[00:00] Intro: Welcome to Registry Matters. This is an independent production. Our opinions are our own. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, FYP.
[00:18] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 360 of Registry Matters. Larry, how did we get to 360? We’re, like, two times your age now.
[00:29] Larry: Well, not quite twice, but we are getting there.
[00:34] Andy: Anything exciting over in the land of enchantment?
[00:38] Larry: No. Just looking forward to this holiday weekend, and the boss is gonna be out of town for two weeks, so it’s gonna be fabulous.
[00:46] Andy: Hey. Do you subscribe to the the theory that when the boss is away, the the kids will play or whatever?
[00:51] Larry: I’ve heard tell of it, but I know it doesn’t work that way around here. I actually get more done when he’s away.
[00:59] Andy: Alright. Well, make sure you remember to show support by hitting like, subscribe, five star reviews, all that stuff. And, it does make a difference. And on YouTube, you can subscribe to us. You can thumbs up the video. You could do all that stuff, and it would be great. So why don’t you tell us what we are doing this evening on this fine Saturday evening before Christmas? Cheeepers. Thanksgiving, not Christmas. I’m like a month ahead.
[01:26] Larry: Well, I got some really bad news. It appears to be just mister doom and gloom and the foreseeable future. And that’s really bad news, isn’t it?
[01:38] Andy: Yes. It is unbelievably bad news. What are we going to do?
[01:42] Larry: Oh, it’s gonna be a lot of misery. We have a special guest with us, this episode to unpack our complicated situation. Discussion will be, regarding US citizen commission and recent changes that have been made. The guest is an attorney who knows a significant amount about the issue, more than what I know. Of course, that doesn’t take much. And I thought you knew everything. Well, just everything that’s worth knowing.
[02:13] Andy: Wait. Isn’t that Walter Cronkite thing? It’s like the news that’s worth reporting or something like that?
[02:19] Larry: I think so. And we have a brief update on a case pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Arizona. And also, I think it’s the fourth segment of your new create newly created segment. We gotta give this thing a name. What are we gonna call this?
[02:36] Andy: Nothing. It’s just going to be what it’s titled. How do you think you put that in there? Oh, it’s in there. Okay. Well, I didn’t even see it. Alright. Well, then yeah. It it they have titles. The subjects of the emails have titles.
[02:50] Larry: I never knew that.
[02:52] Andy: Okay. Alright then. Well, so I’m going to introduce our guest. Are we ready for that?
[02:59] Larry: I think we’re ready.
[03:01] Andy: Alright. So we have an attorney here named Anya, and she is an attorney from the state of Nevada. And we are going to be going over, as you just said, Larry, the sentencing guidelines something update that’s happening. Is that what we’re that’s what we’re doing. Right?
[03:17] Larry: Yes. We’re gonna talk about the sentencing commission and some recent changes. And it’s a forty year experiment, ongoing with the sentencing guidelines. And there’s been a lot of evolution, and I can’t even begin to keep track of where we’ve come from and where we’ve gone to and all that stuff. And and I think it’s a bunch of, hogwash. But, anyway Alright. Well it’s important to our listeners. A lot of people wanna know if it’s gonna help out people on the registry and people who’ve been convicted, and this is a good time to unpack that. Very good. Well, Anya, welcome. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. You are now live on Registry Matters.
[03:56] Andy: So, introduce yourself, say hello, and then we can go into how did we get here, what and what is this silly sentencing reformat?
[04:04] Anya: Well, thank you, Andy. It is a pleasure to be here. And thank you, Larry, for having me come on the show to be able to talk about this issue. Like you stated, my name is Anya, and I’m an attorney here in the state of Nevada. And, we’ll get into a lot about the sentencing commission and the guidelines and how everything works and what these new amendments are and maybe what their impact is for people on the registry.
[04:38] Andy: Fantastic. Let’s go.
[04:44] Anya: So how did we get here? Sure. How did we get here? Alright. A little bit of a history lesson. In 1984, the federal sentencing reform act, that is the SRA, was enacted. And prior to the enactment of this, federal judges were able to impose these indeterminate sentences. They had a large amount of discretion within the broad statutory range of punishments for offenses. And then after the sentencing, what would happen is the US Parole Commission would then decide whether and when people were released on parole out of their indeterminate sentences. The purported, purpose of the SRA was to create some consistency across federal sentencing because what was happening was people in different states could get vastly different sentences for the exact same federal crime. Now Larry said this previously on another podcast that when this was enacted, that it actually turned federal sentencing into more of like an if a then b situation. Because if someone committed crime a, they would automatically get sentence b. And what happened was it removed a lot of the judge’s discretion where the judge could individualize someone’s sentence based on the specific circumstances of their offense.
[06:18] Andy: Alright. Well, then the SRA included many changes to federal sentencing. And one of the things that it did is it got rid of federal
[06:27] Anya: parole? Yeah. That’s correct. It actually abolished federal parole, and it replaced it with what we have now, which is called supervised release for, federal offenses that were committed after 11/01/1987. And supervised release, it begins after a person completes their prison time that they get sentenced to by the judge. So in essence, it’s sort of like federal probation because when the person gets sentenced, the judge would sentence them to a term of prison as well as to a term of supervised release as opposed to the way it was before where the parole commission could decide where within that sentence someone will get released on parole.
