NARSOL, NC suit given okay to move forward

By Sandy . . . On July 31, a district court in North Carolina ruled that a suit brought against the state, a suit challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of North Carolina’s sexual offense registry, may proceed. In denying the state’s motion to dismiss, the court found that the action is based on a plausible constitutional claim.

Filed by NARSOL and by NCRSOL on  behalf of “John Doe,” the suit alleges that changes in the law, as applied to Doe, constitute an ex post facto violation in regard to five amendments that affect only those with sexual crimes convictions.

You may read the decision here.

8 thoughts on “NARSOL, NC suit given okay to move forward

  • Avatar
    February 21, 2020 at 3:39 pm
    Permalink

    What is the next date for Narsol vs Stein case 1:17CV53? When does this Ex Post Facto finally win? This is so unconstitutional on so many grounds. I’m still baffled to be dealing with this.

    I was sentenced (pled) to be a youthful offender in 1997 prior to there being such a thing as a SO. Then in 2007 in FL all this started and now affects my wife and 3 daughters more than myself. Luckily I am very strong and have managed a very good life but enough is enough….

    Reply
    • Robin Vander Wall
      February 21, 2020 at 8:40 pm
      Permalink

      On October 23, 2019, federal Magistrate Judge Joel Webster presided over a Pre-trial conference to establish deadlines for Discovery and Dispositive motions. Deadline for Discovery is May 1, 2020. Deadline for Dispositive Motions is June 1, 2020. The matter will be set for trial therafter. We are presently compiling our Discovery evidence.

      Reply
  • Avatar
    October 3, 2019 at 8:21 pm
    Permalink

    Is there an update on the class action lawsuit against NC 300 foot rule? I have been told I cannot attend my church because there are children in the same building as the sanctuary. Is there nothing I can do about attending my church?

    Reply
    • Dwayne Daughtry
      October 3, 2019 at 8:56 pm
      Permalink

      Did the sheriff of your county tell you that you could not attend church?

      Reply
      • Avatar
        November 20, 2019 at 4:58 pm
        Permalink

        I was told that I could not attend the church that I was currently going to because it was right next door to another church that had a state licensed daycare facility operating Monday through Friday in it. I was told that that would be my only warning and if I so chose to disobey any more of the current or future laws against sexual offenders I would be come after and prosecuted for as many felonies as they could hit me with.

        Reply
      • Avatar
        November 26, 2019 at 9:49 pm
        Permalink

        The sheriff deputy that has responsibility for SOR’s sighted the 300 foot rule if children were in the same building as the sanctuary.

        Reply
        • Avatar
          November 27, 2019 at 9:21 am
          Permalink

          I would think that that is an unenforceable rule. The reason I say that is because what about the grocery store, or any place of business. Parents bring their kids with them just about everywhere they go. Just about everywhere anybody goes inside of any building there is going to be children, so how can they say you can’t be within 300 feet inside of a building with kids? I’m no lawyer but that’s my two cents.

          Reply
  • Avatar
    August 2, 2019 at 10:15 am
    Permalink

    Judge Biggs decis was concise on state’s motion to dismiss. Other interested parties in other jurisdictions must have this ruling on hand when considering other challenges to the constitutionality of the SOR regime. No doubt other AGs will use similar causation and doctrine to achieve dismissals. This ruling provides a road map for confronting those arguments directly. I’m in the 2nd federal district and we’ve yet to have similar challenges arise, and succeed. State v Ramesch, had a federal judge in Madison WI declaring the ” registration fee” unconstitutional as applied to a man now living in florida. The 2nd disagreed with his retributive decis on the ex post fees legality.
    Congratulations to NC registrants, Paul D & Robin V.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *