AL: Alabama Bill would restrict communications for registrants on supervision
An Alabama legislator has prefiled a bill that would allow parole officers to restrict the communications of people convicted of a sexual offense against children and require them to undergo treatment.
HB 26, sponsored by Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, authorizes parole and probation officers to restrict people listed on the sexual offense registry from using a post office box or electronic media, including computer tablets and cell phones and smart phones. It also allows the court or the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles to require them to complete polygraph examinations.
Kerry McCarthy, clinical director at Wandering Pines Wellness, an organization based in Colorado that provides mental health counseling services, provided therapy to people who had been convicted of sexual-based offenses for seven years. He took issue with restricting people’s access to communication devices.
“Those all sound like really good tools to limit access and availability to problematic content, but they are not research and evidenced based,” she said. “They also create hindrances for individuals to pay their bills. A lot of things are online. A lot of jobs require you to fill out an online application.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is Packingham’s Influence on other cases.
1. United States v. Ellis (9th Cir. 2019): The court struck down a supervised release condition that banned all internet use, citing Packingham’s emphasis on the internet as a vital space for speech.
2. Minnesota v. Muccio (2021): A state court invalidated a law banning registrants from using certain apps, citing Packingham’s requirement for narrow tailoring.
3. Doe v. Nebraska (8th Cir. 2020): Packingham was used to challenge Nebraska’s law requiring registrants to disclose all internet identifiers, arguing it chilled speech and was overly broad. While no ruling was passed down, – In 2012, the District Court ruled that parts of Nebraska’s law were unconstitutional, particularly the provisions requiring disclosure of internet identifiers and restricting internet use, citing First Amendment concerns.
Packingham V. North Carolina perhaps Mack Butler should read that case.
This law would concern registrants on supervision (probation, parole, conditional release, supervised release, etc.). Not registrants who are NOT on supervision. There’s a distinction between this law and Packingham.
Maybe so but it is still a Violation of the first amendment right limit speech. Probation, Parole, conditional release, supervised release or not still a violation of rights. Especially if there is no due process and this would be a retroactive punishment on a sentenced already handed down. This would be Ex Post Facto since the above-mentioned situations are considered punishment.
I believe tere is supreme court precident on this. They cant restrict communications. its a first amendment rights issue. In the state of Florida However, if you are on sex offender probation you cant have internet access until your off probation and/or get atherapist to sign off on a safty plan for the internet
They can’t justify their ever-increasing budget, so they need to tweak the law to manufacture crime and subsequent arrests.
Polygraph is junk science.
Punishment, Punishment, Punishment. They don’t want to see PFRs rehabilitated. They just keep kicking a dog while he’s down.
Cell phones? Smart phones? A basic human need in this world