During general elections, it is not uncommon for politicians to seek impactful campaign strategies. Often, this involves employing fear-based tactics and proposing sometimes unnecessary and constitutionally questionable measures. A frequent target of such a strategy is the issue of sex offenders within the system. Despite the lack of empirical evidence supporting these measures’ efficacy, instilling fear remains a prevalent political tool. One typical manifestation of this approach is the proposal of additional, yet arguably ineffective, restrictions to the sex offender registry.

The practice of political mudslinging is a well-known aspect of election campaigns, typically involving exchanges between politicians. However, the trend of using ordinary citizens, primarily registrants, as targets in these political skirmishes is drawing criticism. Such tactics are being called out not only for their poor taste but also for their disregard for the principles of decency and respect towards voters. This shift in political strategy raises questions about the ethical boundaries of election campaigning and the respect owed to the electorate.

In North Carolina, like many other states across the country, individuals listed on the public sex offender registry are prohibited from entering school premises. This policy faces a unique challenge during states of emergency, such as severe ice storms or hurricanes, when schools are often converted into temporary shelters for the general public. In these situations, those on the registry are excluded from these emergency shelters, highlighting a critical gap in the state’s emergency response plan.

For almost ten years, civil rights groups have been advocating for a change in North Carolina’s legislation, urging the General Assembly to incorporate a provision that would temporarily lift the ban on individuals listed on the sex offender registry from accessing emergency shelters until a state of emergency is lifted. Despite these efforts, as the state braces for another season of freezing temperatures, the legislature has yet to address this issue. This inaction raises concerns about the potential harm to those registrants and their families who are denied access to emergency shelters, especially those not under active probation or parole. Critics argue that this situation underscores a fundamental flaw in the state’s emergency management strategy, highlighting the use of the registry as an extension of punishment rather than a means of reintegrating individuals back into society by allowing reasonable accesses to safe places during states of emergency.

As the debate continues over the exclusion of individuals on the sex offender registry from emergency shelters in North Carolina, a pressing question emerges: How many citizens must face potentially life-threatening risks or death before the legislative and executive branches of government take decisive action? After a decade of inaction by lawmakers on this issue, concerns are growing that the foundational principle of ‘all men are created equal’ is not being upheld in practice. This situation highlights a critical disparity in how those in power regard the rights and safety of all citizens.

As the election season approaches, the spotlight turns to the importance of electing lawmakers who truly represent the moral duty owed to the citizenry. With a focus on adherence to constitutional principles, particularly those prohibiting ex post facto laws and ensuring equality and rights for all persons, voters are faced with a crucial decision. This year, the challenge is to assess whether the status quo remains satisfactory or whether it is time to seek out leaders committed to treating all citizens with dignity. This includes reevaluating and potentially dialing back the sex offender registry laws, which some critics liken to Jim Crow-style policies and view as products of fear-driven, knee-jerk reactions.

The call to bring an end to the national sex offender registry, along with its associated extended punishments, complex premises restrictions, and other supplementary limitations, is gaining momentum. Critics of the system argue that the existing measures of probation and parole should suffice in addressing concerns related to sex offenses. They contend that the current registry system, often described as a ‘social experiment,’ has become overly punitive and fails to balance public safety with rehabilitation effectively.

“Homelessness was one of the main reasons I ran for office,” said then-vice mayor Ben Sorensen, who led the proceedings. “If we all pitch in and support each other and support some of the least of these, we can do amazing, amazing things.” The city recognized 18 organizations for their work with the unhoused and tweeted out a happy photo of the group.

But Sorensen didn’t mention that the city’s own rules are, in part, driving up homelessness. An ordinance forbidding most people on the state’s sexual offense registry from living within 1,400 feet of schools, daycares, parks, or playgrounds puts all but 1 percent of residences off limits to those on the offense registry and forces hundreds to live on the streets. Today, a sample of the city’s unhoused people on the state registry shows that a majority camp on a commercial strip on a major highway in north Fort Lauderdale.

Sorenson also did not acknowledge that the Florida Action Committee (FAC), a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of people placed on sexual offense registries, had, for months, been asking city and county leaders for a plan to house registrants. In the days after the Nov. 1 meeting, FAC escalated its actions. On Nov. 14, the group petitioned the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, alleging that the U.S. public sex offender registry contravenes provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The declaration bans “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The group asked the UN to investigate and attached a change.org petition that’s been signed by almost 4,500 people.

