PA: SORNA Registration Equal to Being “In Custody”
Piasecki v. Bucks County Court — habeas — reversal — McKee
[Disclosure: as explained below, I assisted Peter Goldberger in representing the petitioner-appellant in this appeal.]
For a federal court to consider a habeas petition, the petitioner must be “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Past cases have found custody to include parole restrictions, own-recognizance release pending appeal, and community service obligations. Today, the Third Circuit held that the requirements that come with registration under Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act satisfy the habeas custody requirement because SORNA restricts registrants’ physical liberty in various ways, including banning computer internet access and requiring them to appear frequently at a state police barracks, in person. The court distinguished rulings from other Circuits involving other, less-restrictive sex-offender-registry statutes.
In an interesting footnote, the opinion focused more deeply on the condition banning computer internet access and observed that computer and internet bans are common, “Yet it is not at all clear that the judges imposing such sweeping and unconditional bans appreciate the impact they would have if literally interpreted and enforced,” barring things like using an ATM, having a smartphone, navigating by GPS, or simply driving a late-model car. It noted with a lengthy stringcite that “many courts have struck down statutes or vacated sentences that impose broad bans on computer and internet usage.”
Joining McKee were Ambro and Restrepo. Arguing counsel were Stephen Harris of the Bucks County district attorney’s office for the Commonwealth and me for the petitioner — I had the privilege of arguing in place of Mr. Piasecki’s counsel, Peter Goldberger, who wrote the briefs, because he was out of state attending to a compelling family matter.
Thanks to https://all4consolaws.org for re-posting this first
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just had to file a motion for my child support case. While pro se petitioners may still file in writing (for now), the preferred method of filing (and ONLY acceptable method for non Pro se petitioners (at least in the 19th judicial circuit of Florida)) is through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This obviously requires a…wait for it…computer. The best and easiest way to check on your case status and any hearing dates…the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. I feel like a computer/internet restriction causes us to have a less timely access to our cases than all other parties. This, most likely, handicaps a person without access during the course of any legal proceedings.
One problem with limiting “computer” use is, “What is a computer?” Is a fax machine a computer! How about a programmable thermostat? If I fax or mail documents to my brother and he scans them and posts them online, did I use a computer? What if I mail documents to an address where documents are automatically fed into a scanner and posted? Computer laws are just a way to limit free speech!
Would a TRS 80 computer from 1978 be okay to use to write documents? How about a nonverbal autistic man? Can he use a computer to talk? Is a Brother Word Processor a computer? What if I have cerebral palsey or have dysgraphia due to autism and can only write using a word processor? Any medical exceptions? . I feel my right to free speech is hindered. Someone successful in business but without coordination to use a pen is at risk in this country! Once convicted, no ability to communicate. I know, he shouldn’t have committed the crime in the first place! But wait! He only pleaded guilty because he could not get resources in jail to call witnesses since he could not write in jail without a typewriter!
I wonder if we could all put in habeas corpus’s ? being that we are all apart of SORNA and racked of plenty of paper from our registration periods. We are all in custody to the state one way or the other…… I’ve been riding this bus since 1991 and it sucks! I hope it gets better for all of us…Let us pray that maybe it will trickle down here to the eleventh circuit..
I agree that there should be an end to registration at some point, and keeping people on the registry after they have left the state either by moving or dying is most ridiculous. just another way to inflate the numbers.
The tide, it is turning.
A great big THANK YOU to the defense lawyers in this case. Also THANK YOU to FAC for sharing!
I am a registered sex offender in Florida.I appreciate what the FAC is doing,but the Internet strict laws for Registered S.O is just one of the obsticles that makes the lives of S.O a living nightmare.The S.O laws in FLA are deplorable and we need to work together to bring fair change for S.O in FLA.We are treated as Aliens,and arrest of S.O’S are usually unwarranted just because we are S.O’S.This is just like being on probation.therefore it’s a punishment and should be considered unconstitutional.Yes there should be a Small.S.O registry but not for the rest of one’s life especially if it was an isolated incident over 23 years ago as it was in my case
Dear Chico,
This federal case from the Third Circuit is a BIG step forward for us all. While it is not binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit (covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) it is very good persuasive authority for our cause. Hang in there and let’s all keep fighting!
Also encouraging is the federal ruling in Alabama where the judge ruled many of their state laws are unconstitutional. It was a district judge’s ruling, and probably will be appealed to the 11th circuit:
https://www.al.com/news/2019/02/some-alabama-sex-offender-registration-laws-are-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules.html