[07:15] Andy: Why was this even an issue? Why was parole an issue? And then why was it so much disfavored?
[07:21] Anya: Yeah. So you gotta remember, this was 1984 when the, act was initially passed. And this was that whole tough on crime era where there was strong public push and political push for more punishment. So structured sentences were actually favored as opposed to this perception of allowing these judges to have a lot of discretion because when judges have discretion, it’s actually perceived as leniency. And when you have parole, like I said, a person gets sentenced to sort of this undetermined amount of time. And then it’s up to the parole commission to determine when within that amount of time the person gets out. So with a parole being abolished, that ensures that the person does the actual amount of time that the judge sentences them to. So that’s perceived as being more tough on crime.
[08:21] Andy: Uh-huh. Alright. Well, then the SRA also established the u the US Sentencing Commission. And so what is the Sentencing Commission? Sounds kinda like some gobbledygook to me. Yeah. So, again, that was established in
[08:36] Anya: this commission. And it’s what it is is it’s an an agency. It’s located within the judicial branch of the federal government. It’s composed of up to seven voting members. They are nominated by the president, and they must be confirmed by the senate. The Sentencing Commission by its nature, it’s supposed to be bipartisan, and no more than four of the commissioners can be from one specific political party. And at least three members must be federal judges. Also, the US Attorney General, or their designee and the Chairman of the US Parole Commission are also members, but they are non voting members. And then there’s a large number of other personnel. I think I read somewhere they had a 100 or more other personnel that work for them. People such as, attorneys, researchers, staff members that all create this group that we call a commission.
[09:37] Andy: Well, to to kinda round that out, what was the sentence sentencing commission’s job when it was formed? What did they do? Yeah. When it was first formed, the sentencing commission was specifically
[09:47] Anya: directed by Congress to create guidelines for federal sentencing. And keeping in mind that, like we talked about, that parole is no longer an option. It was further directed to limit the individual sentencing ranges and also to limit the consideration of either personal characteristics or individual circumstances, when a judge was sentencing someone. And again, this was justified by saying that the purpose of this whole thing was so that there was certainty and fairness in federal sentencing. So what it did was it significantly narrowed the degree of discretion that judges previously had. And again, this is what the public wanted, and or what the politicos thought that the public wanted or what the politicos wanted at this time. And since this was the tough on crime era, they wanted more and more punishment. So more structured sentencing was favored as opposed to allowing judges to have discretion.
[10:59] Andy: And and the Sentencing Commission did all of this?
[11:02] Anya: Yeah. They did this. Being, that it was the eighties, it promulgated the new guidelines, the new sentencing guidelines in 1987. And many of those new guidelines increased the previously existing penalties for specific federal offenses. And also prior to the first set of guidelines being published, Congress enacted new statutes that created mandatory minimum penalties for certain offenses. So it was sort of like a two pronged approach. There were the guidelines for the sentencing, but it was also codified into the legislation.
[11:43] Andy: Okay. I gotcha. And then these guidelines were made mandatory. Right?
[11:48] Anya: Well, at first, when they were first promulgated in 1987, they were mandatory. But there was a supreme court decision in 2005. It was US versus Booker, and that stated that the mandatory nature of the guidelines was actually unconstitutional. So they were in place for that whole time from 1987 until 2005, until Booker came along. And it was decided that because, judges, when they sentence based on the guidelines, they could actually enhance the sentences and go higher based on facts that were not presented or proven to any jury. And that that was in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. So the Supreme Court did decide that the guidelines as they were, being mandatory was unconstitutional. So instead of just striking down the guidelines, what they did was they, struck out provisions in the guidelines that made the guidelines mandatory. And this changed the guidelines from, being mandatory to being just, as we say, advisory. So the judges now use the guidelines more as guidelines, but again, they’re not required. It’s not mandatory that they impose them.
[13:16] Andy: Alright. Well then what does the sentencing commission do now?
[13:19] Anya: Yeah. So they do a lot of different things. They conduct research and they also review research on sentencing, that’s out there, studies that get published. And then based on that research, they make recommendations to Congress regarding changes to federal legislation with, regards to sentencing. They also provide training to, you know, defense attorneys and prosecutors and they collect data. They actually, when they review the research, they collect data, and put it all together and do statistics on it as far as everything, you can think of regarding sentencing. Now, as far as the guidelines specifically go, the commission is responsible for regularly amending the guidelines. And it does this through a specific outlined process on an annual basis.
[14:18] Andy: Well well, since you’ve brought that up, I think we should then go into how does this process even work? How does that amendment process work?
