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.
I wonder if simple “No Trespassing” signs posted on the property lines would keep them out. I don’t know if their status as a “contractor” permits them to disregard posted warnings.
No Trespassing signs do not apply to people coming on your property for official business. Utilities workers, law enforcement and EMT’s , Census workers, and if the contract workers are there sent by the state, county or city, they are allowed to knock on your door.
That’s what I was wondering……
You are able to put up signs to keep law enforcement off of your property. No one should allow PFML onto their property, ever.
A sign saying “no trespassing” is not enough though. It is not trespassing for anyone to come to your front door. So you need a more direct sign. You can easily make one that is effective. Or you can purchase at https://fourthamendmentsecurity.com/yard-signs/.
Not necessarily correct. From USA vs. Carloss (2016), the court made it clear that a homeowner or occupants thereof must make it unambiguously clear to the general public, including police officers, that the implied license to enter upon the property has been revoke. You should read and research before posting comments like this.
The court affirmed that a No Trespassing sign alone is not enough to inform the general public, including police officers, that they cannot enter upon private property.
“We conclude that, under the circumstances presented here, an objective officer would not have understood that the IMPLIED LICENSE he would ordinarily have to approach the porch and knock on the front door of a home had been REVOKED at this house.”
“Because the license to walk up to the front door is “implied from the habits of the country,” Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1415 (2013), we presume that every homeowner has granted that license ABSENT ANY CONTRARY INDICATION. See id. (“[T]he knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry.”). Thus, the homeowner has the burden of showing that he has OPTED OUT of “the habits of the country.” See Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts 220 (2000) (noting that failure to “show your dissent from the general custom of the community” can “reasonably be taken to import consent” to its continued application to you). Because revocation deviates from the background norm, THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST MAKE HIS REVOCATION PLAIN.”
Be sure the read the Chief Judge’s enlightening concurrence beginning on Page 19 of the court’s decision:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-7082.pdf
“The Restatement of Torts helps frame the scope of this inquiry. A license created by a landowner to enter land can be terminated by a “revocation of [his] consent,” of which a would-be visitor “knows or has reason to know.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 171(b) (1965). Specifically, a would-be visitor must know or have reason to know that the homeowner “has done an act” that is “necessarily inconsistent with a continuance of the consent.” Id. cmt. b. A visitor has “reason to know” when he “has information from which a person of reasonable intelligence . . . would infer that[the homeowner revoked the license].” Id. § 12.”
USA v Carloss is out of circuit. It is not binding here in Florida.
I know the law very clearly. I use to work in law enforcement. To enter your house without permission I would need a warrant unless someone inside was in danger.
Officers coming to verify your address were made exempt and as you know, a probation officer can demand to come in your house anytime if you are on probation. Does this make it right?
There are exceptions to every law and rule and you can refuse to let an officer come on your property all you want but when you are violated good luck using your carlos ruling to get out of jail. Heck the registries are punitive yet illegal and yet they not only exist but have adds ons each month to the point no one can possible comply. For example, what happens to me when they start making us pay to register ? Will homeless be exempt since they have no income but if we do then we have to pay even though they get a pass? You can quote rulings, laws and legislation all day long but it is just a piece of paper until it is either enforced, left to interpretation or violated.
Not in Florida. If you are a registered citizen, they walk right past the no trespassing signs to your front door. Matter of fact, if you have a gate locked with a combination, you are required to turn it over to them.
I have no trespassing signs at my front patio and was told they don’t apply to officers doing address checks because I am registered.
Actually, being registered has nothing to do with it. A Law enforcement officer can come to the door of anyone registered or not if they have a legit reason regardless of no trespassing signs.
When not under supervision law enforcement have the same rights as any other citizen. Meaning that they have the right to come up to your door if there is no locked gate and knock, however, they cannot linger for more than what is considered a reasonable time. Like any other citizen they can peek into a window that is accessible from your front porch.
That is basically the extent of their privileges when it comes to entering your property.
WHL mentioned that a LEO requires the combination of the lock on the front gate due to being registered. This only applies while on supervision.
I haven’t found anything within the Florida statutes that requires this after a period of supervision ends.
All sounds right except the “window peeking”, LOL. People can come to your front door and knock. They can’t move around on your porch and look in windows. If there is a window near your front door, I surely expect there is no issue with simply looking through it. But I do expect it is not legal to go up to the window and really look in closely.