“The act of placing human beings on a public shaming list for life and subjecting them to the crippling and dehumanizing consequences, when that list has been proven through empirical research to be ineffective at preventing recidivism or reducing sexual offending, is cruel and degrading,” the group wrote to the UN.

If the UN determines the complaint is admissible, it will be sent to the U.S. government for a response and could eventually be referred to the UN’s Human Rights Council for further action. As yet, FAC has heard nothing back from the UN, Gail Colletta, the group’s president, told The Appeal.

Continue reading in The Appeal

Critics say civil commitment laws are fundamentally unfair and violate the constitutional prohibition against punishing someone twice for the same crime. Supporters counter that the laws protect society from repeat offenders who are unable to control their behavior.

Sen. Joe Morrissey and Del. Patrick Hope, both Democrats, are co-sponsoring legislation that would end the state’s authority to civilly commit sex offenders.

“It is as archaic and as Neanderthal a process as I can imagine,” said Morrissey, a defense attorney and lead patron of the bill that would repeal 1999’s Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act.

“We don’t sentence people because of what they might do,” he said. “That’s abhorrent to everything that our democracy and our criminal justice system believes in.”

Twenty states and the federal government now have civil commitment laws, which have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the rest of the article at abcnews.go.com

At issue in this case are a variety of grievances presented by the complainants about the N.C. Sex Offender Registry and the prohibitions and restrictions that flowfrom them. Chief among them is that the registry laws are punitive and violate the federal constitution’s prohibition against the ex post facto effect of civil regulatory schemes that are burdensome and deprive citizens of liberty interests in accordance with an analysis first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) and applied by that Court in the seminal registry case of Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).

The lawsuit also seeks a judgment declaring that N.C.G.S. §§ 14-208.18 (a)(2) and (a)(3) (premises statute) are facially overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by unconstitutionally burdening plaintiffs’ freedom of association and exercise of religion, and that section (a)(3) of the same statute is void for vagueness in failing to provide a reasonable person enough understanding about precisely what physical spaces he is restricted from accessing.

The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment holding all of Article 27A (“the registry law”) unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis that the myriad laws burden plaintiffs’ fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, their right to pursue the common occupations of life, and their right to acquire useful knowledge.

Additional claims for relief are advanced in the original complaint that is 88 pages long and contains 657 paragraphs, a fact the state’s attorney has been keen to emphasize in its Motion for Dismissal. Among other reasons the state seeks dismissal is that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. The state also moves for dismissal on grounds that the named defendants are not proper parties to the action in accordance with Rule 12(b)(1),(2), and/or (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For additional insight into the written arguments proffered by opposing parties, please see the plaintiffs’ Response to the state’s Memorandum in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and the state’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response.

For those of us who were in the courtroom, we could not have been more pleased with the performance of our attorney during two hours of oral argument which was divided into three phases organized in view of Judge Loretta Biggs’ assessment of the subject matter. Several members of NARSOL and NCRSOL were in attendance and sat directly behind Mr. Dubbeling who occasionally utilized our presence as a rhetorical device. Aside from its attorney, there was nobody at the hearing in support of the state.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Biggs thanked the counselors and assured each of them that she would make a decision in the forthcoming weeks, which we anticipate will be anywhere from one to six months. Because neither of the parties have moved for summary judgment, Judge Biggs is restricted to ruling on the state’s Motion to Dismiss, alone. The standard of review for the Court is to assume that all factual allegations contained in the complaint are true and to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.

Whatever the outcome of the case in federal district court, it’s important for everyone to understand that this case is headed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, which, by de novo standard (Latin term meaning “as if from the start”), is entitled to review all aspects of the complaint irrespective of the outcome before Judge Biggs.

