[00:30] Andy: Doing awesome. How are you? I’m all right, man. We have now started with summer weather, and you’ve got to make your grass look pretty and all that. Why can’t we just have rock yards, right?

[00:44] Larry: Well, you could, but your neighbors might not like them there the way they do here.

[00:46] Andy: Is that a problem over there?

[00:48] Larry: Well, it’s encouraged. Do people get pissed off about the rock?

[00:50] Andy: Well, you guys have water problems all the time.

[00:53] Larry: It’s encouraged. They give you an incentive to use desert landscaping here. So could you? Do you have any cacti in your front yard? I don’t, but some people do. That’s part of the desert landscaping.

[01:07] Andy: Of course it is. All right, well, please remember to show your support by hitting like and subscribe and doing the five-star review thing. Of course, you could lie and give us a five-star review even if you hated the program. That would help us out, and I would appreciate it. Should we tell people to do that, Larry?

[01:24] Larry: We should tell people to do that because FYP is going

[01:28] Andy: broke. Oh, I didn’t realize this. All right. And then if you would be so very kind, you can head over to patreon.com/slashregistrymatters and join our community. And then you can do all kinds of fun things in the discord server, like hang out with the deputy and learn about graphics cards. Right? About GPUs. We talked about that on pre show. You don’t remember? I heard GPU, but I didn’t know it was a graphics card.

[01:57] Larry: It’s a graphics processing unit. All right. Well, what do we do? What are you doing tonight? Well, this should be a fun and enjoyable episode because I’m going to be interviewing you about the $375 million verdict handed down against META here in New Mexico. And we have a case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that is an amazing win for the PFR population. Not so much it’s going to change the trajectory of registration, but in my view, it will send a message to law enforcement. It’s some level that you ought not be playing games.

[02:35] Andy: Very good. Let’s start with this META hit with a $375 million verdict out of New Mexico. And so the jury just handed this down. This was roughly a couple of weeks ago, wasn’t it? Yes. All right. And for those of you that don’t know, META is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp. And the headlines are screaming about this $375 million verdict. Now, you’ve been chomping at the bit to get into the legal side of this. And so let’s set the table. What happened?

[03:07] Larry: Well, I can tell you a little bit, but not much. So the case is New Mexico versus META Platforms. It was filed in First District, New Mexico District Court in Santa Fe by Attorney General Raul Torres back in December 2023. The legal basis is New Mexico’s unfair practices act. The state alleged two things: first, that META made false or misleading statements about the safety of its platforms, which falls under the definition of an unfair or deceptive trade practice. Second, that META engaged in unconscionable trade practices defined in the relevant section of New Mexico statutes, meaning conduct that takes advantage of a person’s lack of knowledge, ability, or experience to an extreme degree. Both of these are prohibited under Section 57-12-3 of New Mexico statutes annotated.

[04:13] Andy: Who brought the enforcement action? This wasn’t a class action suit by plaintiffs?

[04:23] Larry: It was brought by the Attorney General under the Attorney General’s Enforcement Authority under Section 57-12-3. Under Section 57-12-8, which allows the Attorney General to bring an action in the name of the state when he or she has a reasonable belief that someone is engaging in practices declared unlawful by the act. The penalty provision is in Section 57-12-11 New Mexico statutes annotated, which allows a civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation if the conduct is found to be willful. And that’s apparently where the $375 million comes from.

[05:01] Andy: We could have one of our listeners do that math real quick. What’s $5,000 divided into $375 million? That would tell us how many counts they got hit with. So this wasn’t some kind of crazy abstract theory. This actually involved the government running an undercover operation, almost like a sting?

[05:20] Larry: It was rumored that the Attorney General’s office created fake social media profiles posing as 13-year-old children. According to the original complaint, these accounts were flooded with sexually explicit content and solicitations from adults. That investigation led to actual arrests, three of them. So when this went to trial, the state wasn’t waving around hypotheticals; they had evidence. The trial ran for about seven weeks in Santa Fe before a judge that I cannot begin to pronounce.

