The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that a federal trial court erred when it dismissed a case involving 134 registrants in Idaho who claimed that the state’s sex offender laws violated their civil rights. In its ruling today, the Court opened up the possibility that the Idaho laws at issue violated both the federal and state constitutions.
One of the claims in the case is that the state’s sex offender laws violate the ex post facto provision of the U. S. Constitution. Many of the state laws at issue, including a requirement to register for life, were passed after the registrants were convicted. The state argued in the case that several cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court decision Smith v. Doe which determined that the requirement to register is not punitive, allow the state to pass new sex offender laws and apply them retroactively.
In today’s decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated “case law does not foreclose a finding that SORA is punitive.” The Court pointed out that Smith v. Doe and other cases cited by the state government “only considered registration and notification provisions…none of these cases considered retroactively applied residency, travel, or employment restrictions.”
“We are encouraged by today’s decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “While today’s decision does not mean that retroactive state laws regarding residency, travel, and employment will ultimately be determined to be punitive, it allows for that possibility.”
Another claim in the case is that Iowa sex offender laws restrict registrants from attending houses of worship in violation of both state and federal law. Specifically, state law prohibits registrants from attending a church that is also used as a school due to “the proximity of a school.” The Court found that the registrants properly challenged this state law and its substantial burden to the exercise of their religious beliefs.
In addition to overturning the trial court’s dismissal of the registrants’ two claims described above, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also decided that the trial court erred in its decision to dismiss registrants’ claims regarding the Eighth Amendment and double jeopardy. As a result of today’s decision, this case will return to the federal district court that dismissed it. A future decision by that court is not expected for at least 12 months.
This is great news. But boy is justice a slow snail. It’s amazing how the lives of tens of millions of people (I certainly consider family members to be part of the registry totals) don’t warrant expedience, but bullshit like all the frivolous election lawsuits are fast tracked to be done within a week.
And after all, why should smith v doe prevent them from finding it’s non punitive? You have to base your rulings on current information. Since 2003 was almost 18 years ago now, new facts have become widely disseminated to the public. That “frightening and high” statistic was a pure fabrication.
*Sorry, punitive.
You know, it would be nice if someone would at least post the name and case number of the particular case at hand.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/12/09/19-35391.pdf
Everyone – link to case.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/12/09/19-35391.pdf
What a huge win!!!
Great news for registrants in California and other states in the 9th Circuit. Let’s see if registrants in these states can capitalize on this victory.
You know maybe in a way this Pandemic that we all have been going thru let along the ordeal we are all under just may be a sign of better things to come. Course I don’t like to think as it overloads what brain matter I have or any of us for that matter.
Look at how justice is going. So where is truth in America? Sure whats punitive or punishment can be as upside down as a pound cake. Now authorities want to do whats right. From the common person’s standpoint much of this mask wearing is a bit of an overshadow. One can even look at this registry as someone leading one into temptation if you would like to use scripture but all in all much of this registry amounts to an angle type of mass incarceration weather incarcerated with prison time or probational time or lifetime registry compliances.
Its like battling dungons’ and dragon’s in this clockwork orange situation. And I don’t even know a thing about dungon’s and dragons’. I don’t even think they had that in the 50’s and 60’s when I was growing up but they did have gunsmoke.
I’m elated that finally, some court has ruled what I’ve been arguing for years – that every law making body in the country made Smith v. Doe obsolete when they wrote out every single characteristic in the opinion that led to the conclusion that it was non-punitive. It specifically said registrants could live, work, and go wherever they wanted, updating was by mail, and the registry itself was only available to those who wanted to see it. Within a year or so, residence, employment, and presence restrictions, in-person reporting (similar to arrests here in Georgia), and many sheriff’s departments and private organizations like OffenderWatch and Next Door cram it in everyone’s face. Every time a new law/rule came out, another legislature would adopt and expand it to be “tougher on crime than the other guy.” Most politicians nowadays are cowards, not willing to risk their seats with the inevitable bad PR even though they are fully aware of what the right thing to do is.
One of the biggest problems in registry abolishment is that judges are every bit as much politicians as legislators, particularly at the superior/criminal courts. Despite their lifetime appointments, even federal judges can’t escape the politics of the moment, particularly if they aspire to higher courts (and most of them do). While I’m grateful for the support, it’s still a little infuriating that many judges and prosecutors wait until after they retire to write op-eds and such calling the registry what it is – an enormous, unconstitutional waste of time, money, and the lives of those on it and their family members.
@NewPerson…Chief Justice Roberts was not on the Supreme Court in 2003 when Smith v. Doe was ruled on. I am not defending Roberts…he is such a disappointment as a justice of SCOTUS…I am just pointing out an historical fact. Peace me with all of you.
@Dustin…thank you for updating me on Smith v. Doe. I am always open to learning factual information that I did not previously know. I try to keep a teachable spirit. Thanks for teaching me today. Peace be with you all.
What about internet postings after the fact?
@TS. What is wisdom when scripture gives a true understanding. So does the wisdom of this world has many mixed review. So what is truth. Are we are all sinners or upperclassmen or rankng in human class, so is their is a clash or something ready to break in this I told you so saga ordeal in this offender inducement. A pastor I correspond with from time to time via the internet mentioned to me last time we shared about the presidency and he was for Trump and he told me why. I’m sure it was a suprise to many about Biden’s win or would that pastor say to some I told you so or I had a feeling. I don’t think thats smart wisdom. Its almost like a know it all or jack of all trades if you would like to call it. Why do you think the scriptures say let God be true…come on that makes more sense than any type of man made wisdom.
Sure being a preacher has its types of responsiblities in loving thy neighbor and yes understanding that we are all sinners. Remember Jesus came with grace and truth. Need I say more. In all or a lot of this registry ordeal is justice turned upon its back and a presumption type theory is made to reflect prediction or future error or errors in this current event. While we can somewhat understand a punitive type punishment but long term punishment is a bit much when authorities incite in much of this ordeal. Its just like the ole saying ” What a tangled web we weave when one first trys to deceive. So in many of these ordeals who is brusing one’s heel and who is playing the dragon in much of this registry scheme.