Calif. to consider marked IDs for sex offenders

Legal? Maybe not...See commentary before the U.S. Supreme court below!

5-26-2010 California:

SAN DIEGO -- The father of a 14-year-old San Diego-area girl who was raped and murdered backed legislation Tuesday to require marked driver's licenses for registered sex offenders in California.

Maurice Dubois announced his support of the bill proposed by Assemblymen Pedro Nava and Paul Cook that would require sex offenders to carry the license or another government-issued identification card when they leave home.

The documents could include a distinctive stripe or color.

Registered sex offender John Albert Gardner III was sentenced to life in prison this month for killing Amber Dubois and 17-year-old Chelsea King.

Amber vanished while walking to school in February 2009. ..Source.. by Forbes.com

---

COMMENTARY from U.S. Supreme Court:
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.

---