[14:26] Anya: Yeah. So, again, based on things like research, but based on also, judicial decisions and any congressional action that has happened, as well as feedback from the public and from stakeholders, the commission will determine its tentative priorities for amendments for the year. Now, this is about a year before it finalizes those proposed amendments because there’s an annual amendment cycle. This is supposed to be done every year, and it’s on a specific timeline so that it’s, its tentative priorities are brought about about a year before the actual amendments. So for the 2025 cycle, one of its priorities was to improve community supervision, which is gonna bring us to where we are right now. And then once the commission determines its priorities for the year, it will draft the proposed amendments. There’s several periods of comments. There’s several public hearings. And then once it finalize those proposed amendments, it votes on them and it submits them to Congress. They have to be submitted to Congress by May 1 of the amendment year. And Congress has one hundred and eighty days that is until the October, in order to reject the amendments. And if Congress does not reject them, they automatically go into effect on November 1. Now the commission, I would say it’s pretty powerful with regards to these amendments because from 1987, when the first amendment were enacted until 2024, The commission proposed over 800 amendments to The US sentencing guidelines, and out of those, only two were rejected by Congress. So most of the time, they do get approved.
[16:29] Andy: Alright. Well, then let’s get into this year’s amendments. They were submitted to congress on 05/01/2025, and they were not rejected. So they went into effect on November 1 like you were just describing. What is the impact of these new thingamajiggers on, the PFR community?
[16:46] Anya: Alright. So first off, keep in mind, these are federal sentencing, guideline amendments. So they only apply to federal sentencing for people convicted of federal crimes. They don’t apply to the state. And if people don’t know, in some cases, the exact same crime can be charged as a state crime or a federal crime. People think sometimes that there has to be some kind of criteria, something special that particularly makes something a federal crime, such as people, everybody knows that, you know, if the person crosses state lines, that then it becomes a federal crime, but that’s not necessarily true for all federal offenses. So just as an example, for computer crime, such as the crime of possession of images that were downloaded from online, The Supreme Court has determined that if a computer was involved in any way in the offense, that it’s presumed automatically because of the nature of the Internet, that state lines were crossed, that those images cross state lines or that the packets of information on the Internet cross state lines. So the government, when prosecuting these types of crimes, it doesn’t have to search the Internet and track the path of the image in order to charge the case federally. It’s, very, I don’t wanna say easy, but it’s interesting to me that the exact same crime with the exact same set of circumstances can be charged federally and can be charged in a state. So since you asked about this year’s amendments, it included several different topics. It included some topics about drug charges and firearms charges, but the specific impact to PFRs involves their revisions to sentencing someone to supervise release, like we talked about, and also as far as the early termination of supervised release.
[18:54] Andy: Alright. Well, starting with the first part about the revisions and supervised release prior to 11/01/2025 amendments, what did the guidelines say about sentencing people convicted of PFR type offenses to supervised release?
[19:09] Anya: Yeah. In the 2024 guidelines, if you wanna look it up, it was section five d 1.2. The term of supervised release is addressed and it went like this, and I’m gonna read it to you. Now this is the 2024 guidelines, remember. So under section five d 1.2 a, it says, except as provided in subsections b and c, if a term of supervised release is ordered, the length of the term shall be. And then it goes into, for different categories of crimes, what it shall be. One, at least two years, but not more than five, for a defendant convicted of a class a or b felony. Two, at least one year, but not more than three, for a defendant convicted of a class c or d felony. Or three, one year for a defendant convicted of a class e felony or class a misdemeanor. It goes on to say under letter b, notwithstanding subdivisions a one through three, that the length of the term of supervised release shall not be less than the minimum term of years specified for the offense under subdivisions of A1-three and maybe up to life. And then it goes on to say that if the offense is a, any offense listed in 18 US c section two three three two b g five b, the commission of which resulted in or created a foreseeable risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person, or if the offense is a sex offense, that the policy statement is, if the instant offense of conviction is a sex offense, the statutory maximum term of supervised release is recommended. So under the 2024 guidelines for any offense that was a sex offense, the Commission recommended that the maximum term of supervised release be imposed by the judge when the person was sentenced. So this means that for all federal convictions for PFR type offenses, that the Federal Sentencing Commission recommended that judges impose a lifetime of supervised release. So keep in mind, that’s equivalent to being on probation for the rest of your life. That means a lifetime of conditions, such as once a month visits, a lifetime of having your electronics monitored, a lifetime of being subject to searches, to being subject to polygraphs, and really most importantly, a lifetime of being subject to violations because you’re on a probation or supervised release forever. And for the rest of your life, you have the possibility of being sent back to federal prison for any violation of your conditions. And that was presumed the the guidelines recommended and the commission recommended that for every person convicted of a sex offense that they’ve received lifetime supervision.
[22:32] Andy: Wow. Alright. And then so this means that people that have been convicted of federal PFR crimes, all crimes from computer crimes, possession of images, to hands on offenses would be sentenced to a lifetime of federal supervision.
[22:46] Anya: Yeah. Like, not only could they be, but the guidelines recommend presumptively that all of these people are sentenced to the maximum, which is a lifetime term of supervised release. And in my experience, this has been happening, with many people. There are many, many people sentenced to a lifetime of supervision. And as an attorney, I think, you know, there’s a little bit of a due process argument here because each conviction isn’t considered individually. The way these guidelines are written, it’s to make it so that everything’s basically the same. And everyone, no matter what offense they’re convicted of and what the circumstances are, as long as it’s a sex offense, they all get the same sentence. And it creates another problem too, as far as federal probation goes, because the probation officers and the offices, as people are being released and being, placed onto supervision after they get out of prison, the caseloads of these officers and their offices keeps increasing. So everybody was getting lifetime. And this, this leads to everybody getting out of prison, getting placed on supervision, and the officers are overworked, overburdened, and underfunded, and they’re just getting more and more and more people placed on supervision and no one ever being released. Well, very few people are very few people are successfully released, but, you can see how this might create a problem.
