Excellent decision out of Alabama Federal Court Feb 12, 2019 | 49 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 Google+ 49 Comments 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 discussion. Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. 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.