Indiana argued before the full Seventh Circuit on Thursday that state law does not place unfair registration requirements on sex offenders moving to the Hoosier State.
At issue is a provision of the Indiana Sex Offender Registry Act requiring people convicted of sex offenses who relocate to Indiana to register as sex offenders, even if the crime was committed before the law was passed. The plaintiffs are challenging its retroactive application.
The requirement creates a situation where an Indiana resident who was not required register as a sex offender would have to register if they moved out of state and then chose to move back because they had a past conviction.
In January, a split three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling that upheld a lower court ruling and found that the registry requirement is unconstitutional because it creates two classes of citizens upon which it imposes a different set of rules.
“The other jurisdiction requirement of Indiana’s SORA imposes a duty to register and its attendant burdens upon a relocating citizen that it would not impose upon a lifelong Indiana resident. The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits this differential treatment,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner, a George H.W. Bush appointee, who authored the majority’s opinion.
However, the state disagreed with the split panel’s decision and asked for the case to be heard in front of the en banc Seventh Circuit.
The duty to register by providing the eclectic mass of data demanded by state is plain indentured servitude to state property. Free men are paid wages to maintain property.
That is the difference between having a database versus the plain human life enslavement to the upkeep of same. Pretending the original intent of this plain indenture to the property lacked animus even in the face of plain identified ex post language in state statute is a case of an disingenuous intellectual blindness for the sake of court popularity. NO ONE but tyrants benefits from ignoring constitutional right on a mass scale. Yet, it happened! All of course wrought from the unique advantages of the database and the commoditization of personal information data.
IMO the Rehnquist court’s references to “procedural due process” as a ” bootless exercise” CONNECTICUT DPS03 was an obvious abandonment of the court’s duty hard won via Marbury v. Madison. Nevertheless, those words are in published opinion and reflects the court’s lack of faith in the criminal process itself. Similar to the innocent man who pleads guilty to a crime he did not commit, because the trial process for him too was perceived a bootless exercise.
Interstate and international travel in the sex offenders context illiterates nicely how misuse of the database infrastructure in question both overrs jurisdictional concerns and simultaneously imparting affirmative restraint to procedural process where all sides (parties) are represented. The basis for the 9-0 DPS decision was the fact state had obtained standard civil waiver from all of the plaintiffs. Those cases also contemplated only the singular state question and context. The multi and bistate transactions necessarily requires comparing individual state laws to one another and thereby reasonable need for a defense attorney for a balanced check on the administrative power.
All these different states’ Registration laws are so f’ked up! They’re the delirium dreams of loser lawmakers.
“Well, your honors, if they were to move back to Buttscratch, Indiana on a Tuesday or Thursday, they’d be required to register because both days begin with the letter ‘T’. Whereas, had they moved to the next town over, Dogbreath, on a Saturday or Sunday – days which both begin with an ‘S’, then clearly no registration would be required. Unless, they had the middle name ‘Wilbur’ or ‘Winston’. In which case, registration is again required. Clear as day, you honors!” 🙄
It’s the endless proliferation of legal landmines, regulatory “gotchas” intended to keep one constantly unsure, constantly restrained for fear of a false footfall or inadvertent omission.