« Illinois prosecutors appealing 81-month sentence given to former Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke for murder of Laquan McDonald | Main | Detailed memo maps out arguments and urges litigation for immediate good-time credit under FIRST STEP Act »

February 13, 2019

Federal district judge finds Alabama sex offender license plate and internet provisions violate First Amendment

Thanks to this post by Jacob Sullum at Reason, I see some notable constitutional reasoning has brought down two extreme sex offender provisions in Alabama law.  The full title of this reason posting provides the basics: "'Sex Offenders Are Not Second-Class Citizens,' Says Judge While Nixing Alabama Rules on First Amendment Grounds: The decision rejects driver's licenses labeled "CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER" and a broad demand for reports on internet use." Here paragraphs from the posting (with a link to the opinion):

"Sex offenders are not second-class citizens," writes U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins in a recent decision overturning two provisions of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (ASORCNA) on First Amendment grounds. "The Constitution protects their liberty and dignity just as it protects everyone else's."

Those points, which should be obvious, are a sadly necessary corrective to the hysteria that has driven legislators in one state after another to enact indiscriminate, mindlessly restrictive, and covertly punitive laws aimed at sex offenders. ASORCNA, which Watkins calls "the most comprehensive and debilitating sex-offender scheme in the nation," is a prime example....

On Monday, Judge Watkins ruled that Alabama's branding of registered sex offenders' identification cards is a form of compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment. "The branded-ID requirement compels speech," he writes, "and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest."  The state conceded that its ostensible purpose of alerting police officers to a sex offender's status could be served by a much less conspicuous mark, such as a letter, that the general public would not readily recognize as a badge of shame.  "Using one letter would keep officers informed while reducing the unnecessary disclosure of information to others," Watkins notes.

Another aspect of Alabama's "debilitating sex-offender scheme" is a requirement that people in the registry report "email addresses or instant message addresses or identifiers used, including any designations or monikers used for self-identification in Internet communications or postings other than those used exclusively in connection with a lawful commercial transaction."  Registrants also have to keep the authorities apprised of "any and all Internet service providers" they use.  The information, which includes mundane activities such as logging into a Wi-Fi network outside the home or registering with a website to comment on news articles, must be reported within three business days, and local law enforcement agencies have the discretion to demand that it be done in person.

February 13, 2019 at 06:03 PM | Permalink

Comments

I find one irony of this law in that its chief supporters most likely are Southern Baptists who are now embroiled in their own scandal of decades-long sex abuse of minors in their congregations. I would also be curious of any of these Baptist offenders are female as well as male. I know that in the Catholic Church that not all the accused are male priests; some female nuns have also been charged although the media chooses to ignore this aspect.

Maybe we will pick up a local Alabama news paper listing key officials in charge of enforcing this ex-sex offender license plate law to be even bigger sex predators themselves. Maybe some of the chief prosecutors and their spouses in Alabama are major predators themselves! We shall see.

Posted by: Bill Delzell | Feb 14, 2019 9:48:16 AM

"The state conceded that its ostensible purpose of alerting police officers to a sex offender's status could be served by a much less conspicuous mark, such as a letter, that the general public would not readily recognize as a badge of shame. "Using one letter would keep officers informed while reducing the unnecessary disclosure of information to others," Watkins notes."

This makes no sense to me. I am dubious of the claim that it is compelled speech, but accepting for the sake of argument it is, I don't see how one letter is any less compelled speech than three words are. As I understand the judge, he is saying that it is compelled speech if someone talks in plain English but not compelled speech if someone talks in code. That can't be right.

Posted by: Daniel | Feb 14, 2019 5:11:50 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB