Excellent decision out of Alabama Federal Court Feb 12, 2019 | 75 comments An excellent decision out of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (which happens to be in our Federal 11th Circuit). A copy of the decision follows and is shared in the interest of time – interpretation will follow. doe-v-marshall-10 Facebook Twitter reddit 75 Comments Derek Logue of OnceFallen.com on June 20, 2019 at 12:23 pm While the outcome was good, the logic is faulty. The Nazis only needed one letter on their state IDs to get their point across. Reply Tearful Eagle on June 20, 2019 at 7:26 am So I have been trying to find out if AL appealed this decision and here is what I found: https://www.alea.gov/dps/driver-license/license-and-id-cards/sex-offender-driver-license-designation I can not seem to find if they appealed the internet identifiers portion. Do we have an attorney on the west coast of Florida that maybe able to assist me. My license is up I Jan and while I only have the statute number, it is still in the middle unlike all the other markings. Reply Florida Action Committee on June 20, 2019 at 7:46 am This decision has nothing to do with Florida. Your license will still have a statute number on it if you are an offender. Reply Jacob on June 20, 2019 at 10:24 am The AL decision is law in Florida. It does not prevent the state from printing statute numbers on licenses. It DOES prevent the FL legislature from printing something more explicit on every registrant’s license. But they can throw a sub-group under the bus as they do now. Reply Tearful Eagle on June 19, 2019 at 3:20 pm I do not have access to Pacermonitor, did this case Doe V Marshall get appealed to the 11th circuit. Also how long can the circuit court of appeals sit on a case, referring to McGuire V Strange? Reply Florida Action Committee on June 20, 2019 at 7:55 am It did not get appealed. There is no timeline for the 11th Circuit to rule. Reply Tearful Eagle on June 20, 2019 at 10:05 am Thank you for a great response. I so appreciate everything you do. I plan on sending a donation when I get paid on Friday. So in Florida we have to list our emails and internet identifiers but in Alabama they do not. If i read the ruling right. Do we know what the law is in GA. Seems like we have a split in state courts. Is there a way to revisit our internet identifiers in Florida? Reply Jacob on June 20, 2019 at 10:19 am Not even a notice of appeal? So the district courts ruling stands, correct? Reply Tearful Eagle on May 23, 2019 at 2:19 pm As my license is up for renewal in January, do we know if the case was appealed? I know its in Alabama but being in our circuit would prove persuasive. I currently have the staute in the bottm right corner but if i am right the new ones have the statute in blue right in the middle. Reply Florida Action Committee on May 23, 2019 at 2:55 pm This case does not impact Florida. You will have to get the new license with the marker in blue in the middle. Reply Jacob on May 23, 2019 at 3:27 pm To be clear, this case is the law in Florida. It just doesn’t prohibit the state from printing a statute number on licenses (or from singling a subset of the population for something more explicit). The case will prevent the Florida legislature from taking this further— Florida won’t be printing “sexual offender” on anyone’s license anytime soon. It also opines more broadly that registrants “are not second class citizens” and have “the same constitutional rights as everyone else.” Reply Florida Action Committee on May 23, 2019 at 7:00 pm In Florida, for those with the Predator Designation it does say Sexual Predator on their license, not the statute Reply Jacob on May 23, 2019 at 7:56 pm The decision still allows “Sexual Predator” to be printed on licenses. That is what I meant by “singling out a subset of the population for something more specific,” above. The ruling suggested that a state could do this. In effect, the ruling protects the licenses of 92% of Florida registrants from further embarrassment while throwing the other 8% under the bus. (And that IS a problem, given that Florida labels people as predators without much rigor). Reply JZ on May 23, 2019 at 8:51 pm Since when did Floriduh move the designation from the bottom right corner to the middle of the license? A new law? Passed when? Reply Florida Action Committee on May 24, 2019 at 6:53 am Not a new law. A new license design. Reply JZ on June 20, 2019 at 11:33 am Yeah, I guess not enough people were noticing it in the bottom right corner so Floriduh increases its size, gives it a brighter color, and puts it front and center to increase the shame and discrimination. How is this not compelled speech? Reply Tearful Eagle on June 20, 