Comments on: Not in custody? Hardly!

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 02:05:26 +0000

In reply to Larry. Larry Some sheriffs push the limits of the law and dare someone to challenge them. With 67 counties and 67 sheriffs, each county seems to have some of their own twists on the law and how much they can push them. And we have seen a few sheriffs making up their own rules and their interpretations of the law.

By: TS

TS — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:47:30 +0000

In reply to Larry. Unless on paper, he has none for one off paper.

By: TS

TS — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:46:55 +0000

In reply to JJJJ. @JJJJ Would you copy this excellent write up and the one below too, please, and paste @ACSOL website?

By: FAC Contributor #12

FAC Contributor #12 — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:42:59 +0000

In reply to CherokeeJack. Check your local ordinance(s) and let us know.

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:32:45 +0000

My question is, do those who had an adult victim only still have to be banned from Halloween? Not asking for me because I did not do Halloween anyway, just curious if it is only for those with an underaged victim. If they are banned as well, that right there would prove it has nothing to do with safety, but punishment.

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:55:12 +0000

Very similar of some counties in Florida when there is a hurricane, the only shelter for those on the registry is to report to the county lockup. Guess what, I would rather be taken out by the hurricane than to ever step foot in a jail ever until I die. I have ridden out some of the fiercest storms in Florida’s history while on the registry and if I have to, I will go down with the ship.
Even when I was on probation, I was not told to go to the jail during a hurricane. And even though I do not participate in Halloween, if they forced me to report to the jail, well “Fill in the blank” because I am not going. It is bad enough myself and others have reported issues with treatment when in the hospital because our chart has “Sexual offender” listed in our records.

By: JJJJ

JJJJ — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:46:25 +0000

1. Empirical Research — “The Halloween Effect” Myth The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) drew its position from multiple academic studies published in peer-reviewed criminology journals. Below are the key ones most frequently cited by ATSA, prosecutors, and defense experts alike: ________________________________________ Levenson, Jill S., & Zgoba, Kristen M. (2015). “The myth of the Halloween sex offender: A look at Halloween policies and sex offender recidivism.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(5), 508–519. Findings: • Reviewed national sex-crime data before and after Halloween restrictions were enacted. • Found no statistically significant increase in sexual offenses on or around Halloween. • Concluded that Halloween restrictions “create a false sense of security” and “divert resources from evidence-based prevention.” ________________________________________ Chaffin, Mark, Levenson, Jill S., Letourneau, Elizabeth J., & Stern, Patricia (2009). “How safe are trick-or-treaters? An analysis of child sex crime rates on Halloween.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(3), 363–374. Findings: • Analyzed 67,045 incidents of sexual assault reported to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). • No spike whatsoever in child sex crimes on Halloween compared to other days. • Found “no evidence that Halloween is associated with increased risk of sexual abuse.” ________________________________________ Ackerman, Alissa R., Harris, Andrew J. R., Levenson, Jill S., & Zgoba, Kristen M. (2018). “Who are the registrants? A descriptive analysis of individuals on sex offender registries.” Sexual Abuse, 30(2), 179–199. Findings: • Reinforces that risk among registrants varies dramatically; blanket policies ignore actual risk stratification. • High-risk (“Level 3”) offenders are a small subset, and even their recidivism rates remain lower than often assumed. ________________________________________ Summary of Research Consensus Every large-scale, data-driven study since the mid-2000s has reached the same conclusion: There is no “Halloween effect.” Laws banning participation, requiring signs, or demanding mass “check-ins” do not prevent crime and do not make children safer. ________________________________________ 2. Legal Precedents & Challenges to Halloween Restrictions Although few cases involve Georgia specifically, several federal and state decisions across the U.S. address the constitutionality of Halloween-related sex-offender rules. ________________________________________ Doe v. City of Simi Valley, 336 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2012) The city required registrants to post “No candy or treats” signs on Halloween and remain indoors. Holding: Federal judge struck down the ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction on speech and liberty. “Requiring plaintiffs to post signs on their property constitutes compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.” ________________________________________ Doe v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2019) Alabama’s sex-offender rules were challenged for being overly broad and punitive. Relevance: Court emphasized that registrants who have completed their sentences cannot be subjected to additional punitive conditions not authorized by statute. If a sheriff orders detention without specific statutory authority, that likely violates this principle. ________________________________________ Doe v. W. Lafayette (Indiana), 2020 WL 1904406 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 17, 2020) Local ordinance banned registrants from decorating or participating in Halloween activities. Holding: Upheld because it was limited to active registrants and did not involve detention; the court suggested that detention would require heightened scrutiny. ________________________________________ Georgia Context • Georgia’s sex-offender statute (O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12) does not authorize temporary detention of registrants absent probation or parole conditions. • Any sheriff who detains someone for three hours solely because it is Halloween likely acts without statutory basis, opening the county to § 1983 liability (civil rights violation under color of law). • If the sheriff’s office instead “requests” presence (voluntary check-in) that’s different — but once people are not free to leave, it becomes detention requiring probable cause or judicial order. ________________________________________ 3. Constitutional Principles in Play Right Source How It’s Potentially Violated Due Process 14th Amendment Detention without individualized hearing or probable cause. Equal Protection 14th Amendment Targeting an entire class (“Level 3 offenders”) without evidence of heightened risk. Freedom of Movement Substantive due process Compelling physical presence without supervision status or conviction. 4th Amendment Unreasonable seizure Physical confinement for 3 hours = seizure. Requires warrant, probable cause, or consent. 8th Amendment Excessive / arbitrary punishment If viewed as punitive, could violate proportionality principles. ________________________________________ 4. Likely Outcome if Challenged If Chatham County’s “3-hour Halloween detention” were litigated: • If the registrants are not on probation or parole: The order would almost certainly fail under due process and Fourth Amendment analysis. • If they are under active supervision: The state may impose temporary curfews or mandatory reporting, so long as these are part of probation conditions approved by the court or parole board. • As a blanket sheriff’s order: It’s vulnerable to being struck down as ultra vires (beyond the sheriff’s authority) and arbitrary (unsupported by evidence of need). The ATSA’s statement and accompanying research directly undermine any “rational basis” argument that this protects children. ________________________________________ 5. Key Takeaway There is no empirical justification for Halloween round-ups of registrants. Such policies are rooted in myth, not data. When imposed without supervision status or judicial authorization, they risk violating fundamental constitutional protections against arbitrary detention.