[05:51] Andy: I think it’s Bideshide. B-I-E-D-S-C-H-I-E-I-D. Sorry. But it sounds almost too rhythmic, so maybe it’s not right. Anyway, I thought it was really interesting. The jury came back super fast. They deliberated for only one day. That seems unusual to me.

[06:15] Larry: It felt that way to me as well. One day. But they found Mehta liable on both counts. And that’s important. They found the conduct was willful, which triggers the $5,000 per violation, maximum under the statute. The statute defines willfully as intentionally, as the intentional doing of an act with knowledge that harm may result. The jury applied the penalty to approximately 37,500 users, which according to the source, New Mexico’s reporting accounts for roughly one quarter of New Mexico’s teen population based on the most recent census data. That’s how you get to $375 million.

[06:55] Andy: I see. Okay. So 37,500 times 5,000 is 375 million. All right. So let’s put this in perspective because $375 million sounds like a fortune. FYP’s coffers has roughly that amount of money. And however, Mehta reported $160 billion in revenue last year. So this isn’t really even like a rounding error. This is just like, oh, hey, look, there’s a penny on the floor. This is kind of like that to them.

[07:26] Larry: It’s less than a single day’s revenue, and they’ve already stated that they intend to appeal. A Meta spokesperson said they respectfully disagree with the verdict. Imagine that.

[07:39] Andy: So before we get too much into the real meat of this, I feel like you have some opinions about New Mexico and big business. And also, I want to talk about possibly making a comparison with this in the tobacco industry. There was something called the Master Settlement Agreement. Back in the day, because the news coverage is drawing a direct line between this case and Big Tobacco.

[08:03] Larry: Having lived here for my fifth decade, I’ve watched how people think here in New Mexico. The state has a bit of a reputation for being hostile to large corporate defendants and even wealthy individuals. And it’s not entirely undeserved. This is the state that gave us Liebeck versus McDonald’s restaurants. Probably the most famous product liability case in American history. That was the hot coffee case from 1994, tried here in Bernalillo County. A jury found McDonald’s liable and initially awarded two point seven million dollars in punitive damages.

[08:42] Andy: You would think so. And to be fair, a lot of people don’t know the facts around that case. So that woman, Stella Liebeck, which did you pronounce it as? I said Liebeck, but it could go either way. Sure. So Liebeck. She was seventy nine years old. One of your contemporaries. She suffered third degree burns in her pelvic region and needed skin grafts. The coffee was being served at one hundred eighty to one hundred ninety degrees Fahrenheit. McDonald’s had over seven hundred prior burn complaints on file, but they didn’t change anything. She initially asked for twenty thousand dollars to cover her medical bills. McDonald’s offered her a whopping eight hundred bucks. Ha ha ha.

[09:26] Larry: So, well, to be fair, I don’t know the inner workings of McDonald’s, but most of them are franchise operations. So when you talk about McDonald’s as a company, who would have been the responsible party? That’s a topic for another day. But if a guy owns two McDonald’s stores, they don’t have that kind of money. I mean, they might offer eight hundred dollars, while twenty thousand is more than what they can afford. However, the trial judge called McDonald’s conduct willful, wanton, and reckless. But the media turned it into a story about a lady spilling coffee and getting millions. And it became a poster child for tort reform. What people don’t realize is that the judge reduced the punitive damages to four hundred eighty thousand dollars because that was the cap at the time. It ultimately settled for reportedly less than five hundred thousand dollars. But the point is, New Mexico juries are not afraid to impose large penalties on corporations. And that matters here.

[10:26] Andy: Now let’s move over to the tobacco comparison and CNBC’s coverage explicitly compared this wave of social media litigation to the big tobacco suits in the 1990s. The parallels are real. Internal documents showing the company knew its products were harmful—check. Executives ignoring their own safety teams—check. Public statements that contradict internal knowledge—check. The tobacco master settlement agreement in 1998 didn’t just cost the industry two hundred and six billion dollars; it fundamentally changed how tobacco companies could operate, market, and interact with the public. And that’s what New Mexico is going for in phase two of this trial.

