NY: Convicted sex offender suing SLC, state over registry

Source: wwnytv.com 12/19/23

CANTON, New York (WWNY) – New York state’s sex offender registry is being challenged in court by a former Boy Scout leader. Because that man was convicted in St. Lawrence County, the county finds itself a defendant in a case that could have serious ramifications.

Former Boy Scout assistant scoutmaster Michael Kelsey is suing New York state and St. Lawrence County, saying the state’s sex offender registry violates his rights.

“He’s challenging the constitutionality of the Sex Offenders Registry Act itself, indicating that the act as constructed deprived individuals of constitutional rights,” said St. Lawrence County Attorney Stephen Button.

Read the full article


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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

did you notice the last sentance of the article ? they are trying to silence him, its typical for parole to make up shit just to put someone in JAIL on a so called violatioin…. its called retaliation ! EVIL EVIL US GOVERNMENT !!!!

Best of luck to this guy, though I agree with KM that he was likely jailed specifically to prevent him from litigating this case. Or at the very least to force him to litigate it wearing a jail jumpsuit.

”The state thinks he’s of moderate risk of reoffense.” Is the state allowed to lie? A statement like this tells citizens “This man is of far higher risk of reoffense than not only Level 1 offenders, but all the convicted felons out there who are not on a registry,” and we know that’s not only untrue, it’s not based on even specious evidence. The state would deny this is what they are saying, but if we ran a scientific survey we’d likely find most citizens interpret it precisely this way, and that should mean something. Has anyone tried a defamation suit? I think a few scientific surveys (private survey companies could be hired, or academics if they’re so inclined) to establish this would be solid evidence (and while we’re at it, why not also establish that the registry is considered severe punishment by most Americans).

I think the reporting should’ve mentioned that he is a former lawyer, so he hopefully he is well reversed in constitutional law and maybe we have a new lawyer in our corner. https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/local/2017/02/23/michael-kelseys-name-removed-roll-attorneys-counselors–law/98300748/

Why is it always someone Hollywood would make a movie about and not someone who peed in public or some other lesser offense that brings these lawsuits? Whatever you think of the registry, politically, they’re a popularity contest. And these types of plaintiffs seem like a detriment to the overall cause.

I’m curious what novel approach he has in mind.

If anyone is interested in keeping track of this case here is the pacer info Kelsey v. Sherman et al