By: JJJJ

JJJJ — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:32:47 +0000

The mythical “Halloween effect”
From the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
October 1, 2019
As October arrives and families begin preparing for Halloween, it is always a priority to ensure children’s safety during this holiday. It is important to learn the facts and know the risks to your child during this festive time. A heightened risk of being sexually abused is NOT one of the dangers children face at Halloween. The simple fact is that there are no significant increases in sexual crimes on or around Halloween. There is no “Halloween effect.” There is no change in the rate of sexual crimes by non-family members during Halloween. That was true both before and after communities enacted laws to restrict the activities of registrants during Halloween. The crimes that do increase around Halloween are vandalism and property destruction, as well as theft, assault, and burglary. In addition, according to the Centers for Disease Control, children are four times more likely to be killed by a pedestrian/motor-vehicle accident on Halloween than on any other day of the year. Fully 93% of sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by someone known to, and trusted by, the child and the child’s family. But due to the myths regarding child sexual abuse that focus on “stranger danger,” communities and lawmakers often endorse policies that do little to prevent sexual abuse and instead unnecessarily stretch limited law enforcement resources. Jurisdictions that ban individuals on sex offender registries from participating in any Halloween activities, require registrants to post signs in their yards during Halloween, or round up registrants for the duration of trick-or-treating do not make children safer. Instead, these approaches create a false sense of safety while using law enforcement resources that could be better spent protecting children against the higher risk they do face during Halloween – injury or death from motor vehicles. Child sexual abuse is a serious public health issue that faces all communities. Although the prevalence of child sexual abuse can be difficult to determine due to under-reporting, researchers estimate that one in four girls and one in six boys will be victims of sexual abuse before age 18. For concerned parents, the best way to protect children from sexual abuse is to know the facts about sexual offending and take precautions based on facts, not fears. Parents can visit http://www.atsa.com to learn more about sexual abuse and prevention.

###

Association f o r t h e T r e a t m e n t o f S e x u a l A b u s e r s
4900 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 274, Beaverton, Oregon 97005 USA Phone: 503.643.1023 | Fax: 503.643.5084 | atsa@atsa.com | http://www.atsa.com

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:15:53 +0000

I’m guessing my question is on what authority does the sheriff have any legal authority to incarcerate someone that has not committed a crime I mean he is really violating someone’s constitutional right by incarcerated them for even one minute that’s the only person that can do something like that that has some power to do something to that would be a judge, but even then that would have to be fax for him to order such a thing just curious

By: TS

TS — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:00:49 +0000

In reply to JJJJ. Leaving the area to travel for a day or two is a fundamental right all are party to and cannot be restricted from even around Halloween. They cannot stop you from traveling elsewhere when they are trying to enforce this.