Alaska’s Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the state’s sex offender registry violated the due process rights of those convicted of sex crimes in other states, deeming it “too broad and arbitrary when it includes offenders who are not dangerous.”
The court wrote. “But ASORA is both too broad and arbitrary when it includes offenders who are not dangerous. Since they pose no special risk to the public, their protected liberty interests plainly outweigh any public safety interests that might be furthered by requiring them to register.”
I found the court’s order interesting. I am a little confused as to why the defendants counsel did not argue against the now disproved studies regarding recidivism rates. This may have allowed the court further latitude in its ruling. While I appreciate the ruling will now provide for hearings in Alaska so registrant’s may get off the listings, I would rather have seen the court strike the law down as unconstitutional (State) and require the Legislature to take it up again.
Like to sue the State of Florida myself.
I’ve been on the sex offender registry here in Florida for almost 22 years and have never even been convicted of a crime or been to prison. Arbitrary doesn’t even begin to describe this reality in my EXPERIENCE. More interesting still, the sex offender registry was created out of unsubstantiated news articles and subsequent mass hysteria not evidence based assessments or proven law enforcement practices.
I’ve never been able to establish a normal career or have a family because of it.
Douglas, if your date of offense is before July 1, 2007 and when it has been 20 years since you got off probation, you can petition to be removed from the registry. Please re-read this FAC article for more info:
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/person-ordered-removed-from-florida-sex-offender-registry/
This whole business of having to prove you are not a danger is a slap in the face and a perversion of the way justice is supposed to work. As with everything else, “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to “Sex Offenders.”
Whatever “process” Alaskuh comes up with will be like Floriduh where you have to $uck the governor’s ¢o¢k to get the right to vote back. Even if you $wallow, you still probably won’t get it.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but being on the registry for 15 years has taught me not to get excited over any “good” news. The registry has taken away my reputation, my security, and my livelihood. Pray for the best, but be emotionally prepared for the worst.
Can anyone recommend an unbiased attorney for Polk County for registration violations?
James ” Rusty ” Franklin
Also, Ron Toward in Bartow.
If you would like a honest, clear breakdown on this decision I highly recommend you listen to the newest episode of Registry Matters podcast. If you arent listening to this you really are limiting yourself to a ocean of valuable information. If you dont know how to use a podcast click this link below. It will help you get up to date on this media platform. Also just so you know podcasts are free.
https://gimletmedia.com/what-is-a-podcast-and-how-do-i-listen?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0ZXY5c_w4gIVgkGGCh30xgqUEAAYASAAEgIKo_D_BwE
This is great. I hope this goes to SCOTUS somehow. Would love to see what Chief justice John Roberts would think of Alaska’s 2019 registry requirements from the version he argued for in November of 2002.
It’s all illegal all of it this is a bad world when the rich keep everyone down to create jobs on retroactive law that has no other purpose than to keep the courts fat. No different than the lotto they send you emails weekly entice you to waist your money when your chances are the same pulling 1 penny out of 7 semi trucks filled to the rim with them to win every email that goes out has no bearing on any real gain to anyone except them, they prey on the stupid, poor, mentally ill and down trodden they keep down and poor to keep employed. Then the cops arrest you on pot and the court give you 1 year probation, the probation offices do all they can to make you hang yourself and you can drive 8 hours and smoke as a US citizen for fun but here you become a piece of shit that can’t get a good job cause your a criminal with charges. This isn’t a good world and all the people I’ve been told were good are just as bad or lost as everyone else. The court is in the marring business too like who the fuck gave them the right to oversee a marriage to start with that should be all church, marriage is a church doctrine. Then they are in the sex business running stings in public parks known for gays sending in male detectives to entice gay men and arrest them when they are tricked by a cop that flirts with them and they ask for a blow job and they post then mens picture to ruin thier life and put them into dispair so they with sink low and be easy to bust again and convict again if they have no real representation which who represents SOs I’m taking about getting shit thrown out not a 2 year monitor deal they need todo away with the bargaining process it’s not justice most people’s taking deals when really they know it, the judge, the state and attorneys know they really have no grounds for it Lol this is all crazy no?
“The end does not justify the means, No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others”.
Awesome decision! Go Alaska.
The weakness of the ruling can be clearly seen right in the Introduction:
” We conclude that ASORA’s registration requirements can constitutionally be applied to out-of-state offenders. We also conclude that ASORA violates due process, but its defect may be cured by
providing a procedure for offenders to establish their non-dangerousness.”
The plaintiff tried to claim that Alaska couldn’t even register offenders who move there from other states because the registry is punitive, as the Alaska Court ruled in a different case. However, here they state that it is also regulatory, so the state CAN add people to the registry who committed their crime in a different state.
In the end, this Court refused to invalidate Alaska’s registry law, and instead offers a solution requiring the man to spend more money on legal proceedings, with no assurance of success:
“The alternative we choose is to permit Doe to file a civil action in the
superior court in which he will be permitted to attempt to prove that he no longer poses a risk to the public that justifies continued registration.
129 If he prevails, he should be relieved of the requirements of registration. If he does not, he must comply with the Act. However, after a reasonable time, he may be permitted to file a new complaint, again seeking relief from the requirements of the Act based on a showing of changed circumstances.”