[24:22] Andy: Well, I mean, everything has like, all of this stuff’s a problem. This is just one more thing that’s more problems. And and this changed in the new amendments that that started just, what, three weeks ago? Yeah. So this is really one of the biggest changes in in the new amendments.
[24:39] Anya: Section five d 1.1 in the new amendments. Its title is imposition of a term of supervised release. And it was amended in the new guidelines in order to give judges more discretion in determining whether or not a form of supervised release is warranted by the judges doing an individualized assessment of the need for supervision. So this is a huge change you can see as to the way that it was before. And this was implemented directly in response to widespread concern that supervised release was just being presumptively and reflexively ordered for everybody by judges. And this came directly from the commission because they gathered data. And the the data that they gathered, it showed that the courts were imposing supervised release in eighty two point five percent of all cases. And there the argument now is that instead of supervised release being a blanket policy, that by individualizing supervision, it ensures that people who need post release supervision the most will receive it, and it will also assure their probation resources aren’t being used on people who don’t need supervision. So it’s a little bit fiscally driven. It’s about, probation resources and how they’re used. And one of the other big amendments under that section, section five D 1.2, that I read before it was amended, the one that I read earlier, was that the minimum terms were removed for the category A through E felonies and for the class A misdemeanor. So now there’s only maximum. So the new guidelines just say the maximum term of supervised release is three years or five years or one year, whatever it is. So that gives the judge a little more discretion into what to, what to order when they’re sentencing someone. And there’s a policy statement that’s directly in the guidelines. The one that I read in 2024 that said that if the crime is a sex offense, the lifetime supervision is recommended. And that was removed from the 2025 amendments, the ones that just came out. Now the guidelines say that if a term of supervised release is ordered, that the court shall conduct an individualized assessment to determine the length of the term, which shall not be less than any statutorily required minimum term. So now the judges are to conduct an individualized assessment to determine the length of the term of supervised release. And they also have to state in court when they’re sentencing the reason for the length of the term. So that presumption that all people that convict get convicted of a federal sex offense get lifetime supervision, that is now gone. So I think that’s something that’s a huge win. One of the things about the amendment though, is it isn’t retroactive. So that means if someone’s already been sentenced, if you’ve already been sentenced for a PFR type crime federally and you’re on lifetime supervision, you can’t go back and be resentenced. But what it does That sucks. Yeah, it does suck. But what it does mean is that for all people that are coming up that are about to be sentenced, people, that are gonna be sentenced on or after 11/01/2025, who gets sentenced for these PFR type offenses, the term of their supervised release is going to be individually tailored by the specific judge, tailored to the person’s specific circumstance. And it won’t exceed the maximum term that’s stated in the guidelines or in the statute that they’re convicted under. So that’s a big change going forward. It’s no longer this blanket policy with all PFRs saying that everybody now with no due process automatically gets lifetime. So for people getting sent it’s going forward, that’s actually really good news. And the judges, again, they do have to state the reasons why they’re imposing supervised release and the reason why they’re imposing the length of supervised release, the length that they are. So I think this makes it more fair. It’s kind of funny because the guidelines were initially supposed to be more fair, but this is actually making it more fair and not giving everybody blanket lifetime.
[29:25] Andy: And, actually, this next part, I think, lines up with exactly what someone asked in in chat about. He is he is currently in appellate court for an early termination motion if it was brought up at the district level. But so what about people that are currently on supervised, release for PFR crimes? Do these amendments help them at all?
[29:46] Anya: Yeah. So there’s also an entire new section that was put into the guidelines, into these amendments that were just published. It’s section five d 1.4, and it’s called modification, early termination and extension of supervised release. And then it says policy statement. So I’m just gonna read the pertinent part here. It’s section five D 1.4 b, and it’s entitled early termination. So it does say early termination. Any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release and after an individualized assessment of the need for ongoing supervision, the court may terminate the remaining term of supervision and discharge the defendant if the court determines, following consultation with the government and the probation officer, that the termination is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and in the interest of justice. And then it says right there, CA 18 USD section 3,583 e one. And that section of the The United States code is the section that previously stated that a judge may, after one year, discharge someone early from supervised release. But that section of the US code, it doesn’t really provide any guidance for the courts and for the judges on how to make that determination, to discharge them. But now under the amendments, under that section that I just read about early termination, there’s more guidelines there. And until now, until these amendments have kind of been coming down the pike in the last year, this has just resulted in people following that USC, which just means that they can file a motion once a year to request to be released from supervision. Up until now, the majority of these have been denied. And the data from the commission says that in the twelve month period ending in December 2024, early terminations were only twenty nine percent of successful supervised release closures. So out of everybody that terminated their supervised release and in the one year period before December 2024, only twenty nine percent of those were from, motions from people who file to get terminated early. So now with this new amendment, the judges they’re encouraged to make an individualized determination, which they, never were encouraged to do before. And they’re actually encouraged to consider early termination. And in the amendments, also the guidelines list the factors that the court may wish to consider under the application note. It’s under 1b in section five d 1.4. When they’re determining whether to terminate the remaining term of supervised release. Now these are not mandatory, but it does say what the court may wish to consider. And this goes along with what I was saying and that there are now some more guidance and some more direction to the court about releasing people rather than people just buying the motion and saying, Hey, I just wanna be released. And the judge just having to make a decision. So, and now the judges are encouraged to look at the, the following, factors. They they may wish to consider these following things, which is, the person having any history of violations while they’ve been on supervised release, the ability of the person to manage himself lawfully, the person’s substantial compliance with the conditions of supervision, the person’s engagement in prosocial activities, a reduction risk or maintenance at low risk level, and whether termination will jeopardize public safety. So there’s a little bit of a, a roadmap there for defense attorneys and for people writing motions that these are the factors now that the court is encouraged to consider when they’re considering, whether to release someone.