2019 at 3:24 pm It is compelled speech. Also I believe the other markings are still bottom right under the second photo. I am looking for a good Attorney up in the Tampa area who would be willing to challenge it. I may be wrong about the other markings such as blood donor, veteran etc but if I am not then what is the state’s interest in putting it in the middle. Reply Tearful Eagle on May 24, 2019 at 7:34 am Is there a way for me to file some sort of an injunction to stop this while it can fought in court? Has anyone in Florida filed such an action against the new design? Reply Florida Action Committee on May 24, 2019 at 8:10 am Speak to an attorney Reply Florida Action Committee on May 24, 2019 at 8:11 am To our knowledge nobody has challenged it Reply Damian Panno on February 15, 2019 at 8:40 am Another article in elaboration on the Alabama Fed Court ruling on their registrty.https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/13/sex-offenders-are-not-second-class-citiz Reply joseph on February 14, 2019 at 10:35 am Thank Honorable Kieth Watkins for using facts and not myths on re-offences and for pointing out three of those ex felons had no connection to internet crimes. Great Job for doing what you was appointed to do Yes! 2019 going to be the year that crappy and harmful scheming Registry comes falling apart. Reply Justice seeker on February 14, 2019 at 10:14 am Okay, since this is a federal court ruling then would this not also apply to to our passports under the IML? Is this a grounds that can be sued to get that overturned since it also “compels speech”? Reply Tearful Eagle on February 14, 2019 at 7:28 am This is the same Judge who oversaw McGuire Vs Strange. He understands whats going on. Good on him. Hopefully now the 11th Circuit will finally rule on McGuire V Strange. Oral Arguments were heard in that case in 2017 Reply Sean D on February 13, 2019 at 12:39 pm Fac, Could you provide a link to the other challenges referenced in this decision? (Doc. # 139,147, and 154) Reply Alex on February 13, 2019 at 11:50 am Ugh! If every court and judge in this country can be like this and citing Thomas Paine i’d be long free! Reply joseph on February 14, 2019 at 10:47 am @ Alex if F.A.C wins the Ex post facto lawsuit a lot of us going to be free My conviction was in 1991 way before Megan and Jacob Acts I got caught in the system because I was in fla. prison in 2007 on those convictions Right now there is a House Bill in AZ. Capitol to remove a register citizen off the list after 10 years instead of lifetime. I got 8 and 1/2 years crime and conviction free. Reply Jack on May 23, 2019 at 7:37 pm If F.A.C wins and we successfully get off the list, I will personally make a large donation to the cause. I cannot do it now but if I was off the list I would come into a large sum of money that I do not want to claim while on the registry for obvious reasons. Reply Damian Panno on February 13, 2019 at 11:18 am https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/02/10/michigan-ag-dana-nessel-does-the-unthinkable-argues-the-truth-about-sora/ Reply Expostisafacto on February 13, 2019 at 6:50 pm Thanks for the link. A GREAT blog post from Guy Hamilton-Smith concerning the AG Nessel filing. Well worth the time to read. Reply Debbie on February 13, 2019 at 9:03 am This is great and of course great for Florida because it’s in the 11th circuit, but I can assume this would be appeal first to SCOTUS before it makes any impact here. Reply Debbie on February 13, 2019 at 9:06 am Sorry, appeal to the 11th circuit. Reply Bobby on February 13, 2019 at 12:03 pm That is what I was thinking as well. Hopefully it gets appealed quickly to the 11th, rule in our favor and sets the precedence. Reply Bill on February 13, 2019 at 12:36 pm Dear Debbie, If this is appealed, it will go to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals before SCOTUS. Reply Debbie on February 13, 2019 at 1:58 pm Yes, I noticed that right after. Thank you Bill. Reply Jacob on February 13, 2019 at 2:34 pm Also, since it’s already in circuit, we need not wait on a Court of Appeals ruling for it to be relevant today. Reply Gerald on February 13, 2019 at 8:57 am I love the reasoning of this Court, especially citing existing case law on forced speech, such as license plates that carry a message that you are unconstitutionally forced to display. Love that they flat out declared 2 parts of Alabama’s law unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the state will undoubtedly appeal the decision, so the issue is not yet settled. Have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that this legal argument stands up to higher scrutiny. Reply Al on February 13, 2019 at 8:54 am Louisiana also has