MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WBRC) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a provision of Alabama’s sex offender law is unconstitutional as applied to a Tuscaloosa County father, deciding the state cannot permanently bar him from living with his young son.
In a 30-page opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (ASORCNA) fails strict constitutional scrutiny because it enforces a mandatory, lifetime ban on parents living with their children without offering any case-by-case review.
Under the 2011 state statute, any person convicted of a sex offense involving a child is permanently prohibited from residing or conducting an overnight visit with a minor, even their own biological children, regardless of whether the original offense involved a family member or shared household. Alabama law provides no mechanism or hearing for an offender to seek an exception.
The plaintiff, Bruce Henry, pleaded guilty in 2013 to federal charges of possessing child pornography after investigators found downloaded images and videos on his computer. Henry had no prior sexual offense history, served five years in federal prison, and completed supervised release along with required sex-offender treatment.
Following his release, Henry married and had a son. Because of Alabama’s residency restrictions, Henry was legally barred from living under the same roof as his wife and child, prompting him to file a federal lawsuit against the Tuscaloosa County Sheriff, the Tuscaloosa County District Attorney, and the Alabama Attorney General.
In their writing, the court recognized that while Alabama holds a compelling interest in protecting minors from sexual abuse, the state’s absolute, lifetime residency ban is unconstitutionally broad. The court noted that multiple psychological evaluations categorized Henry as posing a very low risk of recidivism and that state authorities offered no individualized evidence that Henry posed a danger to his son.
“Because the Act permanently and categorically strips …
11th CCOA Opinion on Bruce Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, et al
I’m willing to bet in almost every case, the state wouldn’t be able to provide evidence of a future threat. The handful of times it has come up, all they ever do is rehash the original offense. Sadly, that’s often enough in most state courts.
Why doesn’t Alabama worry about more important issues rather than if a minor lives with their parent? Was his fathers crime against him? No, his crime involved the internet and doesn’t mean he’ll commit a hands on crime. Stop using voodoo science and start using common sense. States should stop thinking everything needs to be done in the best interest of protecting minors from sexual abuse when it should be the parent’s job. Alabama you have an interest in protecting your citizens from Flock cameras, from potholes the size of the grand canyon, bring jobs to Alabama, and improving the lives of those who call Alabama home.