Source: nytimes.com 6/15/21
Judge Patrick L. Michot, of the 15th Judicial District Court in Lafayette, La., said the notation was “not the least restrictive way to further the state’s legitimate interest of notifying law enforcement.”
“It could be accomplished in the same way that some other states utilize,” he said. “Louisiana could use more discreet labels in the form of codes that are known to law enforcement.”
Of the nine states that call for some sort of disclosure of sex-offense status on state ID cards, Louisiana and four others require all people on the registry to have cards with a variation of the words “sex offender,” according to a brief filed by Mr. Hill’s lawyers. Others use codes or symbols recognizable to law enforcement officials.
The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with Judge Michot, relying on U.S. Supreme Court decisions forbidding the government to compel speech.
In 1977, for instance, the court ruled that New Hampshire could not require people to display plates bearing the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” saying that George Maynard, a Jehovah’s Witness, should not have been prosecuted for covering the motto with duct tape.
Whether the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, Louisiana v. Hill, No. 20-1587, may turn on whether the justices think the lower courts have disagreed on the central legal question it presents. In the most directly analogous case, a federal trial judge in Alabama in 2019 struck down a law very much like the one in Louisiana for essentially the same reasons.
On the other hand, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Federal District Court in Oakland, Calif., in 2016 rejected a challenge to a federal law requiring passports to identify people convicted of sex offenses involving minors.
Notations on passports are the government’s speech, Judge Hamilton wrote, and the government can generally say whatever it wants to. “It is not the speech of the passport holder that is at issue, any more than the speech of the holder of a government-issued identification card is at issue with regard to identifiers such as name, date of birth, height, weight or eye color,” she wrote.
More recently, in December, Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the Federal District Court in Macon, Ga., rejected a First Amendment challenge to a sheriff’s practice of putting signs in front of the homes of families if someone there is listed on the sex offense registry on Halloween.
The signs were not compelled speech, Judge Treadwell wrote, as nobody thinks “the resident agreed with the sign’s message: that trick-or-treating at their residence was dangerous.” He added that the residents could use their free speech rights “by posting competing messages.”
By contrast, he wrote, the Louisiana law “prohibiting alterations of a driver’s license made it practically impossible for the criminal defendant to disassociate from the message or disclaim the message without facing prosecution.”
“The signs were not compelled speech, Judge Treadwell wrote, as nobody thinks “the resident agreed with the sign’s message: that trick-or-treating at their residence was dangerous.” He added that the residents could use their free speech rights “by posting competing messages.”
Um…. I can choose not to get a drivers license or a passport to avoid the government sideways forcing something on me. I have zero choice about the Sheriff coming to my home and telling me I need to put this sign up or go to jail. Not sure what this judge considers compelled speech.
Okay, how about the resident choosing to post a competing message directly over the Sheriffs sign? Anything in the law that that can’t be done? The property is mine, unlike that license and passport, which is the governments property. I’m confused how the judge thinks this isn’t compelled speech. It feels like forcing something like this to a privately owned property would be no different than the same Sheriff saying were this sign around your neck, and this same judge saying, it’s cool because the registrant can just wear a competing sign.
It looks to me like judges are beginning to get fed up ( or nervous about successful appeals) and are beginning to push back against legislative over reach.
@SR – Good analogy….wear a competing sign around your neck. I will use that in a future lawsuit. Thank you.
“On the other hand, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Federal District Court in Oakland, Calif., in 2016 rejected a challenge to a federal law requiring passports to identify people convicted of sex offenses involving minors.”
Only 2 other countries have placed “special marks” into citizens’ passports. They were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Thank you, Judge Hamilton, for allowing the United States to join the ranks of those two fine nations. [sarcasm]
In case you missed it, that 2016 case heard by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, Federal District Court, Oakland, Calif. the article referenced – that was Janice & ACSOL. 😁👍🏻
Lame Judge. 😒
Good God, did you read the article? Registry Supporters/Terrorists (RS/Ts) are dumb, pathetic, and getting more desperate by the minute. This is from the article:
I seriously would love to meet the person who thought up that Halloween “argument”. That is so GD funny!! I really want to meet the kind of moron who thinks it was a good idea to write that down! I want to see if they can feed themselves using forks and such. Stuff like that.