This year’s conference theme is The Road to Independence | Reclaiming FULL liberties and NARSOL is excited to present an impressive list of featured speakers who are looking forward to meeting you there. Among the featured speakers is NARSOL’s very own attorney, Paul Dubbeling, who is returning for his second conference presentation. We’re also very enthused to be hosting attorney and documentarian David Feige (renowned for his award winning work Untouchable and the producer of several micro-documentaries about registered citizens). Another exciting feature presentation will include a mock hearing in front of Ohio state senators John Eklund (R) and Mike Skindell (D), former Ohio attorney general Marc Dann, and Connie Nolder, a legislative consultant. The featured speakers list is rounded out by Atty. Jeff Gamso and Atty. Lea Bickerton, both of whom have been actively involved in litigation efforts on behalf of registered citizens.

Full price for the conference is $199. But if you register before May 1st, you can take advantage of the early bird registration discount of $20. NARSOL members also receive an additional rebate of $50 off the full price of registration. Registration for the entire weekend includes NARSOL’s awards banquet and meal which is scheduled for Friday night. So, if you’re a member of NARSOL and you register before May 1st, the total cost of the conference is only $129! Not a member? Join today!

For more detailed information about the conference, please visit the conference website or view the conference brochure which we encourage you to print and distribute or send as an attachment to anyone you believe may be interested in attending the conference.

You do not want to miss this conference! So be there. Register today! Help NARSOL rock Cleveland on The Road to Independence!

The new law bans offenders whose victims were under 18, or anyone legally deemed a threat to children, from many places kids may gather. It replaces a previous law a judge deemed too vague in 2009.

Haywood County leaders say the new law lays out specific places sex offenders can’t go.

“It would prevent people who are registered sex offenders from going into libraries, from going to schools, from going to the fairgrounds when the fair is on,” County Manager Ira Dove said.

“I think it’s good. They need to stay away,” parent Amber Williams said.

“I think once you’ve committed a crime against children, there’s no going back,” parent Heather Russell said.
The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old girl from Gastonia, who was killed by a sex offender after she moved to Florida in 2005.

The new law also bars sex offenders from going within 300 feet of places like shopping centers or other public places used mainly for the care or supervision of minors.

Not everyone thinks the law is fair. The North Carolina president of “Reform Sex Offender Laws” said it’s overly restrictive, narrowly interprets “sex offender,” and calls the restrictions “unconstitutional deprivations of liberty.”

“There must be some scrutiny, some level of scrutiny that protects people who are no longer under any court order, who are no longer serving any kind of time,” Robin Vanderwall, President of the North Carolina chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws, said.
“I understand it in that perspective. But, I still don’t think…I mean…doing better or not…they still did what they did,” Russell said.

Opponents of the law plan to fight it.

“Our essential hope, legally speaking, is to finally put the state up against the wall when it comes to the presumption of dangerousness,” Vanderwall said.

Parents remain resolved.

“No kid needs to be around that. It’s awful. It is,” Williams said.

Please see full news video on WLOS News ABC 13

Last last month, two state senators in New York—Jeffrey Klein and Diane Savino—issued a report laying out an apparently scary set of numbers. In New York City, Pokémon from Pokémon Go were spotted in front of the homes of 57 people on the state sex registry. Fifty-nine Poké gyms or Pokéstops and 73 other Pokémon items were within a half-block of a registrant’s residence.

To be clear, there have been no reports of Pokémon-related sex crimes. The senators’ document does cite the case of a man on Indiana’s sex registry who was found playing Pokémon Go near where a 16-year-old boy also was playing. In another case in Arizona, the game developers put a Pokéstop at a historic hotel that has since been turned into a halfway house for 43 men on the state registry.

That was convincing enough for New York governor Andrew Cuomo to issue an order banning sex offenders on parole from playing Pokémon Go this week. On Wednesday, Klein, Savino, and additional senators introduced state bills that, among other things, would ban game developers from putting “in-game objectives” within a hundred feet of the home of a registrant.

Why target those with a sex crime on their record? A spokesperson for Klein’s office told VICE this is because of the “very high” recidivism rates of sex offenders compared with other criminals, citing data from a report that Klein co-authored last year. That document notes a re-arrest rate of 48 percent within eight years for those on New York’s sex registry, based on 2007 state data.

But that re-arrest rate includes charges for any crime—not just sex offenses, the target of the legislation. And it confirms a fact that recidivism researchers have long known: When sex offenders do commit another crime, it’s far more likely to be a non-sexual one. (Continue reading at Vice.com)

After the chief justice extended the time for filing, Atty. Glenn Gerding, counsel for the petitioner, Lester Gerard Packingham, filed a Petition for Certiorari from the North Carolina Supreme Court on March 21, 2016.

