NE: 8th Circuit says Nebraska’s sex offender list doesn’t apply to boy

Admin

The 8th Circuit Court has ruled in favor of a 15-year-old boy whose family sued the Nebraska State Patrol to keep him from being put on the state’s sex offender registry for a juvenile case in Minnesota. Full Article

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.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

On the footnote (dicta) of the court opinion, the opinion stated…We believe the applicationof SORA and its public notification requirement to juveniles
adjudicated delinquent in other jurisdictions but not in Nebraska raises serious
constitutional concerns under the rights to travel and to equal protection of the laws.
Of the events triggering application of SORA under NSP regulations–residency,
employment, carrying on a vocation, or attending school in Nebraska, 272 Neb.
Admin. Code ch. 19 § 003.02–it is highly likely a juvenile would be subject to SORA
due to residency. This raises troubling implications under the third prong of the right
to travel, arising from the Privileges and Immunities and the Privileges or Immunities
Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, see generally Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 502-04
(1999) (describing strict standard of review for state discrimination against newly
arrived citizens); Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986) (“A
state law implicates the right to travel. . .
http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/16-1898/16-1898-2017-07-31.pdf?ts=1501515048
This is a great ruling!

0
Reply

I can’t believe the State sued over this (well actually, sadly I can believe it). Regardless what the law said, it was clearly an Equal Protection violation. Anytime the phrase, “but for moving from another State,” can be applied, there’s almost assuredly an Equal Protection problem. Ex: “but for moving from MN, the juvenile would not have had to register.”

0
Reply

True True True!! YESSSSSSSS!!

0
Reply

Two days ago the Nebraska Legislature introduced a bill that harmonizes this Eighth Circuit decision ! Senator Carol Blood has sponsored bill LB-689 which says if a juvenile moves to Nebraska, even though they may be registered (or not) in the State they are coming from, they do NOT have to register here in Nebraska. In talking with Carol’s legislative aide, he said Carol was part of a group of judges, legislators, and others that met last fall to create this bill. He added that the group all agreed that the entire country is swinging away from registering juveniles.

0
Reply