[11:06] Larry: Yes, which brings us to why the three hundred seventy-five million isn’t the story. The story is what happens on May 4th. There’s a second phase and it’s a bench trial—no jury. And judge who? That I think that’s going to be a bite shot. Judge bite shot. The state is bringing a public nuisance claim, and the relief they’re asking for goes far beyond money. Attorney Gerald Torres went on CBS and CNBC Squawk Box the day after the verdict and laid it out. He said they’re asking for injunctive relief, mandatory age verification, changes to recommendation algorithms, restrictions on certain design features, and an independent monitor appointed by the court to oversee compliance—just like the tobacco companies got independent monitors.

[11:59] Andy: Now, this is where I’m going to have to jump in and kind of take over a little bit, because when lawyers and politicians say age verification and algorithm changes, I don’t think most people understand what they’re actually talking about technically now. And Larry, I know you’re not really technology is not your forte.

[12:18] Larry: Yes, I’ve told you, I predate the telegraph. I was helping design and lay those lines back in the 1800s.

[12:26] Andy: All right. Well, let me explain what it looks like under the hood. When they say real age verification, they don’t mean clicking a checkbox that says, quote unquote, “I’m over eight” or “I’m over 13.” They mean identity verification, submitting a government issued ID or biometric analysis, which is a fancy way of saying facial recognition or thumbprint or something like that to estimate your age. Some of the proposals floating around require third party age verification services that collaborate and collect and store identifying documents. And that would apply to everyone, not just children, right? You can’t verify that someone is not a minor without verifying who they are. There’s no technical mechanism that checks age without collecting identity. So what you’re really building is a system where every single person who wants to use a social media platform has to hand over government ID or submit to biometric scanning. You’re building an identity verification checkpoint for the internet now.

[13:28] Larry: That’s funny, yeah.

[13:30] Andy: Sure, okay. Funny.

[13:33] Larry: It’s a word we could use. And I would imagine that the data has to be stored somewhere, and then it begs a lot of questions: Who all would have access to it? Could it be marketed? What would they do with it? How would they secure it? What would they do to stop data breaches?

[13:44] Andy: You’re hitting all the cylinders there. It does sound like a massive honeypot, are you familiar with that term?

[13:53] Larry: Okay.

[13:54] Andy: And it isn’t theoretical—in September 2025, Discord, where we’re actually broadcasting this to folks right now, had its third-party customer support provider breached. According to Discord’s own disclosure, approximately 70,000 users had their government-issued IDs exposed; these were photos people had submitted specifically for age verification. The hacker group claimed access to over 2 million ID images and 1.5 terabytes of data. The Electronic Frontier Foundation gave Discord their “We Still Told You So” Breaches Award for the incident, and here’s the kicker: Discord then turned around and announced mandatory age verification for all users starting in 2026 using the same type of infrastructure that just got breached. The EFF has called age verification mandates a censorship and surveillance nightmare, and they’re right.

[14:53] Larry: So the cure might end up being worse than the disease in my opinion. And everybody who rails against big government—well, it’s not the government collecting this but the government mandating that it’s being collected. This is going to be funny when everybody’s data is breached.

[15:09] Andy: That’s right. How could you give access to one group of people without collecting all of it? But we need to think really carefully about what infrastructure we’re building in the name of protecting children’s rights, not just children. Children’s rights, got it? Got it. Because that infrastructure doesn’t disappear once it exists; it gets repurposed. Our audience knows better than most that things get repurposed.

[15:40] Larry: A fair point. Now there’s another development that came out during the trial—I want to bring this up midway through the proceedings—Meta announced that it would remove end-to-end encryption and create a new infrastructure for all users. I don’t fully understand the technical implications, but what does that mean?

[15:59] Andy: Well, this is one that genuinely scares me, and I need to unpack it because there are layers here. So, end-to-end encrypted encryption or e2e means that when you send a message to someone, only you and the recipient can read it—not Meta, not the government, not a hacker who intercepts it in transit. The message is encrypted on your device and decrypted on theirs; nobody in the middle can see the content. By the way, this is the same encryption technology that protects your banking transactions these days when you log into your bank’s website or make an online purchase. That little padlock in your browser tells you that the connection is encrypted so nobody can intercept your financial data. It’s the same underlying principle.