I have dark window tinting on ALL of my windows and blinds on them as well. I also have security cameras and motion detectors everywhere on my property. ( I had a home invasion while I was at work so now I have fort knox at my house ) I can look out the windows without anyone being able to see me. Unlike cars, there is not law as to how dark the window tinting can be on your homes windows. Bonus it keeps the house cooler as well
The reason that a “no trespassing” sign does not work is because a person coming to your front door is not trespassing. That is all there is to it.
But you can get signs that will keep law enforcement away from your front door and off of your property. If for some reason a law enforcement criminal (LEC) ignores your multiple signs, I would make sure I was getting video and audio of it. I would escort them back to one of the signs and show it to them. Then you could say something like, “You must have not seen this. You aren’t welcome on this property. I don’t have anything to say or do for you. I gave the information that I’m forced to give, in writing, at the government location. Please stay off of this property.” Then you can watch them leave.
Every time I talk to an LEC, I also like to add something like, “Have a good day. But why don’t you try to stop wasting resources harassing families and go do some actual work on some actual crime prevention or solving? That would actually be useful.”
If LECs won’t stay off your property, I would certainly get an attorney involved and take it to court if needed. EVERY single Registered Family needs to make sure that criminal regimes and their LECs understand that they aren’t wanted or supported. No one wants them on their property. No one wants them around. That needs to be the default and completely well known and understood.
If criminal regimes want to “verify” their nonsense Registries then let them do it with the anti-Americans who want the Registries. Let the criminal regimes go to your “neighbors” and “verify” whatever they like with them. Let the people who want the Registries be forced to deal with them.
I agree with the opinion that…
ALL REGISTRANTS and ALL REGISTRANT FAMILIES need to protest and put up as many barriers as possible.
We are CITIZENS, and we must strongly assert our constitutional protections!!
(If we don’t ALL do this, then we ALL won’t see change.)
I don’t know who told you that if u are not on probation or parole U have 4th amendment right.
(“W]hen law enforcement officers who are NOT ARMED WITH A WARRANT knock on a door, they do no more than any citizen might do.”). The home’s occupant remains free to terminate the conversation or EVEN TO AVOID IT ALTOGETHER BY NOT OPENING THE DOOR. See King, 133 S. Ct. at 1862 (“[W]hether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak.”). UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT, USA vs. Carloss (2016).
I would be 100% shocked if even the criminal regimes in Floriduh TRIED to make it required for ANY person who is not on probation or parole to allow law enforcement or anyone else to come onto their property. I don’t believe that for one second. Not even in Floriduh. Did a law enforcement criminal (LEC) tell you that? They WILL try to operate outside of the law all of the time. I’ve personally seen it too many times to count.
I fully expect that even in Floriduh, you can surround your property with a wall or fence and never allow LECs to even speak to you there, let alone come onto your property. I do expect that is the case. But if you are having trouble with that, I’d absolutely contact an attorney for legal action.
You should NEVER, EVER trust what LECs tell you. They will lie all day. And when they are not lying, they aren’t even careful about what they are saying. They will certainly talk about all kinds of things of which they have no actual knowledge (much like most people in Amerika actually). You have to talk to people who care about being decent and not lying.
I think a key reason that LECs always operate outside of the law is that it works. Registered Families need to stop hiding, be stronger than the INHERENTLY weak LECs, and force the LECs to stop committing their crimes. Stand up and wage war on these terrorists.
WOW!!!
I am all for having rights but, having said that, I also like staying under the radar so I do what they ask, get it out of the way and they don’t bother me again until next time. The Deputy who checks on me only comes once a year for five minutes unless I am not home then I have a 10000 foot banner hung across my front door announcing an attempt was made to verify my address. The first deputy I had use to hang it backwards so only someone turning it over could read it which was very polite of him to do. The new guy is cool but if I am not home when they come they wrap my house in a big sign with flashing lights and sirens ( ok being dramatic but you can see it from the street ) I have seen on the news where some counties put yard signs in offenders yards that have to stay there announcing a registered person resides there. That would for sure make me move, which is probably their intent.
Everyone has to fight in a way that makes them comfortable. I respect that.
For me, the Registries are 100% unacceptable. I’m not going to hide in any way. I’m not going to worry if the law enforcement criminals pull up in the street in front of my house in SWAT vehicles with lights going all over them. I’m going to tell them to F off and any “neighbor” who cares as well.
It is easier to just “go along”. But that is not morally acceptable to me personally.
These criminal regimes will do what they can get away with. I only had to stop “compliance checks” once. They get the message. They will do what they can but I won’t allow them to get away with more. I won’t allow them to operate outside of their own illegal “laws” even!
It is time for all 1M Registered People to stand up and say “F you” to ANYONE who supports Registries. That is the only hope of the Registries ending.