[34:25] Andy: Well so then what what comes next? How is this going to play out going forward?
[34:31] Anya: So there’s another piece of good news, I think, regarding this and that there’s currently two bills. One that’s in the house and that’s HR five eight eight three, and one that is in the senate, it’s s three zero seven seven. And these bills were both introduced on October 1, excuse me, 10/31/2025. So that’s the day before the guidelines went live. And, the name of these two bills is the SAFER Supervision Act. So this is attempt to codify these guidelines. They mirror the amendments that were just enacted in the guidelines and they’re attempting to make them here into federal law. And it looks like these are well supported by the conservatives because their belief is that the federal government should be limited. And I would watch these closely. I’m going to watch these closely to see if they become law. But to answer your question, in the meantime, I’m not really a 100% sure what’s going to happen next. I think it’s possible that there could be an onslaught of people that are on supervision filing motions for early termination. There are approximately 110,000 people that are on federal supervision. And the thing is, I just I don’t know. Like, until this progresses a little bit more, I don’t know what the outcome will be. But I think there’s probably going to be some some motions filed. I think there may have been some filed already for early termination, but I have some guesses. So I have some options that I put down for my guesses. So number one is I said, I think, there’s gonna be an onslaught of people filing motions, but I feel like there’s a problem with this because if you’re the first one to take this in front of a particular judge or, into a particular federal district, you could be at a disadvantage because some judges may not wanna be the first one to start releasing people, before they have a chance to see what other judges are going to be doing. So since you can only file once a year, if you filed early, I might be afraid that, you know, maybe six months from now, your particular judge is going to start releasing people. So, that could be a little bit of a problem, but some people who are a little more aggressive might wanna be some of the first to file those motions. So, the second thing I think might happen is, one of my biggest concerns, is about people who’ve been on supervision for a lengthy amount of time. And that’s because the longer someone’s on supervision, the more likely they are, to have had violations and, violated their supervision. So, and because one of the factors, and it was actually the first factor that judges may consider when determining whether or not to release someone is their history of violations. I’m afraid that this could disadvantage people who have already been on supervision for a long period of time. Whereas someone who maybe just gets placed on supervision, they’re on for one year, they have no violations and they’re more likely to be released early. So there could be a little bit of a disparity there with the early release with people who’ve been on supervision for a long period of time. But I mean, it’s completely unfair for a judge to say, you know, hey, all these guys have been on for ten years and they have to stay on for longer when there’s guys right now who would be getting sentenced for the exact same offense and might be able to get off after one year. So the third thing that, you know, I think maybe could happen is that maybe probation and the government and the judges might independently look at their caseloads, especially because this seems to be very fiscally driven. And they may look at the load of people that they have on supervision and make an independent determination that they’re going to release people. So, people could be getting contacted by their probation officers, saying come down to our office. You have summons, you have court dates, and maybe they’re just going to start releasing people. Now, maybe that’s really optimistic, opinion. As far as I’m concerned, I kind of hope it is going to go that way. But the reality is I don’t actually know. So I think, you know, that, time will tell. And if any of these situations actually apply to you, if you’re somebody who’s, on lifetime supervision and you’re thinking about, maybe filing a motion, to get early release, I would just say, consult an attorney at this point in time and and look at their advice. I tend to be a little more conservative. I’m a little more like wait and see what happens. Maybe option three might happen, but I don’t actually know. So I think it’s good news, for people that this particularly applies to.
[39:37] Andy: Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to take on any of the, registry matters army of people that might be in this situation? Would you be even willing to, like, just advise to help them out? See what their chances are?
[39:53] Anya: I would be I’d be willing to always talk to people. I’m always willing to do consultations with people. But, I think I just it’s my opinion, just just my own opinion that it’s still a little bit early in this process. But, I don’t know. The the fact of the matter is I don’t really know what’s gonna happen.
[40:17] Andy: It’s kind of a Of course not. I’m just I’m I’m I’m asking for a friend. We have a very close, like, partner in the in the podcast too, and, he is going through this process right now. And I was sort of asking for him if he could reach out to you somehow. Yeah. I understand. Like I said, I’m always willing to talk to people.
