This week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya that could prove helpful in our Internet Identifier case. Although the case had nothing to do with the sex offender registry, the issue centered around a vague statute. Specifically; what constitutes a “crime of violence”.
As is one of the issues in our internet identifier case, the requirements for registration are “hopelessly vague” (that’s in quotes because it is what our Judge found in granting the Preliminary Injunction). Even in the latest rendition of the Florida Internet Identifier registration requirements; there are three exemptions to what one might interpret as “Social Internet Communication” (as defined in 775.21);
SCOTUS newcomer, Justice Gorsuch, gave the most meaningful and insightful input in this week’s opinion. He wrote, that “vague laws invite arbitrary power…by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.” Applied to our case, if which sites require registration and which don’t are not expressly listed and is left to the decision of police and prosecutors, we are giving them arbitrary power.
“void for vagueness doctrine, at least properly conceived, serves as a faithful expression of ancient due process and separation of powers principles the Framers recognized as vital to ordered liberty under the Constitution. In the criminal context, the law generally must afford “ordinary people . . . fair notice of the conduct it punishes,”” (relying on Johnson v. United States) Significantly, Judge Hinkle relied heavily on the Johnson case in issuing our Preliminary Injunction, which makes it all the more relevant.
So, it was my understanding ( misguided) that identifiers were only for law enforcement? You can now search on fdle via identifier and it brings up person associated.
Has this always been the case?
That’s not correct.
You CAN search for the identifier and it WILL tell the person searching whether the identifier is registered to a RSO, but it WILL NOT identify the person associated with the identifier.
In it’s final order the court entered a narrow injunction that prevents the disclosure of the identity of a registrant associated with a given Internet identifier or email address except for official law enforcement uses.
What was the NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed on Friday in Delagado v Swearingen?
Thanks
It was notice of the recent SCOTUS case concerning vagueness. The decision was featured in posts last week.
Anything new to report on this? It would be awesome to have some good news out of Florida 😉
Sorry, but as we can’t start new threads, I figured that I would ask on here. To your best knowledge, has anyone filed an ex post facto challenge in the 6th or any other circuit to challenge modifications of the time that people are required to spend on the registry? I know that Kentucky did that a few years back when they changed up their laws. A fair portion of those laws were struck down. Likewise Tennessee has a law that says you must spend 10 years total on the registry or at least 5 years for out of staters and that includes the 1000 foot rule restrictions.
Yes – see Doe v. Snyder in the 6th Circuit. I belive it’s precisely what you are looking for.
That is a great question, I hope maybe someone at FAC or perhaps an Attorney that knows can. I was charged with 1 count of Possession of CP, with an E-mail that was sent from overseas! Deleted it, and 3 months later the feds charged me, because there were other images, which I did not even open that were saved from the E-mail I opened. This happened in 2008, since then I did 6 years in federal prison and completed my probation, well I should say violated because I refused to put up that their stupid court ordered Sex Therapy classes, which was run by the REACH program, a bunch of Nazis, located in Ft. Lauderdale and operated by Dr. Butts, does not know a thing about anything. Anyway, the madness still continues and theres no end in site!
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville is another useful case to remember.
Under this registry I have been and am allowed to be. Punished for what has happan and what may happen in the future, while on the registry. Of which I have nothing what so ever do with or invalved with. A crime committed,everybody on the registry has to pay. So I have to live my life, in fear of the retribution I have to pay, for others actions and beliefs. So as others can feel payed for the harm put on the them. If which i have nothing to do with, or control of.
Can’t seek refuge for three days, can’t vote, can’t work, move, can’t be a part of any activities. Considered a violent offender for no contact offence. All after off probation for twenty years and no arrest. What I’m suppose to get over this. This is not punishment. INSANITY!!
Six months on an ankle bracelet. This state is sick. Not me I’ll rot in jail. Heck with this. I’m done
the last time my husband went to register (I don’t go in with him because I am afraid if met with obnoxiousness my Irish temper is going to step in ) he reported to me that when he told them he didn’t have an email, and he doesn’t because all he does with my computer is play cards – he has never gained computer skills when ever I tried to teach him and now, with his medical condition, he is losing his manual dexterity – couldn’t type if he tried – the person he saw got snotty with him and didn’t believe him, saying everyone has a computer …and then told him she hoped he died here – wish I had been there – are these interview reports on camera ? My other question is, he has trouble verbalising and understanding some written material – due either to learning disabilities or head injuries – he was a profession fighter when young – when he leaves they hand him a peace of paper that ends up put on my pile of paper and I am generally worn out from coming up with meals suitable to a diabetic/heart failure patients diet living in a motel, which we have beenstuck with here and with the back problems I have, have to lie down regularly – paper is never signed and they never read it to him – ran into the same thing with someone I tried to help here who went to a mental health facility and rather than discuss anything with her, hand her a piece of paper with info off computer about whatever -I had a real counsellor at one time and while she probably wasn’t up to dealing with my problem (my ex had been trying to have me murdered and so I got disappeared to the boonies ) she talked with me and did the best she could to listen – ironic that she has a brother in this town and when I last spoke with her, I called about my son, she told me she had interview for the facility here called the centers thinking she might move here – no way she would work for them – last person I knew that went there in a crisis was released late at night, walked out the door and ended up dead, hit by an auto – the lack of personal involvement with the age of computers is horrific. and I guess I have strayed from the topic, but, the handouts they give out are sometimes not clear about what the law is – I sit here with cataracts trying to advocate for my husband and sometimes I think my rights are being violated because my ex knows who I am married to so I can never live anywhere without him knowing where I am
You know unless I am misunderstanding this completely in some ways it could help RSOs directly. I do not know the specifics of the case but I do now that most sex crimes (at least in FL) are considered crimes of violence based only on the fact that it is a “sex crime” For instance the stings – there is no real victim and no contact is ever made with a minor and yet those arrested are considered to have committed a crime of violence. Also, CP. when a person is charged with possession of CP only it is still considered a violent crime and yet there was no violence perpetrated by the possessor. Once again I make the argument that if I see a photo of a murder victim (read just about any true life crime novel and you will see some) am I quilty of the violence against the victim? Of course not it is absurd! However, that is the mind-set they apply to the possession of CP. So is this case about the fact that the statutes do not specifically say that a particular crime is considered violent and therefore is vague? Doe the FL statute say anything about this and that crime are considered violent crimes? Just wondering
I would guess that a majority of CP possession crimes also lack an identifiable victim. I ran into that when I was arrested, I had several hundred deleted pictures from the internet and they determined that 5 were of underage persons. They tried to say that another 5 contained illegal images of underage adolescents. What was REALLY weird is that FDLE had a doctor retained as an “expert” and his apparent area of expertise was looking at naked pictures of young people and determining with a high degree of certainty how old they were. Those 5 costs went away quickly once the State Attorney got hold of the case. They were gong to have enough trouble proving that I “knowingly’ possessed anything and that they even had probable cause to seize my computer. My lawyer told me that the five did fit the rather broad definition of the statute and most of them appeared to be old nudist resort pictures.