I’m going to fight in the War on Registry Terrorists. They’ll continue to pay.
I do fight but with the help of my lawyer, FAC and in other ways. I have a family I have to look out for and getting arrested just is not an option. Plus my parents are elderly and I do not want them to die with me being in prison. I respect your way as like you said, we all have to do what we have to do. Most of the time I am treated with respect and have even had officers apologize for having my time interrupted. Now when I lived in Seminole county, that was Hell on Earth. Each time I registered they would take me to a vacant room and interrogate me for hours on end. After a few months of that I moved .
I hear you. And you are very smart to have cameras and such as you described. Every Registered Family should have at least that. But I’m just not going to allow them onto my property or near my home or family. There is no reason to and they have no ability to force me to or arrest me for not allowing it. If they “need” that then they need to get their criminal legislators to try to pass some “law” that requires it. Until then, F them and their families every day.
I agree that getting even ONLY arrested is not an option for me. It would be a pain but even more so troublesome is that I simply would have to retaliate. I just would. I know myself well enough to know there would be no other acceptable option. A lot of people would pay for it. So all in all, ONLY and JUST being arrested for anything could end up being life threatening for lots of people, including myself. Just an ugly, unacceptable path.
About that “interrogate me”. I’ve never allowed that. If the criminal regime tried that with me I would just tell them that I’m not speaking to them and I’ll give any information forced by “law” in writing. Or perhaps briefly verbally, IF it is fully video recorded. And that would not be an interrogation. That would be only giving the information forced by “law”.
If a law enforcement criminal is nice to you and does not support the Registries, then I think it is proper to be kind, polite, and respectful. Otherwise, I think it is a mistake to treat them as if they are humans or as if anything they are doing regarding Registration is legitimate or sensible.
We have this Registration nonsense in a large part because we’ve allowed it. The War on Registry Terrorists needs to escalate every day.
Amen, Will!
War is what it is. Let’s not mince words.
They have nullified our very constitutional rights!
Damn them to helll!!
the special need being we need an excuse to do something illegal but because we are the government we want to pretend legality.only way to stop it is to start fighting back folks. as long as you accept the abuse expect more abuse.
AMEN to ‘obvious answers’. Silence and acceptance is defeat. Nice guys never win. We need to call these illegal actions for what they are. We all need to know the Constitution and then take a stand on its principles and intent. The 17th of September is “Constitution Day”. By federal law all entities that receive federal funds…schools, state governments, organizations, etc…are to take that day to study the Constitution. You might want to contact your local school board to see if that is in their plans or if they intend to violate the law?
Has no one to say as to the argument?
Logic is to law – as mathematics is to physics…they are the language, of each discipline….Each science….
Logic is made of syllogisms – the simplest form of argument.
A syllogism has 3 parts – 2 premisses and 1 conclusion:
For instance:
Premiss A: All dogs get fleas
Premiss B: All fleas are a health hazard
Conclusion: Dogs must be given flea baths in order to protect the public from health hazards.
But the logic of the court’s argument is obviously absurd (the premisses are not both true —– which must be valid)
Can the court legally ignore logic?????? Are they immune from reality?????
Premiss A: Sex offenders must be stopped from committing crimes against the vulnerable (children, especially)
Premiss B: Sex offenders have a high rate of re-offense
Conclusion: Sex offenders cannot be afforded the constitutional protections afforded other citizens; for, they present an unusual circumstance of safety hazard.
BUT PREMISS B IS INVALID!!!!! THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROVES THE OPPOSITE!!!!! (SEX OFFENDERS POSE THE LOWEST RISK OF RE-OFFENSE OF ANY CRIME TYPE!!!)
The court inferred the opposite of premiss B. It inferred that sex offenders have a “frightening and high” recidivism…
The court erred in its logic. The court is WRONG!!!!
Sound the bells!!! Invoke the prayers…be the “squeeky wheel”!!!
Be the truth-teller! (grow a pair!!! – please forgive the sexist rant)
Let not the morons win their fatally flawed “seeming arguments”!
Their arguments are absurd.
(absurd=not logical, or based in reality)
Let this court ruling not go unmentioned!!!! Email the judge, for crissakes!…at least!
Theater of the absurd! If this was not so stupid, and dangerous, it could be a Saturday Night Live skit….do gooders go to house wanting to kick some ass….man answers door… its pres trump…..gives them money and a ticket to epstein’s island… have fun boys!!!…..see you next year!!
By definition, this group is a posse.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/posse
So was the KKK at one point. And that didnt work out well either. Just saying.
And you don’t have to answer the door, nor can the come into or search your home!
And they damn well better stay off of my property.