[40:33] Anya: Whether or not I’m I’m able to help people, I’m not exactly sure of, but, I’m always willing to talk to people. And, I’m pretty familiar with this issue. I just, I just, I’m optimistic that it’s going to be really good, especially if this legislation passes and that, yeah. So we’ll see.
[40:57] Andy: Larry, do you have any questions?
[41:00] Larry: Oh, she did a fabulous job. I’ve, I’ve never even thought about point two there in the closing segment. The longer you’ve been on supervision, you tend to get a little careless and you tend to make a few more mistakes and get comfortable. So you could easily make a vo, violation. And I never would have thought that I mean, I can see it right now. The assistant U. S. Attorney is saying, well, this individual has had six violations over the last ten years. I can see that now. I never would have thought of that.
[41:30] Andy: Well, I know. You always tell me, Larry, you say, well, if I can think of it, they can think of it. Here’s something that you couldn’t even think of. That’s correct. And that’s why I say, if I can think of it, they have already thought of it.
[41:42] Anya: Okay. That was really, the crux of my argument. I commented, when there was an open public comment period on some of the amendments. And the crux of my argument, because they were talking about what factors, the judges should use when they’re talking about, early termination of supervised release. And they were talking about making these, factors more like a checklist, more like these are exactly what the judge should use. And I like how they settled into the language that said a judge may consider because if it was the judge had to consider these, it really would have created a bias against people who’ve been on supervision, who’ve been on supervision for a long period of time. Very good. Well, thank you, Anya, very much. That was a a fantastic segment that you put together there. Thank you. Thank you for having me. I know it was a a little legally dense, but, I think we needed the background in order to to get to the current amendments. So, if this applies to anybody, I do, encourage you to reach out to an attorney.
[42:50] Andy: Fantastic. And, your phone number is, 555-1234?
[42:54] Anya: They can email the podcast.
[42:57] Andy: Perfect. I will forward them your way. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Have a great night. Take care. Thanks. You too.
[43:05] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.
[43:55] Andy: Some someone says in chat, Larry, that her information was understandable and great. Thank you, Anna. Alright. Larry, let’s She did she did do a really good job. I agree. I agree. I agree. Let’s go over to this Arizona thing that you brought up. Okay?
[44:10] Larry: Okay.
[44:11] Andy: Alright. And, so there’s this article that you put in here from the Arizona mur. Got that mur? I got it. Alright. So the the Arizona MER. The headline is judge rejects claim that the Arizona PFR registry violates constitutional rights. Tell us more about this case, Larry.
[44:32] Larry: Well, according to the article, we do have the decision but I knew with this long segment, we have we couldn’t get into it the way I would like to. So I plagiarized the newspaper, I’m assuming that’s a newspaper, plagiarized their the mirror. But a federal judge shot down a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s registration laws, ruling that the state is justified in tracking the residences and the online identifiers of people convicted of crimes against children.
[45:01] Andy: And then, judge Steven, meh oh, god. You told me the name, and I I it it evaporated. It’s, McNami. McNami. Thank you. Thank you. McNami. It is, it is plain that Arizona has significant governmental interest in protecting children and preventing PFR recidivism. Now tell us more about this case. I like, it’s always about protecting the children, including squashing every Fourth Amendment protection you have in searching all of your Internet data. But it’s all about protecting the children.
[45:33] Larry: Correct. Two years ago, a man convicted of of sexual misconduct with a minor, back in 2016, he filed this lawsuit challenging multiple acts of the registry laws, arguing that they violate his free speech and his due process rights. And the man was granted anonymity, so he’s known as Doe. And, he, he, he had fear that he was going to be receiving threats of violence, and I think those were legitimate. But he sought to nullify the laws that require him to register as a PFR for life and to report online identifiers he uses and register his residency residence every time he stays at a new county for three days or more.
[46:17] Andy: Alright. Well, let’s look at the online identifiers requirement. That has been challenged successfully in other states. Has it not? It has. Alright. Well, Doe claimed that requiring him to share his online usernames and activity is tantamount to infringing upon his freedom of speech and said that he worried it could be used to expose his identity to the public.
[46:39] Larry: He did say that. He did allege that, and judge Montgomery disagreed. He noted that the Arizona law doesn’t allow for the public disclosure of any of the personal information tied to online identifiers that PFRs use. The only way that two could be linked is if a person has lawful reason for asking for it and submits a PFR’s fingerprints to the sheriff off sheriff’s office with that request. So Judge McNaughney didn’t think too much of that argument. And it’s gone both ways. That’s why I was so pessimistic about the one from our PFR friend up in Connecticut who brought the because I already knew the case law was not good across the country, and he won.
[47:20] Andy: Now what about the chilling effect that this has on speech? Doe claimed that requiring him to share his online usernames and activities tantamount to infringing upon his free speech and said that he worried it could be used to expose did I just to wait. I think did I double up a paragraph, Larry? No. You’re fine. Okay. Any word that could be used to expose his identity to the public?
