Interesting in this article is, we have a Federal Judge who apparently does not want any other judge (a state judge), to disagree with his federal decision already issued. Ignoring the issues of the case for a minute, what makes a Federal Judge so god-like that others should not disagree with him?1-8-2010 Nebraska:
A hearing is scheduled in Lincoln County District Court on Jan. 14 that could test the patience of a federal judge who has already allowed small parts of the new sex offender registry act to be argued on merits of constitutionality.
Previous cases were filed in other parts of the state to contest the Jan. 1 deadline that implemented LB 97 and LB 285, a comprehensive set of new statutes that makes public knowledge the names of all sex offenders, as opposed to just high-risk offenders, and changes how sex offenders are monitored post-conviction.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf issued a ruling dated Jan. 4 that acknowledged some issues pertaining to the new laws' requirements for post-conviction monitoring, such as allowing law enforcement to install hardware on an offender's computer to monitor his or her activity.
However, the litigation also attempted to stop the posting all sex offenders to the Nebraska State Patrol sex offender registry's Web site and Kopf ruled that it was constitutional. Kopf said he expects no more state interference in his ruling.
"If a state court enters an order that conflicts with mine, there is high likelihood that I will take further more direct action to stop any such interference," Kopf wrote in the Jan. 4 document. "In a spirit of comity and respect, I hope to avoid such an unseemly dispute by issuing this order."
Lincoln County District Court Judge John Murphy will face that test on Jan. 14 when he presides over a hearing prompted by local defense attorney Robert Lindemeier's filing of a temporary injunction and demands to the return to the old system.
In papers filed in Lincoln County on Monday, Lindemeier's primary complaint against the new law is that it is unconstitutional, but cites several reasons in an eight-cause restraining order request from the court.
Lindemeier said the new laws violate the state constitution by amounting to double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment, and violate due process, freedom of speech and separation of powers. He also said that the laws cause a violation of the original plea agreements for lesser offenders who assumed that their privacy would be protected.
"I haven't seen Judge Kopf's ruling," said Lindemeier. "But the reasons for the filing were not to question his rulings as far as it being constitutional to the federal government rather than questioning the law's constitutionality to the state."
Lindemeier said the filing is part of the process to bring the problems associated with the law into light.
"The new law has problems constitutionally," he said. "Essentially what it's done is imposed erroneous registration requirements on these guys. A lot of them have already served their sentence requirements and completed their 10-year registration requirements. This law will require them to register for 15 years or the rest of their lives whether they have re-offended or not."
Lindemeier said he doesn't know how Murphy will rule, but the ultimate goal is to slow down the process.
"Let's just not be too quick and let's not jump the gun," he said. "We just want to make sure that the law is backed up by the strength of the constitution."
For now, most of the two-part law remains intact and the 90 sex offenders in Lincoln County must abide by the new registration requirements. Lincoln County Chief Deputy Sheriff Dean Sparks said that all of the offenders in the county have received notice of the changes and 24 are due in this month to register.
The only part of the registry act to be held up for now is the continuance of post-conviction monitoring of existing offenders. Kopf has allowed that process to move forward with further argument, as well defining social networking sites, which the law bans sex offenders from using. ..Source.. Mark Young
1 comment:
The State Judge could rule based upon the state constitution and the district court Federal Judge could not overturn that, but if the State Courts take a different interpretation of the Federal Constituion then the Federal Judge, the Federal Judges interpretation of federal constitutional law would be controling.
Post a Comment