UPDATE 3-10-2011: Many thanks to the reader for this important update: "The Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011. This does not mean that SCOTUS did agreed with the Tenth Circuit, it just means they will not hear the case. They are well aware that the White v. Baker decision out of Georgia says it is unconstitutional. There is a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Nebraska as well on this issue. A new lawsuit was filed in Feb. 2011 against New York's E-STOP as well."10-28-2010 Utah:
Folks may remember this case from 2008 where Utah had amended its registry laws to require registrants to turn over their Internet IDs, Passwords and any place on the Internet they visit.
Well Mr. John Doe, who was no longer on parole or probation or any other form of supervision, sued to stop the enforcement of the law against him. The Utah court did issue an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law against Mr. Doe because it felt his rights to anonymous free speech on the Internet were being violated by the new state law.
We now know that, following that decision the Utah legislature changed the law. The new law said, registrants still had to fess up the Internet IDs but not the passwords, and that information would be kept private and used ONLY for criminal investigations by the police. The Utah AG goes back into court and gets the Injunction lifted. Mr. Doe must comply.
Mr. Doe then takes the case to the Federal District court claiming, even this new law violates his rights to anonymous free speech on the Internet. The District court agrees with what the Utah AG said, and told Mr. Doe to provide the information asked for by the state.
Mr. Doe then appeals the District court decision to the 10th Cir Court of Appeals, which issued a decision today. The Appellate court rules, like the District court, that Mr. Doe's rights are not violated because, the state law says the Internet IDs will be kept private and used ONLY for criminal investigations.
Going back in time the news reports can be found HERE and HERE and HERE, and the court decisions HERE.
That ends the legal side of that case, and one would think thats where it ends. Not so Sherlock. Along comes the Adam Walsh Act, modified recently by the Kid's Act, and as to Internet IDs says the following.
ALL registrants of state registries, that includes Utah registrants when Utah enacts provisions of AWA, must submit Internet IDs, BUT, how AWA allows use of the Internet IDs appears to violate the 10th Cir Court of Appeals decision as to Utah registrants (or at least Mr. Doe).
AWA allows social networks to compare Internet IDs to their files (this happens by the U.S. Dep't of Justice giving all registrants Internet IDs to the social networks), to see if a state registrant has an account on the social network, and if so, that social network MAY kick the registrant of the social network site.
There is no doubt that, the federal government allowing ANY social network access to Internet IDs for their purpose, is not the same as, police using Internet IDs for the purpose of criminal investigations. Hence, as to Utah registrants, their rights will again be violated.
So far, to my knowledge, no Utah registrant has realized how AWA will use their Internet IDs, in violation of the 10th Cir Court of Appeals decision, and filed a new court case on this issue.
It is clear we have not heard the end of this issue, at least for Utah registrants.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Hint hint hint, if any reader knows a Utah registrant, you may want them to read the above.
3 comments:
Not sure how this applys here, but in colorado ALL internet identifiers - email addresses,im id's etc are posted on state website. When I first started to post here I thought that it would require me to show my email address, which could of course show all of my registrant info here. To me at least this seems most aggregious because I feel inhibited on many sites to post comments, ideas etc. because I must submit my email addy or have an identifier- and colorado requires you to register them 5 days I belive before you use them. Arizona also makes public at least email addresses of registrants I think. Seems to me this is a violation of free speech.
I'm not sure the root cause, but for a state that claims to be hard on crime, sexual predators seem to get free reign in Utah. Before a sexual predator (Craig Huntington) could adopt 2 young children (a 6 year old boy and 8 year old girl) in Provo, Utah, his young adult sons came forward and informed their mother that their father had molested them for years. Upon alerting the police, an investigation revealed 6 additional boys between the ages of 10-13 that had been molested by Huntington. Hutnington used his position in the church and his own sons to lure these boys to his home to molest them.
Unfortunately, NINE months after the initial charges, this incestuous pedophile is still out and has gotten FIVE continuances on his initial hearing. His wealthy father and his own political and business connections have kept him out of jail and living peacefully in a neighborhood surrounded by kids. During this time, no one knows what he is doing with his spare time. This a tragedy of justice - the victims gave up everything to come forward and are left imprisoned in their own lives while the predator is free to roam. The people of Provo, Utah need to be warned that this man is living amongst them and keep their children out of harm's way.
The Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011. This does not mean that SCOTUS did agreed with the Tenth Circuit, it just means they will not hear the case. They are well aware that the White v. Baker decision out of Georgia says it is unconstitutional. There is a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Nebraska as well on this issue. A new lawsuit was filed in Feb. 2011 against New York's E-STOP as well. As for me, JohnDoeUtah, since I fall directly under the AWA as a federal offender, I have a second chance. Once enough of these lawsuit make thier way through the courts and create a circuit split, I will sue again (but under the AWA), and take that case back to SCOTUS to get them to look at it then (once the Circuit Court of Appeals have conflicting decisions).
Post a Comment