[47:44] Larry: Well, he did say alleged that and judgment not made also discreet, that it, does those things. He says that, he pointed out that the law doesn’t make any attempt to restrain what the individual says online, and which was one of the things argued. It doesn’t tell you. You can’t post. You post all you want to. It’s like traveling. You can travel all you want to, you just may not get in. But instead, the law merely seeks to monitor where the PFRs are engaging online. And the only way the two could be linked, according to the judge, is if a person has a lawful reason for asking for and submits the PFR’s fingerprints to the sheriff’s office with a request. Now how are you going as an individual going to get the fingerprints of a PFR to submit it to the sheriff? So the judge says although Arizona’s registry scheme makes speaker based distinctions, the reporting requirements themselves are not are content neutral. And, Arizona’s Internet identifier recording, reporting requirements do not barre dough from engaging in online discourse.
[48:47] Andy: Now, then what about registry registry residency, reporting requirements? DOE also challenged that Arizona mandates regarding PFR address notification. Two laws cover different parts of the address reporting requirements. One of them appears to address changes in residency requiring PFRs to report their address within seventy two hours after changing it or after moving to or from the person’s residence or to a different county. Doe has homes in two different counties and said that he is forced to register each time he moves between the two, regardless of the length of time he spends at each, for fear of facing legal prepercussions because the language in the statute is too vague.
[49:27] Larry: Well, it’s ironic that in the court filings, Doe and his opponents, which the Republican legislative leadership, decided to intervene because the Democrat attorney general wouldn’t do the job the attorney general is supposed to do, which is defend the state laws. But Republican legislative leaders Warren Peterson and Stephen Montreux, Negro, agreed that the statute refers to an intent to move from one residence to another permanently and should only apply to people with more than one home. It should, shouldn’t apply, excuse me, should not apply to people with more than one home. So, so that that it’s ironic that the legislators said this is what we meant in their own pleadings when they intervened. So then what did the court say in response to that then? Well, Judge McNami ruled that those arguments that it’s unconstitutional vague didn’t even need to be considered by the court because the parties, as he perceived them, as the judge perceived them, had already stipulated what they meant. Now I don’t necessarily agree with judge McDonoughney, but that’s what the court held.
[50:30] Andy: Then what about, lifetime registration? Doe is classified as a level one PFR, the lowest of three tiers. In his lawsuit, he argued that Arizona’s law requiring all PFRs to register for life without regard for their classification level fits the definition for cruel and unusual punishment and violates his right to due process because he can’t contest that requirement in court. Doe argued that as a level one offender, his risk of recidivism is lower than those in other tiers, and he should be able to challenge the mandate to register for life because of that. And I would just say, man, that if you can nuke somebody with the, with the nitrogen and you, hypoxia,
[51:09] Larry: and that’s not considered cruel, then I’m fairly certain that that’s a dead issue. But how did that go? Well, you know, I’m I’m glad that you finally snapped where we are on cruel and unusual punishment. If putting people to death in the most vicious, horrible ways possible is not cruel and unusual, nothing to do with the registry ever will be. But Judge McNaughamay noted that Arizona’s lifetime registration requirement is triggered by a conviction making any hearing centered around whether Doe should have to register as a PFR for Life moot because he’s already had his day in court. His conviction was a necessary precursor to his lifetime registration. So basically, the judge said if you hadn’t got convicted, you wouldn’t be in this predicament. The judge stated, quote, registration was required by the fact of conviction as a sex offender, thus rendering any additional process superfluous. End of quote.
[52:03] Andy: I see Ivy is the judge should say, if you don’t wanna do the time, don’t do the crime. Right? I mean, that’s what he just said, isn’t it? That’s kind of what he said. Yes. The victory prompted a campaign opportunity for Peterson, who is running to be the Republican nominee for state attorney general. In a press release announcing the win, the Gilbert Republican criticized Arizona attorney general Chris Mayes for not defending the law in court, accusing her of abandoning the state’s responsibility to safeguard communities. Peterson and Montenegro, as this, senate president and house speaker intervened in the case.
[52:38] Larry: Yes. Now I know that Arizona is a fairly conservative state, And I’m actually shocked that they’ve got a Democrat in the office of attorney general, Democrat in the office of the governor. But that’s about to change, in my opinion. Peterson said, quote, the legislature will always stand up for victims and protect communities when those elected to do so refuse to. End of quote.
[53:04] Andy: And was this done by NARSOL, or was it done by one of the affiliates maybe?
[53:09] Larry: I think it was done by Arizona, the NARSAL affiliate, Arizona RSOL. I remember us discussing it at NARSAL, but I don’t think that NARSAL was directly involved other than through, background support. But I vaguely recall, some Arizona stuff in 2024, and it was in the article as well that lawmakers expanded the number of people who are posted on the state’s PFR website to include more level one offenders, which is probably what prompted this, and create a new requirement for PFRs with children to report their child’s name and school. So, basically, they have to register their children. Please admit that that’s funny.
[53:49] Andy: No. Not funny.
[53:52] Larry: And a few months later, three people who would be affected by those laws apparently filed this lawsuit claiming their civil rights were being infringed and questioned their constitutionality. The legal challenge is ongoing, and it intends and aims to permanently block the laws.
[54:11] Andy: Alright. Well, then what happens next?