Mr. Packingham is a North Carolina registrant who was convicted by a jury in 2011 for accessing Facebook, a commercial networking website which permits minors as registered users. This was a violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-202.5. Before trial, Packingham sought to have the charges dismissed on grounds that the statute violated his First Amendment rights. In ruling on the motion, the trial judge found the statute to be constitutional as applied to the defendant and declined to address the defendant’s facial challenge for want of jurisdiction. Packingham was sentenced to 6 to 8 months in prison, fully suspended, pursuant to the completion of 12 months of supervised probation. Packingham appealed.

In August, 2013, a three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s ruling and concluded that N.C.G.S. § 14- 202.5 was not narrowly tailored, vague, and failed to “target the ‘evil’ it is intended to rectify.” The Court of Appeals also held that the statute violated “the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, and [was] unconstitutional on its face and as applied.”

In turn, the NC Attorney General’s office appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court which, on November 6, 2015, by a 4 to 2 decision, reversed the Court of Appeals’ Order to Vacate and re-instated Mr. Packigham’s conviction. The state supreme court held the statute to be constitutional in all respects since it proscribes only conduct (access to a social networking site) rather than speech and that the impact on an individual registrant’s speech was merely incidental to this prohibition on conduct.

While the Writ for Certiorari has not yet been granted, the United States Supreme Court appears interested enough in hearing the state’s response, which it formally requested on April 28, 2016. The state has until May 31 to respond so it’s impossible to know at this time either how the state will respond or when the Court might reschedule the Petition for conference.

Packingham’s petition summarizes that the chief question before the Court is “whether, under this Court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s registry of former sex offenders to ‘access’ a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is ‘know[n]’ to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner – who was convicted based on a Facebook ‘post’ in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring ‘God is Good!’”

The Petition for Writ surmises that this case requires the Supreme Court’s intervention because 1) the NC Supreme Court’s decision contravenes “first principles” of basic constitutional law because of the ruling’s unconventional application of “conduct regulation” and “heightened scrutiny” analyses, and 2) that the decision is in conflict with numerous lower court opinions.

Just a week before the U.S. Supreme Court requested a response from North Carolina, a group of 16 law professors led by Eugene Volokh filed an Amici Curiae on behalf of the petitioner focusing exclusively on the NC Supreme Court’s tortured application of an “ample alternative channels” standard to the statute at issue.

Retired professor of law, David Post, recently explained the rationale behind the professors’ brief in a post for The Volokh Conspiracy blog of the Washington Post. Professor Post argues that the NC Supreme Court’s analysis is absurd because it rests upon the incredulous proposition that websites such as the Pauline Dean network, wral.com, glassdoor.com, or shutterfly are comparable to social networking giants such as Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn, and that prohibiting registrants from accessing such sites is no impediment to their First Amendment rights because such “ample alternatives” exist. Professor Post cites to his colleague’s previous explication of the Amicus brief here.

It is, of course, impossible to know whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the Writ. It grants very few. In any given year, the Court entertains nearly 8,000 petitions and grants certiorari in less than one percent (about 80). But the fact that the Packingham case was originally scheduled for conference on May 12 and then removed from the calendar consequent to the Amicus filing, quickly followed by the Court’s official request for a response from the state of North Carolina, at the very least provides surety that the Court is paying significant attention to the important constitutional questions underlying this Petition.

North Carolina bans registered sex offenders from using or accessing any social networking website that allows under-18-year-olds to post. This includes, of course, the vast bulk of the social networking universe – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit, along with many, many other such sites. The ban is not limited to people who are in prison or on probation or parole (whose First Amendment rights are sharply reduced because of that); it applies even to people who have finished serving their sentences, and who possess, at least in principle, the same First Amendment rights as you and I. Nor is the law limited to sex offenders who had committed crimes against minors (though I think that too would be unconstitutional). Rather, the law makes it a crime for any registered sex offender to either post to such a site or even read it, on the theory that the law is needed “to prevent registered sex offenders from prowling on social media and gathering information about potential child targets.”

