Janice’s Journal: A Small, But Significant Victory

Marion County, Arkansas, posted signs on the front door of registrants last year identifying those individuals as people required to register as a sex offender.  The signs stayed in place not for one day, but for about two weeks – a week before Halloween, Halloween and then a week after Halloween.

This Halloween sign requirement was not a state law.  In fact, it was not a county law.  Instead, it was a decision by a county sheriff who printed signs with his name on it. 

Implementation of the Halloween sign requirement in Marion County was different than Halloween sign requirements in most locations.  In most locations, registrants were required to create a sign and then post it on their home.  In Marion County, however, the signs were created by the government and then posted by the government on the front door of people’s homes.

When a deputy sheriff arrived to post a Halloween sign on the front door of the plaintiff’s home, he objected to the sign and asserted that his First Amendment rights would be violated by that sign.  The deputy sheriff flippantly stated, if you don’t like the sign, then sue us.

Fortunately, that’s exactly what the plaintiff did.  He called ACSOL and asked that a lawsuit be filed challenging the Halloween sign requirement.

After the lawsuit was filed in federal court, the attorney representing the sheriff’s office argued to the judge that the posting of the Halloween sign was voluntary.  The judge’s reply is one to be remembered.  He asked if posting a sign is voluntary when the person posting it is wearing both a gun and a badge.

Shortly after that hearing, Marion County decided to settle the case.  In a written agreement, that county has stated they will no longer require registrants in Marion County to have a Halloween sign posted on their residence.

Given that there are only 65 registrants in Marion County, this is a small victory.  It is a significant victory, however, because there are other counties in Arkansas as well as cities in other states that require Halloween signs.  Those counties and cities now have a choice – stop requiring Halloween signs to be posted on the homes of registrants or be sued in federal court.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Janice, this will have an outsized impact on police who think they can be vigilantes. A solid step for justice!

Great work Janice and ACSOL! I hope ACSOL received attorney fees as part of the settlement.

The injustice of this situation is undeniable. A local Sheriff invents a law, then has his deputies enforce it. Then when confronted, claims this was voluntary? This man “Voluntarily” opened himself up to ridicule, harassment, and vigilantism of every kind? The Sheriffs act criminally, then try to claim that their victim agreed to their criminality?

Even the Sheriff’s excuse is criminal! Not only a lie, but criminally stupid! Maybe this will be noticed by others in the Judiciary? The State does whatever it wants, then can’t even be bothered to concoct a plausible lie about it?

No small victories! Every victory, on every issue, in every court, brings us one step closer to the ultimate victory, the elimination if this abomination!

Why the hell did the plaintiff agree to settle with this one? Screw that this sheriff is a crook.

PFR should have ripped them down and burned them, illegal for some LOSER to post a sign on your PERSONAL PROPERTY PLAIN and SIMPLE, its called TRESPASS and PIGS arent above the law !!

Love this! So glad that they reached out and the case was filed.

Fantastic! Thank you for helping them. I hope registrants in other counties are aware of this and simply refuse to comply. And if the cops push back, they can tell them the same thing these cops said: sue us!

Was there any civil monetary redress for the individual who challenged this and damages incurred?

In a situation like this, could the person take the sign down?

Shouldn’t there be a part of law enforcement officer training wherein they’re told, “Don’t ever say, ‘If you don’t like it, sue us.'”??
😆😆😆

if you dont like it you can sue us, typical igornant response by a hillbilly yet there is no signs moon shine made here, andy and barny of mayberry lives on.

AndyGriffith-DonKnotts-Phone

So I have to ask, if the state or local Municipality actually had a law that said the PFR had to post such a notice, doesn’t that make the posting compulsory? In this instance the state and county had no such laws requiring the posting of a notice. But if one lives in a jurisdiction that makes it obligatory, challenging the law by not doing what the statute says could be worse than challenging the statute prima facia in a federal district court. Constitutional challenging is better than failing to follow all registration requirements of a particular jurisdiction. That could mean jail or prison time for not complying.

Now those people need to go after $$$ in a civil lawsuit

The judge’s reply is one to be remembered. He asked if posting a sign is voluntary when the person posting it is wearing both a gun and a badge.

Epic line of reasoning right there…if only more rational judges would realize/acknowledge that’s what the entire registry scheme is: just one massive gun pointed straight at the head of every person forced to register (often for life), with a lot of self righteous knuckle draggers on the other side just looking for any excuse to pull the trigger.

I am so thankful to Janice and ACSOL that we don’t have to post any idiotic signs around here. I would never “voluntarily” promote anything that the government wants to say about me, unless there were a legitimate threat that they could actually enforce if I refused to do so.

This may be a small victory…but it sets a precedence that could be used for greater victories in the future, and every success in the courts is more “ammo” for our side to “fire back”.

Last edited 3 months ago by nameless

I remember when I was on probation, they made us go to the probation office and sit there for the whole evening.
The second time I had to do this, one of the POs showed up with a TV crew with no notice.
Some of the PFRs wound up with their faces on TV for the city to see.
Glad Janice is doing good for us.
She needs to come here to AZ and use Powell v. Keel to get rid of the lifetime registration

It is great that ACSOL forced these criminals to stop their crimes. But I hope ACSOL got paid very well for it. THAT is very needed, is it not? These criminal regimes need to feel serious pain. They need consequences. It is a damn shame that many of the criminals cannot be held individually liable. So many sheriffs are simply a**hole criminals.

Couldn’t the plaintiff and ACSOL sue for costs and punitive damages? Make the stupid MFers pay.

Grateful for the victory, but still aggravated that the Halloween sign battle has to be fought yet again when it should have been settled a couple of years ago.

I’m thinking in the next week or two I’m going to write to the editors of local newspapers and stations with a list of questions I’d like to see asked to the inevitable parade of public information officers trying to get fluff pieces published/aired about what great protectors of children they are this Halloween

Every victory is huge considering what we are up against. Great job.

Meanwhile, in Missouri…???

Assuming the Plaintiff was not currently on parole at the time, the Sheriff has violated not only Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights, but his Fourth Amendment rights and Due Process.

Sheriffs do not have the authority to institute their own laws or regulations for the public, even Registrants.

What I don’t understand is exactly what kept 65 Marion County registrants from ripping the signs down?

Show up at MY door and the first thing I’m asking is do you have a warrant? If not, get off my property. Want to post something? Show me the authoritative Statute or I’m ripping it down. Arrest me for tearing it down? Great, lose your qualified immunity and my law suit triples in size.

At any rate, great victory and kudos to the Plaintiff for standing up for himself.