LA: Court Strikes Louisiana’s ‘Sex Offender’ ID Requirement
A WIN!!!
Louisiana’s requirement that people convicted of certain sex crimes carry a state-issued ID card with the words “SEX OFFENDER” printed on it in orange capital letters is unconstitutional, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 6-1 ruling upholds a decision by a state judge in Lafayette who last year threw out a charge filed against a man who altered his card to remove the label.
State attorneys had argued that the state had a legitimate interest in having the information on the ID card: to let law enforcement officers know the cardholder’s criminal history.But Justice James Genovese, writing for the majority, said there are less restrictive ways to inform law enforcement than requiring someone to show the branded card every time they are required to produce a government ID.
“A symbol, code, or a letter designation would inform law enforcement that they are dealing with a sex offender and thereby reduce the unnecessary disclosure to others during everyday tasks,” Genovese wrote.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Any of us that have ever been pulled over by LE for a simple traffic violation or sometimes fishing expositions since we were first required to register knows that the number designation only confirms who they were hoping was driving the vehicle because they already ran the tag before the red and blues came on and makes getting from you have a tail light out to what do you have in your trunk mind if I have a look that much faster. In my case it was 20 questions about my childs child restraint seat. My point is run your name or tag and they already know
“A symbol, code, or a letter designation would inform law enforcement that they are dealing with a sex offender”
This part of the ruling by a judge concerns me though . ” dealing with a sex offender”. That means the courts consider us still sex offenders forever, even though we probably are no longer offending. So much for ex felons or ex offenders.
That gives an insight into the courts feelings, thoughts, ideas and views on us overall. Probably why we have not been able to overturn the registries as punishment.
No matter how much they love LAW, many of them let their personal feelings influence their rulings. This happened to me in my being sentenced to 22 years for a first time isolated incident with the willing participant not even showing up to court.
After numerous appeals, the appeals judge ruled the sentence, although legal, was done out of emotion and uncalled for, for someone who had never even had so much as a speed ticket before. This happens WAY more than you realize in sexual related cases. Even when the “Victim” states they were a willing participant, many judges put on ear muffs and only hear blah blah blah.
The judge I had originally basically told me “If I could sentence you to life I would, but I am bound by a certain limit”. She was so nasty to my attorney they he went outside to the hallway and threw up.
Just a reminder to the folks here, this ruling is in line with the Fed ruling from AL (2019) and opposite from the 10th CCoA via OK (2017) on this topic, which can be researched online. Whether it is coded or straight text or on/in the front or the back (think passport too), it is still gov’t compelled speech because they are making it appear on a gov’t doc they require to be on the person for IDing purposes. It really is that simple despite the gov’t interest had in making sure the LEO who is reviewing the doc knows who they are dealing with.