BIG WIN!!! Judge rules in favor of Registrants in GA Halloween Sign case!!!
A Federal Court Judge ruled Butts Count (Georgia) could not force persons required to register as sex offenders to post signs on their property during the Halloween season.
The 25 page Order, issued today, grants the injunction (preventing the Sheriff from posting the signs) with respect to the named plaintiffs, but fell short of granting the same relief for EVERY registrant in Butts, because the court found that not all registrants might object to the signs (yeah right) or there might be some that are actually dangerous. Still, presuming MOST registrants in Butts will let the Sheriff know they object to the sign, this is a huge win.
Below is a link to the order.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a link from the New York Times that explains the injunction to a layperson, like myself, and help them better understand what recently happened in this case. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a section where we can comment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/georgia-sex-offenders-trick-or-treat.html
Here is a link from a student newspaper that serves the University of Wisconsin, financially and editorially independent of the university.
Since my generation cannot seem to get it right, there might be hope in the younger generations. This student journalist bases her decisions on evidence-based facts.
This is also one of the few papers and other “news” outlets that actually allow for comments, but unfortunately they have to be through a social media account.
https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2019/10/doc-seeks-media-coverage-of-home-visits-to-registered-sex-offenders-on-halloween
Posted in the comments on that article:
“A majority of the time there are very few sex offenses that happen as a result of trick-or-treating or as a result of Halloween,” Knutson said.
Umm, “very few” as in ZERO? The only instance of a sex crime occurring on Halloween was by Gerald Turner in 1972. But he had no priors at the time and wouldn’t have been subjected to the idiotic Halloween rules (and laws, in some states), so his crime would have occurred anyway. Not to mention that no one thought such rules were necessary until 30 years afterward.
Registration schemes are set up specifically to keep a socially and politically disfavored group of citizens running in and out of jail/prison. Nearly all registrant recidivism is for status crime (applicable only to registrants) as opposed to another sex offense or crime of any other kind. And for the very few and far between registrants that actually reoffend, the registry plays no role in investigation; they’re identified on the spot and their registry status is never known until after they are arrested.
Laws and rules specifically applied to sex offender registrants are incredibly discriminatory, shown by substituting the word “black” for “sex offender” (or equivalent phrase) in any of them. The oxymoronic claim that registrants aren’t a protected class is itself discriminatory. The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is to ensure politically and socially disfavored groups and individuals get fair treatment in law (if not in society), something very few registrants receive.
This Wisconsin article is a journalistic gem.
And yes, I have often sensed a different view of registries by the younger generation. Perhaps because of the awareness of how their lives could have been destroyed by consensual sexting. Or because they don’t remember a time when registries weren’t harming families. Or because they’re simply lest trusting of authority. For whatever reason, they just seem to see through it all.
Florida needs to be challenged as well. Signs telling everyone to not knock on a door because a monster lives there and may harm you are a definite abuse of authority. I have met the most harmless people and found out they were SO registrants. It does not change the way I see them after the fact. Educate, educate, educate.
I wonder if people know that NARSOL’s legal team planned this case and NARSOL’s foundation handled the expenses.
Many thanks to NARSOL for this. I did NOT know at all.
I had no idea that NARSOL was behind the lawsuit. I had wondered how three registrants were willing to give up thousands of dollars just to have a sign removed, albeit a sign that should not be placed on their property. Pooling our resources is the only way to go. Thank you for sharing that information.
We must ALL persevere in objecting to ALL facets of ANY registry scheme (by ANY means)!
Great news ! but not granting it to all registrants because ” the court found that not all registrants might object to the signs ” Seriously ? lol.
Debbie, read in its entirety wether this opinion or any for the whole story. The court denied it because of the following which can be found on page 23;
“Although, as a practical matter, it might be
assumed that anyone would object to such a message from law enforcement in front of
their homes, the Court is not comfortable making that assumption as a foundation for
injunctive relief. Moreover, different circumstances could exist with regard to particular
registrants. For example, according to the registry, at least one registrant has been
classified as a sexual predator. GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRY, http://state.sor.gbi.ga.gov/Sort_Public/SearchOffender.aspx (select “Sexually
Dangerous Predators” under “Offender Type;” select “BUTTS” as “County;” click
“Search;” then click “WILLIAM LEONARD WOODS JR”) (Oct. 27, 2019, PM). The
Court thus declines to enter an injunction in favor of putative class members. ”
Very important for any RSO to read an opinion Win or Lose to find out exactly WHY something was done. That plays a big role in future court conflicts.
Good win, and post. Many thanks given to those that made this possible including the Judge.
Thank you, Anon for now. Is the judge saying that a designation of sexual predator might possibly cause a registrant to deserve to have the sign in their yard?
Unfortunately in Florida, everyone is dumped into separate categories all dependent upon the charges. There are many people who have the classification of sexual predator who are of no threat to society, in fact who are protectors of children.
A few counties place signs in predators’ yards. Year-round, that is. I think. Nassau, Bradford, to my recollection.
A shame because, among all those who are preying on victims, it’s almost NEVER someone labeled “sexual predator” by Florida law.
If I’m correct, don’t go house hunting in Bradford or Nassau, please.
Judge has NOT opined that predator designation would require Halloween sign. He only pointed out that that issue has not yet been properly argued before him and left open the possibility.
Even then, the issue might not apply to a Florida predator, unless Florida uses an identical definition as Georgia. As you have pointed out, a Florida predator designation entails no risk assessment at all, and this just appears to ding the Butts sheriff for failing to demonstrate risk.
I had a neighbor here in Georgia that is designated a predator simply because he was convicted in Florida, was homeless for a while, and was specifically prevented from updating his registry info by the sheriff’s office he was to register in (they told him he had to pay a $250 fee which he didn’t have – again, homeless – and chose not to waive it).
This is great. Now there is legal precedent to fight it here in Florida…..assuming they will use a ruling from a different state. But this is Federal, so it would apply to any federal district in the US would it not?? So the fight would have to be in federal court.
Dear MJ, you ask if this would effect change in any federal district. The answer is no. While this case does serve as persuasive precedent, it is not binding on any other court. If for instance the 11tth Circuit Court of Appeal, which is the superior federal appellate court for Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, were to rule on this then their decision would be binding on all inferior courts within the 11th Circuit.
Thanks Bill, perfect answer.