When we talk about weakening encryption, we’re not talking about some niche privacy tool for people with something to hide; we’re talking about technology that secures the entire digital economy. Meta is removing this from Instagram. Yes, they announced during the trial that they would be pulling it. Their spokesperson told CNN that not many people were opting into it, so they’re just removing the option. But the timing is conspicuous—this happened in the middle of a trial where one of the state’s key arguments was that encrypted messaging made it harder for law enforcement to identify information being sent to them and that’s why they didn’t identify predators.

The state presented evidence that changes Meta made to Facebook Messenger’s encryption in 2019 impacted their ability to share information with law enforcement in approximately 7.5 million child abuse reports. So, then to move along here’s where it gets really uncomfortable, and I need for everyone to follow me on this: The stated justification for moving encryption is that you can’t detect CSAM (child sexual abuse material), grooming behavior, or terrorist communications in messages you can’t read. That’s technically true, but the inverse is also true—the only way to scan for that content is to have access to all content: every message, every conversation, every photo, every link from everyone. If you want to find the needle, you have to surveil the entire haystack. Which means that every person who is lawfully communicating—and that’s an overwhelming majority of users—is having their conversations monitored by default.

[18:26] Larry: A significant constitutional concern now. To be fair, it’s not an individual; it’s technology monitoring, but then where does that stuff go after it’s been monitored by high tech?

[18:39] Andy: And it’s an enormous concern and it doesn’t stop at the platform level. Once the data exists in a readable form, it can then be collected, stored, analyzed, and shared. You may have heard of the NSA’s data center in Utah, in Bluffdale. That facility was built specifically for mass data collection and storage. When unencrypted communications flow through platforms at scale, they become available for government collection whether through direct request, court orders, or programs we may not even know about yet. We know from the Snowden disclosures that the government’s appetite for bulk communications data is functionally limitless.

Now, let’s move over to a little bit of First Amendment territory. If the government directly or through regulatory pressure on companies can read every digital conversation, it has a chilling effect on speech. I want to give a concrete example: Back in 1995, do you remember AOL? At the time, that was the dominant online platform. They banned the word “breast” on their platform as part of a content cleanup effort. If you ban the word breast, you understand that 13-year-olds aren’t going around typing in “breast” and seeing pictures of boobs, but breast cancer patients could not communicate with each other either. Support groups were disrupted; people had their profiles deleted for using a medical term because a content filter couldn’t distinguish between medical discussions and something seen. That’s what happens when you build blunt instrument content moderation systems—they don’t distinguish between a predator and a cancer patient; they just flag the keyword.

[20:31] Larry: That’s one of the things I’ve been griping about for a long time. Tech can’t distinguish between different types of conversations, as this example shows. The same logic applies to encryption removal.

[20:43] Andy: Yep, and once you remove encryption so you can scan for CCM, you’re scanning everything. This means that when you and your boss have conversations—whether it’s about finances or a case coming up—all of that stuff gets slurped up. If you were using Instagram’s messaging platform, the tools that scan for illegal content could be retrained to scan for anything: political speech, religious speech, organizing dissent, any sort of minority conversation. I don’t want to say disenfranchised—I’m thinking of trans people and their conversations getting slurped up. I’m no fan of hate groups like the KKK or Christian white nationalists; those people are repugnant to me personally, but they do have a First Amendment right to communicate and assemble.

[21:42] Larry: Settled law

[21:43] Andy: Right, well.

[21:45] Larry: I would agree with you on that. And as distasteful as these people are, you should be willing to defend their speech because when we start having the speech police, your speech is next.

[21:55] Andy: And if every digital communication is readable by default and all of that activity is under potential scrutiny not just because someone got a warrant or because a judge found probable cause, but just because the infrastructure exists and someone decided to look.

[22:13] Larry: Since you know the Fourth Amendment and all the amendments by heart, can you explain the Fourth Amendment connection for our audience?

[22:21] Andy: Sure. So the Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. You need a warrant supported by probable cause and issued by a judge to tap someone’s phone or open their mail. That’s foundational stuff. But when a company removes encryption, they’re building a window into every conversation that any government, any hacker, or any rogue employee can look through. You don’t need a warrant to read what was never locked. For a nation that prides itself on constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizures, the collective indifference to this is staggering.

