ID: Another Court Says the Registry Isn’t Punishment.
A federal judge in Idaho has issued a decision in Does v. Labrador, a case challenging Idaho’s sex offender registry under the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. The decision is not the result the plaintiffs wanted. On September 29, Judge David Nye granted Idaho’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Idaho’s registry scheme is a civil regulatory system rather than criminal punishment.
The plaintiffs challenged four major components of Idaho’s system: lifetime registration, housing and employment restrictions, notification requirements, and the public registry. The court agreed that the challenges could be considered not only individually, but also by examining their cumulative effect.
The court candidly acknowledged that Idaho’s requirements are, collectively, “burdensome.” It simply concluded that burdensome is not the same thing as punishment under the constitutional test established by existing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. Under Smith v. Doe, courts generally begin with the legislature’s stated intention. If lawmakers call a registry “civil,” courts then ask whether its actual purpose or effect is so punitive that the civil label cannot stand. The Idaho court emphasized that the challenger faces an extraordinarily high burden — requiring the “clearest proof” that the supposedly civil system is actually punishment.
The Idaho plaintiffs argued that when lifetime registration, housing and employment restrictions, constant reporting obligations, travel notification, and public dissemination of personal information are considered together, the result looks an awful lot like punishment. The court disagreed. It found that none of those restrictions, individually or collectively, were sufficiently punitive under current precedent.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its always just been so crazy to me that they constantly refer to it as a “civil” process but charge you with a felony for non compliance whether intentional or not. Sometimes giving you more time in prison than you got from your initial charges. I was always taught growing up that civil cases resulted in a financial punishment through either fines or judgment payments.
This federal court decision makes the climb to overturn Smith v. Doe a bit steeper. However, it is still possible. We can only hope that the attorney representing the registrants in this case will appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I am very glad that people like Janice Belushi are reading and studying this judgment very very carefully.
I hope and pray that fac’s lawyers are reading and studying this judgment very very carefully as well!
It probably goes without saying, but I believe that it must (MUST) be said. This must be brought up to the law firm who is representing fac right now in a tactful and respectful manner.
It is absolutely imperative that the lawyers representing FAC right now take a very deep dive into this judgment!
I don’t know if an amended complaint is necessary or even allowed. (I am not a lawyer)
But we must be ready for whatever comes next! (Oral arguments, replies to motions, etc. )
We must be ready to fight this garbage with everything that we have! No holds barred!
We simply must be ready to fight this garbage!
The reason I am so insistent it’s because this not only affects the registrant; this affects the foundation of the American way of life as we have known it for the past century!
The question is basically can we as a society, because of the will of the people, separate out a class of people and basically strip them of their civil rights. Can we make them an object of hatred, not only popularly, but can we codify that in law?
Can we codify the civil death of a hated class in this country with the full consent of the law?
Can we as Americans expose a group of people to government surveillance, loss of freedom to travel, lots of freedom of the basic enjoyments of life, loss of all privacy, and, a loss of the basic protections of law, all in the name of some sort of utopian panacea called protection?
Are we a society that short-sighted and paranoid?
Or do we fight it?
It is worth contacting our lawyers and asking some hard questions.
This is in another state. This has no bearing on our suit.
Florida just started a new registry for violent offenders. I think it is helpful to us because they don’t have the same stigma that i believe is keeping us from getting proper justice. I would like to hope if one of those registrants challenge the scheme, it would be easier for a judge to rule with the constitution instead of out of hate or fear of public opinion.
An Avidity to Punish
“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
-Thomas Paine in his 1795 work, Dissertations on First Principles of Government