It’s better than no hearing at all, but it puts the burden of proof directly on the registrant. How does one prove absolutely that they are no longer a danger? At best, you can cite “true” recidivism statistics, but the court may conclude that even a slight chance of reoffending is sufficient to keep all registrants on the registry. It’s another decision where the litigant wins the case, but actually gets nothing.
He could prove that he no longer poses a risk to the public if, for example, he has been offense-free in the community for 10-15 years. Statistically, that would make him about the same risk level as the general public. And he may present additional mitigating factors that are known to make one low risk. He would just need to properly argue this, including a credible risk assessment. On this forum, we have cited the statistics ad nauseam. I doubt he would have to prove that his risk level is, say, even lower than your average law-abiding human being.
Another court saying the same thing. There is no due process and there is no individualized risk assessment. Which echos the Snyder case. Those very two components can threaten each state’s precious sex offender registry.
This was interesting from the court’s conclusion:
” If Doe can show at a hearing that he does not pose a risk
requiring registration, then there is no compelling reason requiring him to register ”
This really made me think a few things. How does one prove in a hearing that he is no longer a danger or better yet, was even a danger to begin with ?? I would think that burden should fall on the state ? Even so, Human nature is complicated. Anyone can be a danger at any given time. I don’t even think this issue should be judicial, because many offenders on the registry have already finished their sentence (no more judicial obligations once your sentence is completed) – and I’m assuming this person finished his. I still hold that once you finished your sentence, then you are free from anything just like a regular offender. The registry post sentence is stupid, and all of this should not be an issue to begin with. . . I hope after this, many registrants in Alaska overwhelmingly flood the courts with petitions for removal via risk assessment and due process violations.
If Alaska can challenge why can’t Florida?
We are
Just to temper this good news a little, the Court ruled that the defendant can now move forward with a process to demonstrate he is no longer dangerous. So he isn’t off yet, and the state will still opposed it.
And it’s happening like this in Alaska because the state constitution diverged from every other state in 1956 when Alaska declined money under the Federal Highway Act and thus was not obligated under the Interstate Commerce Clause to implement a lot of changes that impacted people’s privacy and due process rights that Congress flowed down to the rest of us in exchange for nice roads. The Alaskan state constitution is essentially America 65 years ago, and presumably covered in snow 🙂
So hooray for him, but don’t hold your breath for this to be a ground shaking precedent.
HALLELUJAH !
Unfortunately, it only means that the Alaska legislature will have to create a process for determining which offenders are a danger to the public. It is doubtful that any “due process” they decide upon will be fair or objective. Probably leave it in the hands of psychologists employed by the state who will base their decisions on their personal feelings rather than real scientific studies and statistics.
I don’t think the legislature will need to create a process in order for him to benefit from due process. With this ruling; he can simply file a petition. And since it’s his petition, he will get to choose which psychologist, if any, gets to evaluate him.
This seems a hollow victory since the individual still has to be on the registry AND prove he is not dangerous:
“The justices in Anchorage upheld the court’s decision requiring out-of-state offenders to register but found that they must be offered an opportunity to show that they are no longer a danger to the community. The Alaska Supreme Court did not invalidate the rule but elected to allow the man in the case to file court action attempting to prove he is no longer a public safety risk.”
So this double standard only applies to registered citizens. We are guilty until we can prove we are innocent instead of the state proving we are dangerous. Who can afford to go to court and prove they are not a threat? And by the way, how do you even do that?
Someone is paying attention
Finally Common sense coming out of Alaska!
So the upshot here is that registered people who move to Alaska will now have the opportunity to “prove” to a court that they are no longer a danger to society. Two questions come to mind: 1) Will there be some “standard of proof” or will it be arbitrary and up to the random whims of the judge? and 2) How much will it cost the largely under-employed/unemployed registered citizens to take their cases to court?
It will be up to the judge but need not be arbitrary or random so long as it is properly argued. Fortunately there already is plenty of precedent for arguing risk levels in court, as well as a wealth of recidivism statistics and risk assessment tools.
Well after reading the source article, I am left a little let down. Not a big a win as was hoping but baby steps. Maybe when I am 80 we can get some justice
Everytime I read something like this I wonder if we are ‘united states’ or if we are just a group of territories that join together for commercial purposes? How can something be unconstitutional in one state and not in all states. Alaska’s Supreme Court seems to have it right. To track for life someone who is not a threat to anyone while those most likely to commit or recommit crimes are left on their own just does not make sense. I received an extensive psychic evaluation prior to my release from probation eleven years early. The evaluator’s comment was that I was less likely to ever again commit a sex related offense than someone who had never committed such an offense. Yet I remain on Florida’s registry. I don’t let it bother me…I am retired and don’t need to go job hunting…but one who does is at a terrible disadvantage. I do not favor registries that are made public, but if they must be, let them be for law enforcement only and let them focus on all who are truly a threat. The current system is a ‘feel good’ system and serves no real purpose at all. Much time and money is wasted chasing ‘phantoms’.
Hope this can be used as a catalyst to move forward with cases for other states as well. Just takes one judge, court or jurisdiction to rule in our favor to be used as case evidence for our own justice.
Another case that can help the Ex Post Facto Challenge?
Where it all began. This follows their own ruling in 2008 that the ASORNA is punitive e and could not longer be retroactive. Now this ruling I think would force Alaska to hold hearings on each RSO that fought it?
It would certainly force the state to file responses to each motion.