[23:01] Larry: And so you’re under the misguided belief that we actually value these things. But for our audience specifically, if you’re on the registry, you already live under a degree of government scrutiny that most people can’t even fathom. The idea that digital tools you use to communicate might have surveillance baked in by default should concern you and everyone enormously.

[23:22] Andy: And then it gets worse because there’s another angle here that most people aren’t talking about, and it ties directly into what the writer Shoshana Zuboff has called surveillance capitalism. Your personal data is the raw material being extracted, packaged, and sold for profit. There’s a multi-billion dollar industry of data brokers whose entire business model is collecting your personal information from apps, websites, location services, purchasing history, public records, and packaging it for sale. And here’s the part that should make everyone’s blood run cold: The government can simply buy it, no warrant required. How’s that legal? My understanding is based on something called third-party doctrine—the legal theory is that you’ve voluntarily shared the data with a third party when you agreed to some app’s terms of service that nobody ever reads. You have a diminished expectation of privacy in that data. The Supreme Court narrowed this somewhat in Carpenter v. United States, but the government has been actively purchasing data from brokers to get around warrant requirements. It’s an end run around the Fourth Amendment and it’s happening right now.

[24:36] Larry: Can you connect this back to the Meta decision because

[24:43] Andy: Every piece of safety, quote-unquote, infrastructure that gets ordered by a court—age verification systems, identification and verification systems—are all part of the data being used to protect kids. Now there’s a database linking government IDs to social media profiles. That data can be subpoenaed, it can be breached just like we discussed earlier in Discord. It can be sold, it can be purchased by a government ID, and it can be used by a government agency through a data broker without anyone ever going before a judge. The infrastructure of surveillance capitalism and the infrastructure of child safety are becoming the same infrastructure, and that should terrify everyone.

[25:33] Larry: Everyone, so the surveillance infrastructure that gets built in the name of child safety becomes a tool for monitoring anyone that the government takes an interest in.

[25:42] Andy: That’s it exactly. This isn’t conspiracy talk; this is the documented, observable pattern. We saw it with the Patriot Act and FISA courts—broad surveillance powers get authorized for one stated purpose and then quietly expand every single time.

[26:02] Larry: I wouldn’t believe that the big people pushing the Patriot Act and all that has been used for since then, but in terms of those impacted by the registry, you’re already kept in a category the government has decided warrants extra monitoring. Any expansion of digital surveillance tools hits you first and hardest, right?

[26:25] Andy: I want to bring in some data here because the phrase “protect the children” gets used as though children are being snatched off the streets by strangers in epidemic numbers. Now, let’s look at what the actual numbers say according to the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin using NCMEC data: approximately 200,000 children per year are abducted by family members; an additional 58,000 children per year are abducted by non-family members, primarily people with a known relationship to the child. The number of what the FBI calls “stereotypical kidnappings,” where a stranger abducts a child with the intent to keep ransom or kill, is approximately 115 per year nationwide—115 out of roughly 72 million children in the United States. That’s less than one in a million. Now, to be fair on that—if it’s your child, obviously one is too many—and I’m not trying to discount that—but we’re building this entire infrastructure around that tiny, minuscule number.

[27:36] Andy: Believe that would qualify as the imaginary boogeyman.

[27:39] Larry: The danger is overwhelmingly from people the child already knows and associates with.

[27:43] Andy: Yes, the danger is already in the house. Nick Mix’s 2024 data shows that out of the 29,500 missing children cases they assisted with, 91 were endangered runaways. Non-family abductions were approximately one percent of cases. And the recovery rate, according to Nick Mix, former president, is more than 99% of children reported missing in recent years have come home alive. The FBI’s card team data show that in 70% of child abduction cases, the abductor had a known relationship with the child. One percent or less were strangers. And yet, the entire surveillance apparatus being proposed—age verification, encryption removal, algorithm monitoring, government-appointed guardians—is being justified by the specter of stranger danger. The data does not support the narrative. The narrative supports the infrastructure, and our audience understands that distinction better than almost anyone else, is that right? I think so.

