Nonprofit Contractor’s Home Visits to Verify Sex Offender Addresses Are Valid, 2nd Circuit Rules
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Wednesday that Suffolk County’s decision to contract with a nonprofit to verify the home addresses of registered sex offenders did not violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A unanimous panel of the appeals court upheld the district court’s ruling, which rejected claims from a convicted Level 1 sex offender, who argued that multiple visits from the group Parents for Megan’s Law were unconstitutional.
“We conclude that the district court correctly determined that the verification visits, which served a special need, were reasonable, even if they constituted seizures,” Droney wrote in a 29-page opinion.
Jones v. Suffolk and Parents for Megan’s Law 9-4-19
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Special needs doctrine ?? I’ve never heard of such a thing and frankly, it just sounds made up. This is simply giving law enforcement power to a group of civilians. I skimmed through the case ruling and it just strange all together. This can also be dangerous as well. I’m sure vigilantes with malicious intentions, would probably take advantage of this in some way. If I’m not mistaken, the plaintiff (John Jones) is appealing the decision. But meanwhile, I think it’s time for Mr. Jones to get a fence with two big dogs and warning signs saying ” beware of dog ” and most importantly, ” No Trespassing “.
One of the premisses for the Court’s argument is flawed.
The syllogism seems to be:
A. Sex Offending needs to stop (True, as I see it)
B. Those who have previously committed a sex offense pose an especially grave risk to society (FALSE!!!….look at the low rates of recidivism)
C. Therefore, The government seizure is warranted by special circumstances.
In every logical syllogism (3 part argument) both of the 2 premisses must be true in order for the conclusion to be true.
BUT THE SECOND PREMISS IS BLATANTLY FALSE!!
Therefore, the argument is absurd (another way of saying the syllogism has a false conclusion).
The court has erred.
Once again a judge sets the Constitution aside.
Seems with every victory we gain, some other asinine ruling, law, rule, or requirement is added to our plight. Yes many of us did something 30 or more years ago but we paid out price either with Jail, Prions, probation or house arrest. We do we have to serve an additional sentence with every new idea they come up with? One step forward, 10 steps back.
Who in the world is Parents for Megan’s Law, and why do they insist on getting paid for unwelcome visits to strangers’ homes?
Parents For Megan’s Law is the north’s version of Lauren Book’s foundation.
Laura Ahearn and Lauren Book have a lot in common. Both claim victimhood status and head multi-million-dollar victim industry agencies. Both have powerful friends among the local political and law enforcement elites, many of whom are tied into corruption. Both have been responsible for terrible laws against registrants in their areas of the country.
it could be argued that in some ways, Ahearn’s private group is worse than Book’s. You know the persistent myth of “100,000 missing sex offenders”? PFML made that up. Unlike the Books, Ahearn & PFML have worked on the federal level, and PFML has been around a lot longer.
Oh, and both have tried abusing the courts to silence me.
But at the end of the day, this is a private for-profit business. Much like the Books work with the private prisons, Ahearn is a private business conducting an operation that is strictly the duty of law enforcement.
It has been 10 years since Wendy Horowitz showed that accurate registries do not reduce recidivism. I don’t blame the judge for not being aware of this. I blame the plaintiff’s attorney for not even introducing this into evidence.
I agree. Attorney with lack of information.