one pay to have the branding on state id cards along with ones drivers license. And, you must have both alone with having it renewed yearly. It also costs more than a regular license. This protects no one. Reply Jack on May 23, 2019 at 7:39 pm The old story of the Scarlet Letter Reply Jason on February 12, 2019 at 11:41 pm It is a GREAT decision!!! They don’t do this to any other group of people arrested because it would be unconstitutional….. Reply Expostisafacto on February 12, 2019 at 8:53 pm Glad to see a court quoting facts as opposed to parroting fictional propaganda; i.e., “frightening and high recitivism”. “The failure to account for risk is a problem throughout ASORCNA. Not all *29 sex crimes are the same. Nor are all offenders the same. Instead, as Dr. Karl Hanson explains (Docs. # 159-1, 159-2, 159-3), one can classify sex offenders based on their risk of committing another sex offense (“sexual recidivism”).6 Some offenders have a low risk of sexual recidivism; others have a medium or a high risk. Also, the older someone gets, and the longer they go without committing a new crime, the less likely they are to reoffend. At a certain point, “most individuals convicted of a sexual offense will be no more likely to commit another sexual offense than the rate of spontaneous ‘out-of-the-blue’ sexual offenses in the general population.” (Doc. # 159-1, at 5.) Low-risk offenders cross that threshold upon release from prison. Medium-risk offenders cross it ten to fifteen years later. Even high risk offenders, after twenty years offense-free, pose no more of a threat to the public than does the average man walking down the street. (Doc. # 159-1, at 7-14.)” Now if we can just get courts to act on these facts. Reply concerned on February 12, 2019 at 8:31 pm Actually, by forcing us to provide information like internet stuff, vehicles of family members, visitors, work if we have access to them etc… reporting travel, forcing us to tell them anything or be prisoned should all be compled speach! Reply Jack on June 20, 2019 at 9:54 am And not sure how they cannot call that punishment. That is as much if not more than I was required to do 20 years ago on probation. Even my Probation officer said off the record that they way they are treating us, it is a wonder anyone succeeds in not getting re-arrested. Sadly due to her compassion for people and willingness to treat us with kindness, it came back to bite her and lost her job. Reply Christopher Sparks on February 12, 2019 at 8:29 pm I agree this ruling is confusing as it’s a partial on 4 and 5 and granted on 1 2 3 if I have this right. Can anyone explain this in crayon. Reply A Ray of Hope on February 12, 2019 at 5:24 pm Sex offenders are not second-class citizens,and anyone who thinks otherwise would do well to remember Thomas Paine’s wisdom:”He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy *49 from oppression;forifheviolatesthisduty,heestablishesaprecedent that will reach to himself.” Dissertation on FirstPrinciples of Government32 (1795). Badass Your Honor. Badass Reply Pj on February 13, 2019 at 8:48 am That conclusion was my favorite part as well. All judges should remember this part any time they take on a sexual offense case of this magnitude. Reply Mp on February 12, 2019 at 5:22 pm With the Driver License branding on page 9 it states “Because Alabama has not used the least restrictive means of advancing its interest, Alabama Code 1520a18, as applied by the State is unconstitutional.” In the paragraphs prior it is noted that other states use a single letter and the state could use a single letter to designate sex offenders. (pg 9) So….. seems to me it is just their choice of branding not the branding itself? Reply JJJJ on February 12, 2019 at 3:49 pm Look at page 7…bottom of column 1: “The constitutional harm — and what the First Amendment prohibits *17 — is being forced to speak rather than to remain silent,” and that harm does not turn on whether speech is ideological, factual, or something else. Every time we go to the police deprtment to register, we are forced to speak under penalty of prosecution. Furthermore, that speech (our personal info) can be readily associated with us because it is published in a public forum (the registry). What would happen if we all pleaded the fifth (and first) amendment next time we went to register? – Just say nothing at all except that you are tthere to register and will speak no further… HMMMM… Reply Jim on February 12, 2019 at 5:57 pm Hmmmm… interesting. Reply Joe123 on February 13, 2019 at 7:27 am How would this work exactly? Could someone else chime in? What if you have to submit written registration form each year instead of an in-person visit? Reply Jack on June 