[28:54] Larry: So maybe they would tell me.

[28:56] Andy: Other people might tell us otherwise.

[28:56] Larry: Well, I do want to be clear about something. The state of New Mexico presented a strong case. The jury found metal libel on every count. And about a day later, the evidence of internal knowledge was and willful inaction was compelling. Former matter vice president Brian Boland testified per CNN’s trial coverage that he absolutely did not believe that the abductor had a known relationship with the child. Abductor was guilty of abduction without felonious intent. The judge

[29:30] Andy: has taken steps away from the crime scene. Police have dominated the case, and the indigent in the trial proven guilty to be a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is not an extenuating offense against the child abductor.

[29:38] Larry: The case is getting even worse. The judge came forward with a case referred to as the child abductor women’s court. I’m going to be civil about it, but he says if it’s being considered a misdemeanor, a misdemeanor is still a misdemeanor. If it’s being considered a misdemeanor, the judge will make a ruling based on an adult in alarming numbers.

[29:54] Andy: Sure, there absolutely is. But the question our audience needs to be asking is not whether something should be done; the answer is obviously yes. The question is what is being done and who else does it affect? Because when A.G. Torres walks into that courtroom on May 4th and asks Judge Beitscheid for mandatory age verification, algorithm oversight, and independent court-appointed monitor, that’s not just about Meta. That’s a template. Just like the tobacco master settlement agreement became a template. And remember, over 40 state attorneys general have similar suits pending against Meta. If New Mexico gets a favorable order on the public nuisance claim, you will see that framework replicated nationwide.

[30:35] Larry: “Protect the children” is a phrase that, as our listeners know, gets attached to legislation and court orders that accomplish far more than their stated purpose.

[30:46] Andy: It’s a skeleton key. It opens every door. Say you’re trying to protect the children. You can do whatever you want. Nobody can vote against it. Just like anything with PFRs. If a legislator says, “Oh, I voted down something that made life worse for PFRs,” they’re going to get outed in the next election. So nobody can argue against it in public without getting destroyed. And then the people who wield it know that. So what should we be watching? What should people be watching for? May 4th is when the bench trial happens. The money is a sideshow, really. Watch what Judge Beidscheid orders in terms of injunctive relief. Watch whether he mandates identity-based verification. Watch whether the independent monitor framework becomes a model other states adopt. And encrypt everything you can while you still can. Use Signal for messaging, use a VPN, use strong passwords, and two-factor authentication. Read the privacy policies. Opt out of data collection wherever you can because the walls are closing in on digital privacy, and they’re closing in fastest on the people who can leave the country. At least afford to lose it. And that’s our people. That’s our audience.

[31:55] Larry: Well said. The full complaint is available on the New Mexico Attorney General’s website at nmag.gov. And the New Mexico courts have been posting the admitted trial exhibits at nmcourts.gov.

[32:13] Andy: And we’ll drop links to the complaint, the statute, and the key news coverage in the show notes. Now, all right. What do you think? Anything else you want to cover on that one?

[32:22] Larry: appreciate all the laborious work. I know you’ve worked on this for hours.

[32:28] Andy: It wasn’t like 10 minutes. All right.

[32:32] 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-E.

[33:21] Andy: Then we shall venture over, we’ll jaunt over to North Carolina’s Sheriff Barney Fife. And you have a case you want to talk about, and it’s from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Now, while I was cutting the grass today, I thoroughly reviewed the facts, and I have a simple question to begin with. This decision came down in April of 2024, so like two years ago? Why did you wait so long? Because I didn’t know about it until this week. You’re telling me that despite FYP’s research staff and the many tools you have, that you didn’t know about this important case? That’s what I’m telling you. We should probably fire the entire research staff. So the name of the case is Thurston v. Frye. So Kevin Frye and Lee Buchanan appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. Oh, your favorite. They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their arrest of David Thurston did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. Tell us about Thurston.

[34:25] Larry: Well, he’s a fine gentleman. In 1992, Thurston pleaded guilty to two counts of sexually assaulting minors in Montana. Fast forward to 2015, Thurston moved to Avery County, North Carolina. Frye served as sheriff, and Buchanan was the deputy in charge of PFR registration. So remember, Sheriff Frye and Deputy Buchanan as we go through this case.

