Md. Senate Backs Marking Sex Offender Licenses

UPDATE: As to "adverse public information," such may be grounds for an ex post facto challenge. See U.S. Supreme court discussion at end of article:

Another preposterous nonsensical proposal by a lawmaker bent on vengeance. Since when do the police need a reminder to check why someone has a child in a car who may not be theirs, that should be standard police procedure, not something they only need to do if they stop a registered sex offender.

The idea itself is ridiculous because 95% of new sex crimes are committed by persons who are not on the registry, hence they would not have such markings on their licences. And, as to the markings being indiscreet, it wouldn't take long for the public to know where the dot or whatever else is used, then to further affect the lives of registered sex offenders.

Laws such as this are vindictive and costly to the state, and if they ever worked as proposed, it would be only after the second coming of the Lord. Voters should vote these down and the lawmakers out of office. Lawmakers need to stop the vengeance thinking and start with PREVENTION methods. eAdvocate

4-10-2010 Maryland:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) ― Maryland senators have passed legislation that would add special coding to sex offenders' driver's licenses, something lawmakers say will help officials keep tabs on them.

Senators passed legislation with the provision on Saturday. Sen. Richard Colburn, R-Dorchester, sponsored the amendment, which requires the marking to be done in a way that only law enforcement can understand. He says it would alert police to ask more questions if they stop a registered sex offender with a child.

Opponents say adding the markings is akin to a "scarlet letter" and will make it tougher for those on parole to rejoin society. They add it could drive more sex offenders underground as they try to avoid registration requirements.

The bill now goes to a House panel for approval. ..Source.. Maryland News

COMMENTARY:
Does this violate the ex post facto clause, most would say, no, but read on. When RSOs go in to register they provide information to the registry. Then the registry displays certain of that information on a public registry; all state action. However, driver's licenses and license plates are vastly different. How you ask? Well, who is carrying the state's message, the RSO, that is not like the state displaying information on the Internet. In the U.S. Supreme court, the case of Smith v. Doe (Sex offender registration), during Oral Argument the following discussion took place between Mr. Olson (then Solicitor General for the U.S.) and Justice Kennedy:

Justice Kennedy QUESTION: Could -- could the State require a special mark on your license plate?

MR. OLSON: No, I -- well, I don't know, Justice Kennedy, but I would say that would be considerably different than what's here because that would --

QUESTION: I don't think it's very different.

MR. OLSON: Pardon me?

QUESTION: I don't think it's very different.

MR. OLSON: I -- I respectfully submit that it's a great deal different. That mark on your license plate, or mark on your forehead would go wherever you would go. It would require you to carry the government's message rather than the government supplying the message.

QUESTION: Well, this statute requires you to make the government's message four times a year.

MR. OLSON: It only -- it doesn't require you to make the government's message four times a year. The government's message, I respectfully submit, is made when a citizen submits an inquiry to the State through the Internet listing. All -- it is required four times a year is to advise the government of a current location or current information so that the information on the registry is accurate and -- and up-to-date.

So, who is carrying the message? It is the RSO when it is on his driver's license or license plate. That distinction, following the sentencing where it was not part of the sentence, could very well be construed as further punishment. i.e., a ex post facto violation. Apparently, there is something in law about, who carries the message, and lawyers know about this. Now to find those lawyers to fight the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme court. That may be easier said than done.