The state is justified in tracking residencies and online identities of convicted child sex offenders, the court ruled
A federal judge shot down a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s sex offender registration laws, ruling that the state is justified in tracking the residencies and online identities of people convicted of crimes against children.
“It is plain that Arizona has a significant governmental interest in protecting children and preventing sex offender recidivism,” Judge Stephen McNamee wrote in a Nov. 6 order.
Two years ago, a man convicted of sexual conduct with a minor in 2016 filed a lawsuit against multiple sex offender registration statutes, arguing that they violate his free speech and due process rights. The man, who was granted anonymity by the court due to his fear of receiving threats of violence, is referred to as John Doe. He sought to nullify laws that require him to register as a sex offender for life, report any online identifiers he uses and register his residency every time he stays in a new county for three days or more.
Online identifier reporting requirement
Under Arizona law, a person convicted of a crime against a minor must present themselves to the sheriff’s department of the county they live in to be fingerprinted and registered as a sex offender. During that time, they must also share every name they’re known by, the car they drive, if they have legal custody of a child, their address and any online identifier they use, along with every website that identifier is used on.
Doe claimed that requiring him to share his online usernames and activity is tantamount to infringing on his freedom of speech, and said that he worried it could be used to expose his identity to the public. But McNamee rebutted that Arizona law doesn’t allow for the public disclosure of any personal information tied to the …
Another judge who slept through law school.
Reading this makes me sad today. A federal judge with no independent thought or rational thinking. I expected more out of our court system. It feels hopeless.
Corrupt judge – can not admit the truth of constitutional rights violations.
Does this ruling overturn Doe V Harris from 2014? How will this affect us over here in California?
But McNamee noted that Arizona’s lifetime registration requirement is triggered by a conviction, making any hearing centered around whether Doe should have to register … for life moot because he already had his day in court. His conviction was a necessary precursor to his lifetime registration.
Oh really? What about those of us who “had our day in court,” and accepted our plea and conviction because — at the time — our registration info was not shared publicly and we were eligible to request a certificate of rehabilitation? CA PC (288.2 (a)(2) All snatched away, 25 years (!) later?
I kinda think I need another day in court. Maybe this judge helped our case?
Protecting children from recidivism. Recidivism is miniscule and has been proven to be for decades, also proven is the registry does not protect children.
Just another fear-mongering, peonage-promoting judge, inciting violence on Americans to help lower the population of citizens through this well-crafted murder plot against the people of America.
Of course, for the states’ significant governmental interest in protecting children and preventing recidivism, while he ignores the science that has proven the registry does the opposite and worse!
His public opinion proves him to be a liar and a fraud who endangers the lives of children and many others by placing their addresses on a public hitlist, exposing them to the government-incited hate crimes against all those who live there.
Where is his concern for the children suffering under this plot? Is their safety less important than that of other children?
A real American judge would never allow the safety of some Americans to be unwillingly sacrificed for the alleged safety of others.
Especially when science has proved that it has the opposite effect!
An obvious participant in the weaponization of the judiciary against Americans.
I don’t recall the case, but there is a USSC precedent that holds that any given law being challenged on constitutional grounds has to show that it actually does what it purports to do before addressing the constitutional question. I would think the reasoning is that if the law doesn’t work as intended, then the constitutional challenge should prevail.
I really wish I remembered where I read that. This is the argument that should be used in registry challenges. That is where it can be shown that the registry has not affected sex crime commission or recidivism, that the “civil” obligations and restrictions attached to it serve no purpose, and that even in the few and far between instances of registrants committing another sex crime, the registrant was always perfectly registry compliant.
It wasn’t until I read this article that I heard that Arizona requires its registrants to report their school-ages children and what school they attend. I’d really like to know the reasoning and purpose for that.
On the off chance I might sound selfish (which I really don’t intend to do), what does this mean for those on the registry whose offense did not involve children at all?
He should also have used Powell v. Keel from South Carolina to challenge the registry. I am going to be writing a petition to try and get off here in Arizona based on that
Just another peonage-enabling judge, promoting fear mongering, to incite the violence through this well-crafted murder plot against Americans who had been convicted of certain offenses.
Of course, for the states’ significant governmental interest in protecting children and preventing recidivism, while he ignores the science that proves the registry does the opposite and worse to children and everyone else!
His public opinion proves him to be a liar and a fraud who endangers the lives of children and many others by placing their addresses on a public hitlist, exposing them to the government-incited hate crimes against all those who live there.
Where is his concern for the children suffering under this plot? Is their safety less important than other children?
A real American judge would never allow the safety of some Americans to be unwillingly sacrificed for the alleged safety of others.
Especially when science has proved that it has the opposite effect!
An obvious participant in the weaponization of the judiciary against Americans.
They decided to protect the JOBS and related machinations of this boondoggle, not the constitution.