Excellent decision out of Alabama Federal Court
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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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…
Hmmmm… interesting.
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?
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.
Amen