4th Amdt. issue, and avoiding embarrassment is not a right. What I find very odd in the Opinion is:
*****
To satisfy the special needs test, the government must identify a substantial non‐law enforcement interest justifying “a Fourth Amendment intrusion.”
–and–
To qualify as a special need, the governmental interest in the objective must be “substantial”; that is, “sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment’s normal requirement of individualized suspicion.”
*****
Umm, how does that jive with the holding it wasn’t a 4th Amdt. event? The special needs doctrine, in the 2nd’s own words, applies only after determining a “substantial…interest justifying” a 4th Amdt. intrusion (as existed in the Chandler, Skinner, Ferguson, and Lynch cases it cites). Since both the 2nd and the District Courts found no 4th Amdt. intrusion (the dude willingly participated, to boot!), how can the Special Needs Doctrine apply? The Special Needs Doctrine is an exception to justify State action AFTER a 4th Amdt. intrusion has occurred, yet the courts here found no 4th Amdt. intrusion. You can’t have it both ways, judges.
Despite the court’s p!ss-poor understanding of the Special Needs Doctrine as being a subset of analyzing a 4th Amdt. intrusion, I don’t foresee SCOTUS taking this case just to fix that. It’s not a pressing constitutional issue needing resolution–unless it spreads among the courts. SCOTUS doesn’t fix every single lower-court error all the time. I easily see them letting it sit and maybe fester until out of hand and then fix it once and for all. Then again, maybe there are other CCoAs that have applied it correctly and a split needs fixing. If SCOTUS does take it, it would seem to warrant nothing more than a per curiam Opinion since the 2nd incorrectly applied already-decided case law. Hopefully the guy’s counsel sees the error and can get en banc review…and it’s fixed.
What ticked me off about the case were the antics by the LECs (tip of the hat to @Will Allen):
*****
On July 22, 2013, Detective Lieutenant Hernandez sent a letter to all SORA registrants on SCPD letterhead stating that PFML will visit registrants’ homes and request to see a photographic identification with current address information. It states that registrants are “required to provide” residential and employment
10 address information under SORA.
–and–
When presenting the proposal for the program to County legislators, for example, the County Chief of Police stated that “[i]t’s been proven that [the] sex offender registry reduces sex offender recidivism. However, the registry is only good if it’s accurate.”
*****
What a bunch of slippery and false BS. First, while RCs are indeed “required to provide” information, they don’t have to do at their homes. They only need to do it as directed by law and statute. Slippery @sshole rattled his saber a bit. Then, the Chief lies to the county board. I’d love to see the data the Chief has showing registries “reduce…recidivism.” Furthermore, the only benefit an accurate registry provides is to ensure vigilantes hit the “right” home and person. What a load of crap.
For every good decision, there are 2 or 3 bad ones… This is a bad one. Hopefully Ms. Harrist will appeal and be heard by SCOTUS. The issue here is the court once again quotes Doe saying the false, frighteningly high statistic and until SCOTUS refutes that statement and admits they were wrong, we will be on the wrong side for a long time
Good day all,
This 2nd Circuit affirmation disgusts me.
What I find so repugnant is the integration of a 3rd party “Watchdog” group into the Registry enforcement. Its worse than private prison contractors. Moreover, it’s a way for this “entity” to derive revenue off the misery of the RC’s. Probably was a “no-bid” contract too. It’s usually the case.
I despise it when in the “interest of public safety” it seems that my self former, and the current RC’s are set upon by these do-gooder groups in the interest of……….
But, once again the prevailing and misappropriated effectiveness story of the Registries and organizations such as “The Patch” and this group seek to further their own agenda. And folks, that is what its their bent. It’s not about “public safety”, it’s about $$$$ to integrate with an local LEA and get those dollars, as well enforce their own agenda.
As the article alleges, the “Agents” that visit the RC’s home are former LEA. REALLY? Why use former LEA? It’s kind of like Remote-Com.com that the Fed’s use to provide computer monitoring. Primarily staffed by former LEA folks. Hmmmmm. The Filter is that a monitored RC, or one not but still under a Probation order that comes up against these third parties undergo a THREAT. Cooperate or we will report you.
I totally agree with the actions of the person who did this motion. He had every right to kick them out and off his property. The letter from the local Sheriff was a threat, “cooperate or else” it seems.
But alas, these organizations now seem to command, and especially now under this 2nd Circuit decision; an ability to be an extralegal arm to the local government, of which was awarded by a no-bid contract. DISGUSTING and SHAMEFUL. Trust me, now after this Decision, these types of organizations especially that one are duly empowered to do whatever they want, however they want, to whomever they want.
FRIGHTENING.
Be well all, and Fight The Good Fight. Namaste.
ahearn probably knows which palms to grease and probably gets things like this decision in return & everyone is happy$$$$.
@ Finnaly off,
I see your point on third parties tapping contracts uncontested. Those groups do not have the immunity police do so any bad acts that are unlawful will catch them up in torts. The problem with the judges affirmation here is the collateral implications. Catch one of these ” do gooders” on camera peeping a window! Even a window next to the front door would suffice.
Good luck doing compliance checks when i’m living in a van down by an undisclosed river.