ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 12 [recording uploaded] – Details / Recordings
Remaining 2020 meetings will be Nov 21 and Dec 19

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – ONLINE October 10-11
More Info and Sign-Up

National

LA: Acadia Sheriff’s deputies arrest registrants for not disclosing status on social media

[katc.com – 8/6/20]

Acadia Parish Sheriff’s deputies have identified seven sex offenders who have been in violation of sex offender social media laws, Sheriff KP Gibson says.

Between March of 2020 and July of 2020, the sheriff’s sex offender registry unit conducted an investigation of all registered sex offenders in the parish, to ensure they were following the law regarding use of social media.

They found seven registered sex offenders were using social media illegally, but not posting on their profile that they were convicted sex offenders, conviction information, address, and other information required by the Louisiana sex offender registry laws concerning social media use.

Read the shocking story

 

Join the discussion

  1. Dustin

    Strictly regulatory, of course. Absolutely nothing punitive about it.

  2. Brandon

    Wow the chains and shackles might be long gone; yet the slavery of citizens is alive and well in corrupt Louisiana. Every non registrant needs to put on their social media that they are hateful people. Thank God I don’t live there that’s part of the Bible Belt; which obviously doesn’t believe in forgiveness nor redemption.

  3. Lovecraft

    Two words, compelled speech.

  4. JohnDoeUtah

    How is this not compelled speech?

  5. Eric

    Talk about ostracizing yourself from society. So LA forces you to reveal you are a past SO before someone even has a chance to meet you. That was the same when I was on supervised release fresh out of being incarcerated. I was required to get a job, but I was also required at each interview to reveal that I was an SO even if I wasn’t asked about any past criminal history. Needless to say I didn’t have a lot of calls to come back for a second interview. It is well known that one of the biggest preventative measures for re-offense is to have healthy social life, but the injustice system sets it up so you can’t have the very thing you need.

  6. Mike G

    A Felony? Seriously? Were they targeting kids or posting a photo of their meal at a restaurant?

    “We take the safety of our community and our families seriously”

    No mention that they did anything that threatened anyone’s safety, yet they could spend years in prison.

    “So Mac, what are you in for?”
    “I posted a photo of my garden on Facebook…”

    • Eric

      @ Mike G and you know darn well they didn’t do anything inappropriate online or that wold have been in the headlines.

  7. KM

    Compelled speech?

    • AJ

      @KM:
      My thought, too. There is no difference between this and LA requiring me to voice it to anyone I encounter. (Rightfully, companies are “people” too in the eyes of the law.) Both are the government compelling me to speak a message with which I disagree.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Janice says it best in an interview on ABC10 in 2016 when she talks about the First Amendment and compelled Speech.

      https://youtu.be/K7OWomQGa-U?t=104

      “So when most people think about the First Amendment, all they think about is the right to say something but you also have a right to be silent and the fact is with this law you cannot remain silent about whether or not you have been convicted of a registered sex offense and whether or not you are likely to engage in child sex tourism. So the government is basically sending notices to our government, to foreign countries saying you’re likely to engage in child sex tourism.” – Janice Bellucci circa July 2016

      Of course, she was talking about International Megan’s Law. But the same principal and statement holds true here.

  8. A.D.A.T.

    I can’t imagine being in a southern state with being an RSO these days. Trump has given L.E. So much backing to basically be the Gestapo. Not that they needed any new reasons. Ironic how the south, the area most responsible for evangelism and promoting christian values, can treat others like crap.

  9. Tired of this

    If this isn’t compelled speech, then what the actual f–k is?

    Aside from that, I personally wouldn’t even bother having a fb account if doing so required outing myself (which I’d expect would result in account deletion anyway, per Facebook’s TOS).

    I dunno how my fellow RCs in those southern states deal with living there. I’d rather eat glass.

  10. AERO1

    Wow one of the guys arrested was 60 years old I’m pretty sure the only person this guy was hurting online was himself.
    Can you imagine your at home geting ready to cook for you family so you Google one of Gorden Ramsay chicken recipes 40 minutes later there’s a bang on your door and you hear “SEXOFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK “!! deputies bust in and confiscate your phone and arrest you on the spot for watching YouTube.
    I can’t believe this old ass man is going back to prison for at lese 3-5 years just for having a smart phone .