20, 2019 at 10:01 am There was a guy there the last time I registered and do not know how he was not arrested. He was giving the Sheriffs office employee a lot of grief and telling them to go “F” themselves. He ended up tying us all up as it took over 15 minutes for him to register. He walked out once he got his paper worked shot them the bird, cussed and slammed the door. You could have heard a pin drop in the waiting area. Why bring attention to yourself? I just say yes sir/maam and am very pleasant with them and get my papers and off I go. The person behind the window did not create the registry so why take it out on them, they cannot change anything if they wanted to. Having said that, we did get a new person at the window this month and she is awesome. Treats us all with respect and even engages in polite conversation like asking how our day is going. I hate the registry as much if not more than the next person but why make it harder on yourself? Battles are won with negotiation more than they are with yelling. Reply Anonymous on February 12, 2019 at 3:43 pm Amen Reply Fight ex post facto on February 12, 2019 at 3:30 pm Starting to turn around .good for fla. Case Reply Jim on February 12, 2019 at 3:17 pm Since this appears to be federal, does this mean a challenge will soon be filed in florida against the drivers license branding? Hell, your passports ARE branded now, if you can even get one. I owe child support that I’m catching up on for my time in prison that I couldn’t pay, so i can’t get one. I can’t wait for the interpretation! Things got a little confusing for me. I have been paraphrasing Thomas Paine for YEARS without knowing it! I have maintained that by making exceptions so they could apply laws to sex offenders, they were only establishing precedents to do so with other crimes in the future. (You know drug offenders have an extremely high reoffence rate, let’s make a law retro- actively apply to them, we have the sex offender laws as precedent) (and then it would only get easier and easier to do it again and again). Reply Donald Slaton on February 12, 2019 at 7:11 pm Jim I actually agree with you on this. Wow you have something there right on man right on. Reply Muriel on February 13, 2019 at 8:31 am I am confused as the findings seem to apply only to the plaintiffs. Am I reading this correctly so that others in the 11th will have to file a motion in the courts to have these findings apply to each registrant, and does this apply only to Alabama or to all in the 11th? Reply Tearful Eagle on February 13, 2019 at 12:39 pm From my understanding it only applies to those plaintiffs. Not the whole 11th circuit for sure as this was a Fed. District Court. If this gets appealed it could take years. Ie McGuire v Strange oral arguments heard in 2017 and still no decision. Hopefully this move the COA Reply JJJJ on February 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm Could this be approached as a class action suit where almost every single registrant in Florida sues because their driver’s license is “branded”? Reply Jacob on February 13, 2019 at 2:40 pm The provisions are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. But since they are applied the same way to registrants throughout the state, they are automatically unconstitutional as applied to all (unless, of course, the state can successfully appeal). Reply William on February 12, 2019 at 3:16 pm ” … twenty years is enough ” First amendment, forced speech… Incoherent rules. I have a standing bet; if anyone can make heads or tails of FL residency definitions… I’ll hand over my pin number! Reply Dustin on February 12, 2019 at 5:25 pm William, The heads and tails of Florida’s residency definitions and restrictions is that registrants are in violation simply for existing, even when dead. Dead registrants are in violation for failing to update their status every year, particularly those buried in exclusion zones, which is pretty much everywhere. You can keep your PIN. Reply Jack on June 20, 2019 at 10:11 am It is a requirement by law for a relative to go down once a week for life and explain why the offender cannot show up to register. If that designated family member ie: you Grandmother, does not do this each week, they are charged and arrested with aiding an offender with absconding from justice. Yes sarcasm but are we that far from that? Reply Anonymous on February 12, 2019 at 3:12 pm How Does FAC believe this will effect new or existing cases to Florida Regitrants? Reply Florida Action Committee on February 12, 2019 at 4:06 pm Any win – especially one from a case in our circuit – is big. Anytime a judge puts into writing that there’s something wrong with this scheme, it’s huge! Reply Biol57 