Reading the court decision it is hard to tell if, they are saying he violated FEDERAL law or STATE law. Clearly he had notice from the state he left, to register if he moved -although that notice didn't mention a federal requirement to do so- and he did not register when he did move. The decision is not clear, so the due process issue is not yet foreclosed in every fact circumstance, just this set of facts.
11-5-2009 Alabama:
ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld an aggressive federal program aimed at tracking and monitoring sex offenders.
The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday marks the first time an appeals court in the circuit has upheld the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that aims to create a national sex offender database and creates stiff penalties for those who fail to register.
It stems from the case of William Eric Brown, who was appealing his 2008 conviction for failing to reregister as a sex offender after moving from North Carolina to Alabama. Brown had argued the new requirements were "impossible" to comply with because he never received notification about them.
The three-judge panel's ruling, however, concluded there was "no due process violation." ..Source.. by WZTV.com
Showing posts with label cc-11th Cir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cc-11th Cir. Show all posts
November 5, 2009
AL- Fed appeal court upholds sex offender requirements
May 23, 2008
Adam Walsh is again unconstitutional under specific circumstances
5-23-2008 National:
Again, under specific circumstances, the Adam Walsh Act is unconstitutional in the case of US -v- Madera.
This is a case I followed from its inception and was shocked that the district court did not declare AWA a ex post facto violation under Calder v Bull "1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action."
However, today the 11th circuit took care of the case dismissing charges against Madera. see the 11th Circuit opinion:
Because Madera’s indictment concerns his failure to register during the gap period between SORNA’s enactment and the Attorney General’s retroactivity determination, he cannot be prosecuted for violating SORNA during that time. Thus, his indictment is due to be dismissed, and the judgment of the district court is reversed.
Having decided the case on this basis, we need not reach the important constitutional questions raised in Madera’s appeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