There are, as Volokh succinctly put it in the earlier posting, “many First Amendment problems” with the N.C. court’s decision rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of this prohibition.[**] The amicus brief, though, focused on only one of them: the court’s holding that the prohibition is a “reasonable” restriction on speech because it leaves “ample alternative channels” for the speech of persons covered by the ban. Maybe you can’t post (or even access any posts) on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or Reddit [or NYTimes.com or the Volokh Conspiracy, for that matter, all of whom allow persons under the age of 18 to post/access) … but “the Web offers numerous alternatives that provide the same or similar services that defendant could access without violating” the statute.

It seems crazy to me — imagine trying to run for public office, or participate in someone else’s campaign for public office, or complain to your City Councilperson, or start a petition drive to get a new streetlight on your corner … without being able to access any of the major social networking sites. Not impossible, sure — but it seems quite far-fetched to suggest that there are “ample alternatives” out there on the Web for you to accomplish these tasks.

Fortunately, we have Supreme Court precedent on our side: City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994), which invalidated a city ordinance banning homeowners from displaying signs on their property. The city argued that the ordinance left people “free to convey their desired messages by other means, such as hand-held signs, ‘letters, handbills, flyers, telephone calls, newspaper advertisements, bumper stickers, speeches, and neighborhood or community meetings.’” But these alternatives, the court held, were inadequate because they tended to convey a substantively different message, were not as cost-effective or failed to reach the speaker’s intended audience. (Please read David’s full post at Volokh Conspiracy of the Washington Post)

In an apparently unprecedented series of events, the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday overruled three of its own opinions, also released Friday, regarding the state’s sex offender registration laws.

In three separate opinions issued Friday, the court found 2011 changes to the sex offender registry law cannot be applied retroactively to offenders convicted before the law took effect.

But then in a fourth opinion, also released Friday, the court found that those rulings were incorrect.

Attorneys across the state said they couldn’t recall a situation where the court reversed itself in rulings issued on the same day.

“We continue to study today’s peculiar group of Kansas Supreme Court decisions involving the offender registration act,” Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said in a written statement. “In the coming days, we will endeavor to discern what the court actually has done and will assess all options for next steps.”

The highly unusual circumstance appear to be the result of a one-justice change in the makeup of the court.

The panel that decided the three cases concerning the 2011 changes included a senior district court judge, who sided with the majority in the 4-3 decisions. That interim judge was serving on the court while there was a vacancy.

But for the fourth case, the newest Supreme Court justice, Caleb Stegall, replaced the district court judge. That case also was decided 4-3, with Stegall casting the deciding vote.

The three justices who were part of the majority in the first three opinions became the minority in the fourth opinion.

The upshot was a finding that the Kansas law requiring lifetime registration for convicted sex offenders did not constitute additional punishment for a crime.

Therefore, the law does not violate federal or Kansas constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, the court ruled in that fourth case.

In the three other cases, the court ruled that the law did constitute an additional punishment and said offenders convicted of crimes before 2011 could not have their 10-year registration periods extended to 25 years because the 25-year law took effect after they committed their crimes.

But those rulings apparently apply only to those three offenders.

Others will be governed by the fourth ruling Friday.

“While I’m happy that my client may get relief, it’s unfortunate that others similarly situated will not,” said attorney Meryl Carver-Allmond, who represented one of the men covered by the rulings on the 2011 law change.

She said it was “ludicrous” to say that the offender registry requirement is not punishment.

“The court had it right in the first instance,” said Carver-Allmond. “And it’s disappointing that the recent change in personnel steered them off course.”

Jeff Dazey, the attorney for one of the other men covered by the opinions in the 2011 law change, said he was “pleased, disappointed and somewhat perplexed” by the rulings.

“Virtually every year the Kansas legislature has modified the law to make registration more difficult and more expensive, while simultaneously increasing the penalties for failing to register and increasing the time that a person has to register,” Dazey said. “I firmly believe that applying these draconian terms and conditions on people whose initial registration duties expired is unconstitutional.”

Christopher Joseph, attorney for the third man covered by the 2011 change in the law, said it was an area of the law that is evolving.

Joseph said he “has little doubt” that courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will ultimately agree that offender registration laws are “punitive.”

Source: The Kansas City Star