Wayne Logan: Card Carrying Sex Offenders

Source: Wayne A. Logan (Florida State University – College of Law) 3/22/22

Americans, it is commonly believed, have never been required to carry and show upon demand personal identification documents; the belief, however, is incorrect. Over time, select sub-populations have in fact been subject to such a requirement, including free-born and emancipated African-Americans until after the Civil War. This article examines the targeting of yet another disfavored sub-population: individuals convicted of sex offenses, who are required to register with government authorities.

Today, roughly a dozen states require that registrants obtain and carry identification cards or driver’s licenses signifying their status. Often, the branding is very overt, such as a stamp of “SEX OFFENDER” or “SEXUAL PREDATOR” in bight colored lettering. At other times, it is more subtle, such as use of a “U,” denoting that the individual is a “Sexual Deviant.” The federal
government also brands registrants, requiring that their passports display a “unique identifier” stamped in a “conspicuous location.” The passports must be shown to airport and customs officials, as well others when traveling abroad. With state laws, disclosure is even more pervasive: not only to police, upon demand, but also to myriad other individuals encountered in daily life,
such as bank tellers and store clerks.

Read the full overview and download the paper


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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’m sure this article will bring many comments as to this unique identifier type of branding of a human in this modern day understanding.

The courts rationale in saying that the government labeling Registrants as “Sexual Predators” on passports is constitutional because it is based on “factual” and not “ideological” speech – is like the Nazi Germany’s rationale in labeling Jews with giant stars on them during great Anti-Semitism – by getting around that pesky Constitution that protects what should be our sacred rights – and picking out key words to twist their meanings and render our rights meaningless.

What a bunch of malevolent a$$holes…

“Papers Please!”

From the paper, the court dismisses, IMO, the fact the passport does double as an ID (“just not used as one very much for the public to see”), is more than just a way to travel overseas, and is shown to the public if needed, e.g. overseas at hotel lobby counters, and in the USA when needed. Maybe the judges don’t travel overseas very much or at all, but should be aware of how it is used beyond just the immigration desk at the port in which someone is entering.

While there are other second IDs in the USA, the passport remains as one as well and should be free of the marker regardless if it is used as one or not. A limited amount of being shown is not justification for keeping the marker.

Good paper overall