ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


NY: Second Circuit Backs Home Checks for Sex Offenders

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



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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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??

@ David: well, create a non-profit organization and get contracted by some government agency, and go for it.

Or… just go cruising and report whoever saying you saw them weave, cross the middle line, or acted erratically, that’s what “they” pull people over for.

Might I suggest this DUI checkpoint be in Broward County FloriDUH? You might catch a certain lobbyist.

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!!!

No. The case stems from an incident prior to his removal. Appeals take a long time.

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… Read more »

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!

No, the gun lobby will protect them.

@mike g:. Knock, knock.ho’s there? A nonprofit organization – not the police. We are coming to search your property because the court said that we could so open up and let us in right now.

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.

So is that going to be the same line of law to confiscate guns from all Americans? Because that won’t fly. If that won’t fly, then this infringement goes beyond a regulatory scheme as now it’s borders upon parole/probation role: in-person check-in (under penalty of law), heavy restrictions (under penalty of law), and searching a private citizen’s home without the need for a warrant (under penalty of law).

It sure does feel like under those traits, this is punishment.

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… Read more »

PFML retooled itself as the ‘Crime Victims Center” as a psychological play because they’re being sued by registered persons. It is simply a tactic to make them appear sympathetic. If you’ve read my recent victory over Lauren Book, courts have to hold their noses to vote for us because being a registrant means you are always a suspect and by going after a “victim group” we are showing ourselves to be “subhumans.” Sadly, courts are far from immune to emotional appeals. The harsh reality is that PFML is as much a “victim right’s group” as any other vigilante group like… Read more »

Interesting. They’d be smart to distance themselves from Megan’s Flaw and the Registries as well. Because much like a number of other things in this country these days, if you associate yourself with it, you’re an idiot. Registries are toxic to people with brains. With people I know and love, I expect that I am a much more compassionate and caring person than Laura Ahearn is. I wish I could care more about other people in general but unfortunately, I’ve found out about them. I know what they are. There are going to be crime victims in the future and… Read more »

“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.
1 Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)).

This is starting to look like another of the myriad of half-truths created by the elite. Being that more and more exposures of high officials and the Hollywood elite are the ones who seem to be part of this statistic. Could this “frightening and high” myth be a projection onto the common citizens that in actuality come from behaviors that are common amongst those in higher positions? Which presidential administrations created these “Bill(s)”, Laws (ML, JWA, IML, etc.)? This year alone: How many in governmental positions and Hollywood elites have been the ones exposed for these acts? Seems to me… Read more »

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… Read more »

Regarding the Diack decision, looking at this PFML website I see they say they have public information for level 2s and 3s (as allowed by NYS law) they also state through their site you can look up level 1s in Nassau and Suffolk counties. Under NY law info on level 1s can only be obtained by calling the 800 number.

How could this be allowed under NY preemption law, especially in light of the Diack decision?

They likely are only working under the color of law as a state agent while performing the home checks per contract; otherwise, they are a non-government organization and can publish whatever information they get their hands on.

The state portions of the claims were dismissed by the federal court. The court found no federal issues so they didn’t decide on the state claims. This is an argument that should be brought up in state court and hopefully the NY ACLU will do so, or someone will.

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… Read more »

If you’d like to reach out to Ms. Harrist – the ACLU’s attorney, her email is

She seems to care and maybe any additional insight might help. I am curious if she will challenge the dismissed state claims in state court or if they will just throw in the towel as the NYCLU isn’t know for wanting to help registered citizens usually

I continually wonder how big a deal “compliance checks” are other than just pissing me off. They aren’t technically much of an issue to me but I just can’t allow them. The Registries aren’t acceptable so I’m not going to play along like they are. And I hate being rude to people but if they support the Registries then I really, really want to be. I want to harm them as much as possible so I need to make their lives as miserable as I can. Even if they aren’t technically bothering me much. Why would this criminal regime choose… Read more »

Thinking about this case a bit more, there’s really no reason to appeal the decision for this particular litigant. To what end? An outcome upholding the Special Needs is a loss for the RC, that’s clear. Even a decision overturning the 2nd’s Opinion does nothing–and is a loss–because there’s still no 4th Amdt. issue. Unless something else from the original District Court suit can be brought forward (doubtful), there’s no possible win for this guy. I still maintain the present or imminent danger requirement of Special Needs doesn’t exist in checking RC registration info. After all, what (claimed) danger of… Read more »

I don’t think I’d try very hard to make sense of it. Probably not possible.

I haven’t even read a summary of the lawsuit or judgement. Surely the court did not say anyone had to allow PFML onto their property, correct? They can’t be that insane.

I’ve seen some people here insinuate the court said they could go into their homes. I know that is wrong. Maybe I’ll take some time to read!

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

‘…the court once again quotes Doe saying the false, frighteningly high statistic…” This is a lie that needs to be challenge directly.

I read the opinion. I think I’d hate being a judge. It must be quite hard for them to get the facts correct in every case all the time. But, it is pretty critical. I wonder if this judge has a staff of people to help. He surely needs more help. He made embarrassing mistakes. You are correct that the opinion has numerous lies in it. Would be nice if those were challenged. I did point that out to Ahearn and her group yesterday. I called them the thieves that they are. They cried and whined about it. Ultimately, the… Read more »

@Harry: “‘…the court once again quotes Doe saying the false, frighteningly high statistic…” This is a lie that needs to be challenge directly.” —– Yes it does…and has been, yet many courts continue to swat it away. It’s only the judges who truly take their jobs seriously (instead of pandering to opinion) who help us with this. Someone else has mentioned some time back on here about using the full quote. What routinely gets quoted is “upwards of 80%.” However, the full quote was (paraphrasing) that 15% of *treated* RCs reoffend, and *untreated* ones are upwards of 80%. Despite the… Read more »


I wonder how many actually have the true stats in their chambers or at their reach and understand them.

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… Read more »

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.

Better idea do compliance checks on law enforcement to make sure they are following every law. To really annoy them only do the checks on officers on patrol. Actually better yet follow them around as they do compliance checks on other registrants.

@ ab. This is about a non law enforcement/victims group employing regular citizens to knock on your door asking you questions.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x