on February 13, 2019 at 12:05 pm Yes and now that decision has to be considered “persuasive” by other district courts in the 11th Circuit. Reply Greg on February 12, 2019 at 3:04 pm I find this part interesting: “4. The State of Alabama’s branded-identification requirement, Ala. Code § 15-20A-18, is DECLARED unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs.” That specifically refers to Alabama’s practice of labeling driver’s licenses with a sex offender identifier. Seems like it would apply to the Passport identifier at the Federal level as well. Reply Candice on February 12, 2019 at 8:45 pm Arizona requires sex offenders driver’s license to be branded also. How will this affect Arizona? Reply Florida Action Committee on February 13, 2019 at 8:30 am It is not binding precedent for Arizona. It is merely persuasive. Reply joseph on February 13, 2019 at 10:30 am I lived in Az and I haven’t heard any thing about branding the Register citizens Driver Licence I have a licence myself once a year i get it updated. and go to Meeting of AZRSOL I haven’t it discussed here either @ Candice Please tell me where you got this information from? Reply Candice on February 13, 2019 at 7:43 pm I was told AZ. branded the licenses every year where they are renewed. I was also told only registrants have to renew every single year. If true this creates a burden that no one else has to go through. Reply Candice on February 13, 2019 at 7:44 pm If you live in AZ. maybe you can verify this. Is it true, if a registrant moves to AZ. and is a level 3 they will be put on the news that they moved into the area? Reply joseph on February 14, 2019 at 12:37 pm Please don’t quote me but I haven’t seen it happen,I am not saying it don’t happen I just never saw them station it here in phoenix Now Prescott and Tuscon might do it because I google that up. I wanna give you an honest answer here. If you interested coming to phoenix My landlady is cool!! I could give you her number because she rents to us register citizens the only problem is a waiting list she might make exception because you out of state. She told me to give out here number if someone looking for a place It is a very nice place. I pay 500. plus electric. Her others apts run to 580.00 to 600+ I live near I-17 and only 10 minutes from downtown Phoenix by car. Reply Candice on February 14, 2019 at 8:25 pm Just so I’m clear, I am not a registrant. I am just an advicat for liberty. I believe what they are doing is wrong and it’s only a matter of time before they do it to everyone. They do it to sex offenders to see what they can get away with. Reply Jack on May 23, 2019 at 7:50 pm I have been saying that all along. How come murderers don’t have to be on a registry? How come habitual car jackers don’t have to be on a registry. How come arsonist are not on a registry? I would live near 100 sex offenders before living next to one of the above. Not calling them out just stating the obvious. Start making a registry for bad judges. If we did that they would sue us for defamation but when they do it to us it is free speech and the law ? Gotta love the U.S laws and constitution. Tearful Eagle on February 12, 2019 at 2:46 pm At work so reading this is hard but if I am correct in my eagle’s eye is this ruling basically saying they can not brand Drivers licenses and compel online identifiers? If so how doesnt this stack against Delgado v Swearingen’s ruling in Florida. If I understand both rulings this appears to be a conflict that needs to be settled by the 11th Circuit. Reply Submit a Comment Cancel reply Comment Policy PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed. Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time. Stay on topic. We welcome all opinions and encourage free-but-civil discussion. Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS). Cite. Cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics. Need to share a link with the community? If you have media or an article you would like to share with us to post, please CLICK HERE to submit the content for review. If your comment is fully or partially removed: Moderation does not equate to censorship. It means your comment was either automatically flagged/deleted as spam, it violated comment policy, or it was otherwise deemed inappropriate. Comments are moderated to protect our community and enable ongoing civil discussion. Thank you for your patience, understanding, and participation. See this post for more information. Your email address will not be published. Note: Markdown can be used for formatted text. Comment * See the Comment Policy above before posting Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. If you are a human, do not fill in this field.