[34:48] Andy: All right. So on August 9th, 2016, Thurston informed Sheriff Frye that he had been invited to his nephew’s wedding, which was scheduled for September 17th in Spokane, Washington. But Thurston’s biannual verification was due around the same time. Mindful of these obligations, Thurston sought Sheriff Frye’s advice on how to comply with the law and asked for his permission to attend the wedding. After exchanging texts, Sheriff Frye told Thurston on August 11th that he could go because the sheriff’s office was working on it. All Thurston needed to do, Sheriff Frye explained, was email a copy of Thurston’s Washington visitor registration form within 10 days of his arrival. What is a visitor registration form?

[35:35] Larry: Well, Sheriff Frye told him that he needed to register his stay in Washington because it was going to be an extended period of time.

[35:42] Andy: See. And so Thurston left North Carolina the same day. On his way to Spokane, Sheriff Frye wrote to Thurston asking for the address where he would be staying. Thurston provided his address and arrived in Washington on August 21st. He registered as a visitor and emailed the registration form to Sheriff Frye as instructed. In all, Thurston stayed for over a month, interspersed with excursions to Seattle to visit a friend.

[36:13] Larry: It gets even funnier. On September 9th, while Thurston was away, the sheriff’s office mailed his verification form. His sister in North Carolina told him about it, prompting him to contact Sheriff Frye for guidance. But Sheriff Frye never responded. So Thurston decided to let it die given their prior interactions regarding this. Now, I’m guessing the sheriff did not let it die? You’ve guessed correctly. They did not. Deputy Buchanan began investigating Thurston three times after he left North Carolina. On September 12th, which was the verification deadline, Deputy Buchanan stopped by Thurston’s residence in North Carolina but found no one there since Thurston had already gone to Washington. Concerned, as anybody would be in their right mind, Thurston contacted Deputy Buchanan on October 6th when Spokane County Sheriff’s Office phoned him, informing that Deputy Buchanan was considering getting U.S. Marshals involved due to his prolonged absence. Deputy Buchanan then erroneously told Thurston it was illegal for him to be out of the state for more than 30 days but also said he had spoken with Sheriff Frye and as long as Thurston returned by October 19th, there would be no problem. Thurston met the deadline and returned to North Carolina on October

[37:52] Andy: 19th. It’s interesting that despite all the documented communication, Deputy Buchanan discussed potential criminal liability with an assistant district attorney. The ADA recommended that they pursue charges against Thurston. And then on October 19th, despite knowing that he and Sheriff Frye had given Thurston until that day to return to the state, Deputy Buchanan obtained a warrant from a local magistrate.

[38:35] Larry: Now, I’m going to hold out hope. Can you at least admit that this is funny? You’re a sick individual if you think that this is funny. What happened next? You’re hopeless. You’re never going to laugh. So, on October 21st, Thurston went to the Avery County Sheriff’s Office to deliver his now completed verification form. He was greeted with an arrest. They alleged three different criminal violations from September 19th and October 18th: one, being out of state for more than 30 days; two, willfully failing to return his verification form (remember, he returned it); and three, willfully failing to report in person to the Sheriff’s Office (he showed up there). To me, this is hilarious because the records clearly show that all these allegations are untrue. Right.

[39:14] Andy: So then one year later, Thurston sued the Avery County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Frye, and Deputy Buchanan alleging among other things, violation of Thurston’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officers asserted a defense of qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment. What did the district court do?

[39:34] Larry: The district court denied their motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.

[39:40] Andy: So then Sheriff Frye and Deputy Buchanan maintained on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity. First, they argued that they did not violate Thurston’s Fourth Amendment rights because they had probable cause to seek his arrest. Further, they argued that even if the arrest lacked probable cause, it did not violate clearly established law because it was supported by a warrant.

[40:03] Larry: Well, that last sentence is just shy of accurate. They said because it was supported by a warrant. The warrant was issued as a result of their request based on misleading information that they provided to the magistrate judge.

[40:19] Andy: Now, would there be a situation where the argument that the arrest was based on a warrant be viable?