    • M C

      I don’t know where you got that particular story regarding a compliance check and Youtube in regards to this article but this makes me wonder something. I’m sure this has been brought up on here somewhere at some point but if you are not on probation what gives you an obligation to even answer your door for a compliance check? “When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak.” Kentucky v. King (SCOTUS). So without probable cause or exigent circumstances I don’t know why you would have to even respond to a compliance check especially a random one and I don’t know how any law requiring you respond to the police at your door could overcome this ruling.

      That said, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to appear to the police based on the registration laws but in most cases places those only require appearance somewhere (like a police station) in person. Additionally, not responding may not always be a good idea if LE would use that to potentially say you were non-compliant with reporting requirements such as your residence. I just don’t see how they can force you to open the door for them. Maybe someone can explain this.

      • AJ

        @M C:
        You’re spot on with one’s rights as detailed in KY v. King. Also see FL v. Jardines. One merely needs to take the examples Scalia used in Jardines and reverse them. If TBLs have equal rights as UPS, Girl Scouts, and Trick-or-treaters to knock on one’s door, one has the right to equally ignore whomever is knocking.

        There’s another cas,e whose title escapes me, where SCOTUS said that even if you have started talking, you still retain the right to retreat from conversation. In other words, if they manage to trick you into answering the door, you’re always free to slam it in their faces–and under Jardines, they must promptly leave by the same customary path they used to approach.

      • someone who cares

        M C – I have posted many times before regarding compliance checks. If you are not on probation or parole, you do NOT have to open the door for anyone, including LE. You never have to speak to them, and they can knock, but if nobody answers, they have to leave! If there is no reason that a person is out of compliance (like they do their annual), there is no reason to harass that person. I want to re-emphasize that I told LE on both our compliance checks that we are under no obligation to answer the door or any of their questions. Both times, they agreed, and said that I was absolutely right. So, they know it, but they still come to harass, and it is up to the person if they want to open the door just to get it over with, because they will most likely come back.

        • Will Allen

          Personally, I don’t really mind much if law enforcement (LE) comes around, but I don’t let them. It is just the principle of it. Registries (Hit Lists) aren’t acceptable and that’s the end of the story. I will do what I’m forced to do at the point of a gun, but BS if I’m going to allow one thing past that. F*ck anyone who supports Registries, AND their families, every day. Those “people” are enemy combatants.

          I’ve always recommended to People Forced to Register (PFRs) that they should start from day one to ensure that the Hit Lists are worse than worthless and that they impact your life as little as possible. To that end, I’d recommend never allowing LE to be on your property at all or to get near you. I mean, why put up with it? From day one, you can be working to end their contact. Surely then, with any luck and some hard work, you can have a home within a few years at least, where you can block off all access. Why not? It just makes life easier. Further, PFRs are in mortal danger. So why not block off everyone and improve the safety of you and your family?

          The Hit Lists have NO chance of being acceptable or moral unless a few key things are done. One of those things is that PFRs are not required or even asked/begged to do *anything at all, for any reason, ever*. The criminal regimes can keep their Hit Lists, but they must maintain all of the information by themselves. If LE needs to “verify” anything, let them go talk to the big government boot lickers who want the Hit Lists. They want Lists, they are being forced to pay consequences. Let them pay more.

          If ALL PFRs stopped allowing LE to get near them, that would make a statement and get some attention. Why is everyone so worried about catering to those criminals and helping the Hit Lists succeed?

  11. Louis

    The declaration of independence clearly states or unalienable rights of life liberty ave the pursuit of happiness.no state can take those away.so since the state wants to put sanctions on people by requiring them to register and live where the state wants you to live that hinders your liberty.which in turn affects your life and will ultimately deny you your opportunity to pursue happiness.once you’ve paid your debt to society you no longer owe the state anymore time from your life.think about this every year you have to enter into a contract with the state.why?your term has been served ave you registered once which what your sentence was.you weren’t sentenced to life in prison.so if the state put these sanctions on you they have to provide for you.the state can’t tell you where you can live once your number is discharged you no longer owe the state anything.so they have to make sure you’re getting what you need simply because they’re holding you hostage through registration..

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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.