Source: ACSOL
A federal district ruled yesterday that a state law in Alabama that restricts where registrants may live violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court’s ruling was made in a 162-page decision that carefully reviewed the language of that state law as well as its impact upon more than 20,000 individuals required to register.
According to the court, one part of the challenged residency restrictions adversely could affect the ability of registrants to attend church, participate in political events, visit family and access public libraries. Another part of the challenged restrictions could prohibit registrants from spending the night in a hospital emergency room or run in a marathon. The penalty for violating either part of the residency restrictions is a felony conviction.
The court issued a final judgment in this case declaring both parts of the residency restrictions to be unconstitutional. However, in an unusual move, the court delayed the effective date of its decision for about 90 days, until September 30. The stated reason for the delay was to allow the state legislature an opportunity to revise the laws applicable to registrants.
In addition to the state law regarding residency restrictions, the court also reviewed several additional state laws applicable to individuals required to register. Those laws included but were not limited to, a loitering prohibition, identification on drivers’ licenses and the dissemination of personal information on the Alabama Megan’s Law website. The court did not strike any of those state laws, but instead decided in favor of the government by upholding them as constitutional.
McGuire v. Marshall - Alabama federal - residency restrictions - May 2024
Alabama?
Boy, am I surprised.
It seems to me that justice delayed is, in fact, injustice. The court’s unusual move of delaying the ruling for 90 days is unjust! It is lopsided and crooked! Fair is fair. Truth is truth. Oppression is oppression! Shame SHAME on that judge who was literally forced to mete out justice but then demurred (in fact) by temporizing! Even justice goes forth crookedly!
FINALLY!!!! Maybe this will help folks in Florida since it is in the same federal court district?
It’s a start. I’m guessing the Alabama AG is preparing to appeal to the circuit court. I’d be more encouraged by a victory there. Trying very hard not to be pessimistic.
I was pleased to read the headline, and although I know it will be appealed and am nervous about that, it’s a positive step and this is how the process works.
However, it is discouraging that the same court ruled other laws including “loitering prohibition, identification on drivers’ licenses and the dissemination of personal information” are constitutional. I know they are arguing public safety, but “loitering” seems rife for subjective interpretation and presence restrictions do nothing for safety. The drivers license has to be shown at banks, grocery stores, to buy a car…seems like compelled speech to me. LE has all this info to “protect the public” so not sure why it needs to be on the DL.
Seems to me that the registry as a whole can be challenged on free speech grounds based on page 92 in this opinion, specifically stating “the government must demonstrate that the regulation will in fact prevent the anticipated harm in a direct and material way” and “the Court may not simply assume that the ordinance will always advance the asserted state interests…”
Disclosure of private information (address, employment, vehicles, email address, etc.) is certainly free speech. A person can opt out of the publication of such in the phone book. No DMV or LE agency would disclose the name and address of whoever registered a license plate to a private citizen who came in asking for it, for whatever reason. It follows that forced disclosure of such is compelled speech, particularly when used to publish government speech.
Nearly every court that has addressed the registry or its associated restrictions and obligations is guilty of merely presuming the registry advances state interest, and those that are not have always been overruled on appeal. The government simply cannot demonstrate that the registry prevents sex crime recidivism as assumed. In most cases, they don’t even try. Rather, they just rehash the conviction of the challenger at hand or complain of sex crime in general. Not surprising, considering that in nearly 30 years of the public registry cannot find one single case to show that the registry actually prevented a registrant from the commission of another sex crime (less registry violations, for the states that absurdly consider them sex crimes) or contributed something to the investigation of one that couldn’t otherwise be obtained.
On the contrary, there are plenty of examples where the registry when used as advertised provided absolutely nothing, even hindered, a criminal investigation. Notably and ironically, that is best shown by the unfortunate Dru Sjodin case, for whom the federal registry is named. Despite her assailant being a registrant, the registry was absolutely useless in that investigation. All local registrants were interrogated, and many arrested on hyper-technical registry violations. And in the end, the perpetrator was found through normal, routine investigation – traced through his car – also demonstrating that a federal registry would have been equally useless there had one been in effect at the time (unless the government chose to argue that all entrants on the federal registry would have been interrogated as well).
Further, even in the small handful of cases of registrant recidivism, I have yet to see where such arrests included a registry violation of some kind. And even if there are any, I would think it would strain credulity to claim that the sex crime would not have occurred had the accused reported whatever detail as required. In sum, the government would be very hard pressed to show how the registry and its associated restrictions are necessary to prevent sex crime recidivism when actual recidivist registrants were perfectly registry compliant at the time of the follow on offense.
How *** *** *** does Alabama of all states get this right, but Illinois can’t?
I always read through the whole opinions on these things. Seems like courts are becoming more skeptical as to the registry as a whole and that it doesn’t meat the ‘frightening and high’ believe given by SCOTUS in Smith. Here’s a real notable point made by this court here.
“none of Defendants’ evidence shows (1) that most sex offenders are likely to recidivate; (2) that any type of residency restriction actually reduces recidivism; (3) that all offenders should be treated as posing the same risk when they are returned to society; (4) that sex offenders’ risk levels are the same across their lives; and (5) that there are not more reliable methods of evaluating risk to the public than using a conviction alone.
That is, the evidence does not support the lifetime nature of the provisions in this case, or that they apply to massive categories of offenders, or that qualifying offenders are perpetually withheld any possibility of recourse, regardless of the circumstances pre- or post-conviction. “
This is progress. Even just having it looked at is progress. It gives me hope.
You know you’re outta control when you’re too extreme for Alabama.
The question I have is, why do the feds implement the mandate of States having a registry then leave it up to each State to implement countless rules that are clearly punishment with violations thereof equal to felonies and more prison? Why aren’t we pushing the government itself to either eliminate the entire thing or make standards nationwide to reign in States like Florida that clearly abuse the entire thing for their own gain? Why?
I think the most important take away here is that we have Judges who are acknowledging that these laws are unconstitutional. Even if they still aren’t brave enought to say the whole system is.
I don’t have a pacer account but it seems he is appealing the decision
McGuire et al v Marshall et al
so maybe with this plaintiff having the right credentials, checking several boxes, the items they denied in this decision “identification on drivers’ licenses and the dissemination of personal information on the Alabama Megan’s Law website” might still be in play if he doesn’t have to wait 7 years again for a decision.