The panel of seven Commonwealth Court judges also found, however, that requiring sex offenders to reveal their email addresses and other online aliases is not a violation of the First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Full Article
Decision: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/214MD13_10-14-14.pdf
Disappointing.
In an opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer rejected Coppolino’s claims with regard to a majority of the new registration requirements, including mandates to appear in person to register four times a year and to provide extensive personal information, palm prints and DNA samples, plus advance notice of international travel.
Jubelirer wrote that each of those requirements is related to public safety and not intended as a punishment.
The headline is insidiously lacking in details. In fact, MOST of the challengers to the registry were REJECTED, including many of the more restrictive aspects such as mandates to appear in person to register four times a year and to provide extensive personal information, palm prints and DNA samples, plus advance notice of international travel.
Indeed, with countries routinely rejecting RSO’s, advance notice of international travel is NOT a “community safety (hence regulatory) function of the registry), but an outright ban on travel which restricts movement. In addition, email addresses and user ID’s for Internet were ruled regulatory.
The only thing that was ruled as “unfairly punishing” was the requirement to immediately register their cars and tempoary residences (including motels and weekend trips to grandma’s house), which in many cases would be impossible. But the vast majority of his challenge was denied.
Bad court decision, and this leads me to believe the attorney was very ineffectual. It seems that we need to require any lawyer who plans to defend a sex offender (or challange as a plaintiff) to work with Janice Bellucci for a month.
What a convoluted, train wreck the registry is. Built upon the foundation of the “public safety” lie, they continue to circle the wagon and defend it with reckless vigor citing we have to “err on the side of safety.” Pathetic and predictable.
I am a PA registrant…I find it so hard to believe that in person registration was not considered a punishment. When I register I am at the barracks for at least an hour. If you are job hunting and filling out online applications you’re forced to create logins for each company. If you apply for one job a day for 3 weeks you could be there everyday for an hour just to update Internet identifiers. You would spend less cumulative time in the station for a DUI or disorderly conduct. I spend less effort looking for a job than than I want to simply because I don’t have the free time available to spend hanging out at the state police barracks.
I mentioned this in a different area , General Comments, but it belongs here.
The Pennsylvania court found reporting internet e-mail/idenitifers as not stopping free speech since the information is not made public ( yet ). Even if the information is not made ‘public’, and not addressing Facebook having their own police force who could theoretically get the information on registrants internet identifiers, the very police force that received the registrant internet identifiers would likely be the subject of the speech by the registrant. Of course, this would stop the free speech of the registrant. Or even if the registrant was not speaking on sex offender topics, what if the registrant was discussing police abuse like that allegedly happened in Ferguson, Missouri or discussing police abuse in general or if the registrant was doing any kind of whistleblowing? The registrant would stop their internet speech altogether.
After speaking briefly with a PA lawyer that has taken a special interest in the application of SORNA in PA, it sounds like it’s not all bad news:
“…you are correct that the Commonwealth Court in Coppolino found that Section 9799.15(e)(3), which requires registrants to appear quarterly, rather than annually is not punitive, and therefore can be applied retroactively.
They did find to be punitive, however, the requirement of Section 9799.15(g) that a registrant must update changes in his registration information, including temporary lodging, cell phone number, and information relating to motor vehicles owned or operated, ***in person*** at a registration site within three business days.
The component of the Section that “tipped the scale” was the “in person” requirement. The Court ordered the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police to not require Coppolino to “appear in person at an approved registration site”. It is my understanding that until lawmakers amend the language of this section, relief could only be sought by calling the PSP and referring to this case, or by filing a motion in court based upon this case. Remember, this decision applies ONLY to those who were retroactively subjected to this Section of Megan’s Law IV.”
‘Is there anything more ridiculous’
en.wikipedia.ord/wiki/Mark_Foley
If you have any doubt still about the motives/mindset of those who create these cruel and unusual laws, look no furthur than the author of SORNA. Mark Foley was not convicted of any sex crime, which seems typical of anyone who furthurs these cruel and unusual laws such as Chief SORNA propagandist man-girl lover John Walsh, or Lunsfords son, where there was substantial evidence of their own sex crime guilt. John Walsh amnitted it. Deflecting their guilt by making themselves the creators of harsh laws, which they should be subject to. Find the section in wikipedia that states Mark Foley authored SORNA. It’s not clear if Mark Foley authored parts of it or all of it, in his wikipedia entry. Does anyone know if he authored all of it?