October 4, 2010

A Lubbock man who challenged the constitutionality of the sex offender registry has lost that appeal.

In other words the court said "We don't want to listen to your arguments, whether they have merit or not."
10-4-2010 Texas:

A Lubbock man who challenged the constitutionality of the sex offender registry has lost that appeal. Virgil Lane pleaded guilty to one count of Failure To Register As A Sex Offender on the condition that he get to continue his appeal on constitutional grounds. In a one-page response, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says the constitutional issue of a sex offender registry has already been settled. ..Source..


Anonymous said...

Fine. It isn't unconstitutional. We have been trying to take the high road and get rid of AWA. Our mistake is that nobody cares about our cause. Now we need to drop the white gloves and petition to put other offenses on the Registry. I want to know where Murderers live, where DUI drivers live, Drug Addicts and Offenders live. It's my Constitutional Right.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, in South Carolina the legislature agreed to withhold from the public the record of who possesses concealed weapons permits. So everybody has the right to know that I had sex with a teenager 25 years ago, but I don't have the right to know who is wandering the streets with a loaded gun in his coat. Are we confused about what constitutes danger?????

Don T said...

The problem with this position is that when the Supreme Court decided registries were legal, they weren't the same animal they have now become. They based their opinion on the position that the registry was essentially just making information that was already public more accessible. While that is technically true, the court did not anticipate the reaction that would ensue. For all intents and purposes, just being on the registry now amounts to a crime and is subjecting former offenders, many of whom committed crimes long before the registry even existed, to abuse, discrimination, liberty restrictions, and tracking that that effectively amounts to unconstitutional ex post facto supervision. To gain traction in the court we must attack the follow-on laws that are structured, "everyone listed on a registry must..." and not the registry itself. It is all the extras that will present a real constitutional argument for the Supreme Court.