The other example of babysitter isn’t a whole lot smarter. RS/Ts are really just dumb. Here is how that babysitter scenario would work out – the person would look at the license of a “good” person and not see “sex offender” … and then, WTF would that do for them?! Absolutely nothing. The person they hire could EASILY be 1,000 times more dangerous than any person with the scarlet letter. The person could’ve committed many more sex crimes, and more importantly, will commit many more in the future, starting with YOUR child. It’s just asinine.
Also, apparently all they care about is sex. Again. They want to keep away people who looked at some pictures but have zero concern at all about the person who actually drove drunk very recently and “accidentally” murdered a child THEY WERE BABYSITTING! Perhaps it was even their own child they murdered. There are a lot of those people around in reality. The list of other dangerous crimes and people is endless. Or are people really okay with babysitters who have only shot people with guns?
It’s all just dumb. When I had babysitters for my children, first of all, it was never a man. Secondly, my wife and I watched them like the damn CIA. Thirdly, my children knew how to not be molested. Lastly, I was a responsible parent who engaged with my children and would be told by them if anything odd were STARTING to occur.
Folks – big government is our enemy. RS/Ts are our enemies. They must be neutralized and they must either stop harassing families or suffer consequences.
I completed a 3 year SO treatment program after release from custody. It was drilled into us that the essential element necessary to reduce recidivism risk was being succesfully integrated into society. Having a job, a place to stay that you feel good about, having interactions and relationships with other people, these are the foundation of moving forward.
…and then we meet the justice department, which throws every possible obstacle before us to prevent you from successfully integrating. Having a nice job while you are on the registry? Having a relationship when you can’t stay over the other persons house without registering their address? Having friends when the LEA vilifies you at every waking moment? Renting an apartment when you are on a public hit list?
And I have to laugh when the article said that the drivers license could have code letters that only police officers know. Yeah, that would last about a week until CNN did an expose on that. The best thing these people could do is to let us move forward, let us leave the past behind and integrate into society. That is the verified method of reducing recidivism.
How far does this need to go? How often do people need to be reminded they did something wrong?
There are already registries in place, signs being placed in people’s yards during halloween, swat teams doing compliance checks, third party websites that mimic the registries, marked passports.
Now they want to mark driver licenses? How does this keep anyone safe? How does this notify a cop that a person is a registrant? Trust me, if you give your ID to a cop, you can bet your ass he’s going to run your name and it will show if you’re a registrant or not.
This has gone far enough. The government keeps pushing their hateful agenda on us in the name of safety. I don’t even want to get into the fact that registries keep no one safe.
If we don’t start taking a stand against these tyrants, you can guarantee that it won’t be long before we have to have the term “SEX OFFENDER” emblazoned on our license plates, mail boxes, t-shirts, and even our foreheads. ENOUGH is enough!!!
Its time we start dishing it back to them. Do some research on your local government officials and find some dirt on them. Did someone get busted for a DUI 20 years ago? Did someone beat their wife? Find ANYTHING and put that info out there just like they do to us. Make a huge issue out of it. Make them remember what they did years ago and embarrass the hell out of them. Post that info online on craigslist, Twitter, Facebook, reddit, everywhere.
Karma.
9 states in America have sex offender notifier’s on their state ID cards that’s scary as Hell if California did this I would definitely try and escape into Mexico.
Iv always wondered If a sex offender living in America notified his registering police station that he was legally moveing to Mexico could the feds still figure out away to charge him with FTR.
I’m over this whole sex offender registery BS [Edited by Moderators]
Because my birthday is 7 days before July 1st I can’t petition the courts for removal until next year another 12 months of this BS
Good luck 🥱
SCOTUS website listing of this action: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1587.html
I find it interesting there is a Brief by the other states which want this marker on DLs/IDs already posted: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1587/181642/20210614142547995_OK_LA_Amicus%20Doc%20Main%20E%20FILE%20Jun%2014%2021.pdf
Going to be some interesting conversations on this topic.