[54:15] Larry: Well, since I don’t have a direct pipeline, I think we’ll double back on this after the holiday and maybe bring, the Arizona people on and do a better job of it. But I would imagine they’re gonna take this up on appeal to the ninth circuit. I can’t imagine they would just say, oh, too bad. So sad. And they’re gonna take it to the ninth circuit court of appeals. But it’s interesting in the script that you set up, you didn’t even ask me about who appointed this judge. Well, well, of course. It it’s always of so importance to me because judges are clearly slanted by the president to nominate them. But who, appointed this one? I believe it was George h w Bush. And he’s a he’s a senior judge, meaning he’s been on a long time, and he’s been the chief judge, then he took senior status, which creates a new judgeship, and he’s appointed a long time ago. But see, you can see the difference. We just had a previous episode where we had a communist judge down in Tennessee, appointed by somebody who wasn’t even an American. Oh, no. Clinton was American. It was that was that was Obama that wasn’t an American. But we had a com we had a communist judge doing crazy stuff. Now we’ve got somebody who actually believes in upholding the Constitution and protecting victims and and stuff like that. So we’ve got a much better outcome here. Don’t you agree?
[55:27] Andy: Absolutely. You know that birth certificate was, like, a sham. Right? It was all doctored and faked and handwritten and typed in with, somebody’s little typewriter at home. Right? Yeah. But, you know, the funny thing, back in that era, that’s what they did. They used typewriters. Yeah. But this was one that was not from The United States, of course. Yeah. But I’ve got my actual birth,
[55:47] Larry: it’s called an abstract of birth, and I’ll explain on another episode what an abstract is. But you can actually see where the typing of where the typewriter went through the paper. I’ve got the first, paper that was issued, and and, you know, it’s getting quite old, but the typewriter went through the paper. Actually, like, the impression cut the papers, what what you’re saying? Yes. There’s a there’s a there’s a hole where the and the and the piece Almost like a notary embossing, but it actually tore the paper. Kinda sort of. Little tiny pointed hole where the where the where the, period would have been.
[56:20] Andy: Interesting. Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s kinda stabbing at the paper and what so they were probably, doing that in, like, double and triplicate or whatever. So you had to smash the thing super hard. Yep. And and typewriters were in their infancy back when I was born anyway back in the eighteen hundreds. Without a doubt. Movable type was a big deal. You you were there when the Gutenberg press was made. Alright. Well, so so was this good news or not good news?
[56:50] Larry: Well, I hate to break the bad news to people on Thanksgiving No. You don’t. Eve, but it’s important to know that these cases are very complicated, and theyire all uphill battles. And even when the Attorney General chooses to NOT fight tooth and nail, which usually the Attorney General will fight tooth and nail, that doesn’t mean that legislators will not intervene. That’s kind of like what the Republicans did in the Defense of Marriage Act when the Obama Administration wouldn’t defend DOMA. They said, we’re stipulating to the, that, that, the battle on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. We won’t defend this law. The conservatives in the Congress launched their own, they intervened themselves, because they knew that if they got to the Supreme Court, they’d get the outcome they were looking for, but they didn’t. And, but this is what happens. You know, you they elected an attorney general. The attorney general, for whatever reasons, apparently said, I’m not going to defend this. And lo and behold, the legislative leadership did.
[57:54] Andy: Anything else before we head out?
[57:57] Larry: I just just wish our fabulous audience a beautiful holiday season from FYP Education and Registry Matters.
[58:04] Andy: Fantastic. And with that, we are most likely not recording next weekend unless something magnificent happens during the week?
[58:12] Larry: That would be correct. Unless something really, spectacular that can’t wait. Otherwise, we got our four episodes in in November, and we can take a week off. Did we actually pull off four? Oh my gosh. There’s still next weekend. No. I guess that is it. We’re done. Holy moly. We did four. No. There’s one more. There could be five, but because there was five salaries in this month, but they No. I gotcha. I gotcha. Okay. Fabulous. Head over to registrymatters.co
[58:37] Andy: to find show notes and links everywhere that you need to go, and email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You can also append registry matters cast dash crackpot if you wanna reach Larry directly. Just kidding. (747) 227-4477 if you wanna leave some voice mail. And as those in chat are listening live as we’re recording this, they are fabulous patrons and my favorite people on the planet. And for as little as a dollar a month, it’s oh, my god. Hold on. Wait for a moment. We got a new patron, and I forgot to even bring it up. But at patreon.com/registrymatters is how they did what they did. And I’m going to tell you who the patron is right now as soon as the screen loads. Come on. Notifications. Tell me. Tell me. Tell me. I think this one came in at the, stapios level. Right? Yes. Definitely that level. His his name is Bill. Bill h. That’s what we will go with. So thank you, Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And, yeah, that that is all we got, man. Larry, I hope you have a fabulous turkey day. Watch out at the senior senate. I’m sure there are some some rich ladies trying to hit you up, take you home with them, butterball you or something.
[59:52] Larry: Not very often, but I think it’s happened once or twice.
[59:55] Andy: And then lastly, before I even go, head over to fypeducation.org/sop. They will have at that place, at that URL, all of your Christmas gifts that you could ever imagine. It’s all I got. Sounds good. Take care, everybody. Have a great night and a great holiday, and we will see you in a couple weeks. Take care. Good night.
[60:20] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.
Leave a Comment