[40:26] Larry: Yes, there would be. There would be many warrants that law enforcement officers encounter where they didn’t seek the warrants and are merely acting on what’s in an NCIC database. So if an agency is acting on information and arrests someone as a result of an open warrant, they cannot be deemed at fault if the warrant turns out to have been issued improperly. But the problem for these people in Barney Fife’s sheriff’s office is that the warrant would not exist but for their misleading and malicious actions. That’s the difference.

[40:59] Andy: Sounds like you’re saying that the police lie. No, can we dig into the qualified immunity of it? Can you explain what it is and how it is applied?

[41:11] Larry: Well, it’s kind of controversial, but qualified immunity protects government officials from claims of statutory or constitutional violations when they reasonably believed their actions were legal and when they made a reasonable mistake about the legality of their actions. To determine whether Sheriff Fry and Deputy Buchanan are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first answer two questions with a split burden of proof. First, has Thurston established that, viewing the evidence most favorably to him, the officers violated his constitutional rights? If so, then have the officers shown that the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time they made their good faith mistake?

[42:11] Andy: Thurston’s arrest warrant identifies three crimes: failing to register that he would be out of state for 30 days, purportedly in violation of North Carolina General Statute 14-208.11; number two, willfully and feloniously failing to return the form verifying his address to the sheriff’s office within the allotted time, also in violation of subsection 14-208.11; and finally, number three, willfully and feloniously failing to report in person to the sheriff’s office, again in violation of 14-208.11.

[42:47] Larry: Yes, and it’s very interesting that the parties agreed that the officers had probable cause for the first non-existent offense. See, the first one—that you can’t be out of state for 30 days—was totally pulled out of their rectum. So, even the people defending the sheriffs agreed that this was non-existent. But they asserted that there was probable cause for the two other offenses. Thurston argued that these crimes carry a mens rea requirement, which is knowledge or an element of willfulness. According to him, at the time they saw the warrant, the officers had probable cause to believe that he was acting willfully because that’s in the North Carolina statute about PFR registration. It requires willful noncompliance.

[43:35] Andy: The court stated that Deputy Buchanan and Sheriff Fry needed some reason to believe that Thurston either purposefully violated the law or acted with some other improper purpose. How did that go?

[43:47] Larry: Not very well because the district court’s order and findings foreclosed the argument that they viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Thurston. The district court accepted that both defendants definitely knew that Thurston was eager to comply with the law, which is why keeping that digital footprint of information was so helpful. The district court also accepted that officers knew Sheriff Fry gave Thurston permission to travel and that Thurston followed every instruction given by the sheriff’s office. So concluding, the district court not only accepted these facts about Thurston’s actions but also concluded that the officers had determined based on those actions that Thurston was eager to comply with the law. So who bears the burden of proof then? Well, once the challenger proves a constitutional violation occurred and if the officers want their qualified immunity, the burden is on them. In this case, the officers did not prove that Thurston’s arrest was not contrary to clearly established law. The court stated: “We thus conclude that the officers have failed to carry their burden to show that they are entitled to summary judgment. Though they acted pursuant to a warrant, no reasonable officer would have sought a warrant here.” The district court therefore correctly denied their assertions of qualified immunity.

[45:15] Andy: The court noted that qualified immunity is controversial and criticized but binding, and it provides a powerful defense for officers who perform critical services to society.

[45:32] Larry: And they went on to say, we recognize that the magistrate judge is more qualified than a police officer to make a probable cause determination. Thus, a magistrate’s approval of a warrant application in the average case will be the clearest indication of the officer’s objective reasonableness. And they concluded with “clearest” should not be confused with absolute. In a narrow set of cases where no reasonable officer would have sought a warrant, we cannot treat its issuance as evidence of objective reasonableness. I think this is hilarious.

[46:08] Andy: Tell me something. We didn’t really talk about any kind of compensation. How did that come out in the end here for whoever prevailed? Did they win money?

[46:23] Larry: He didn’t win money, but his legal fees were paid. The award was just over $100,000 to cover legal fees in a relatively small county. And I’m hoping that this gets through their attention, because money usually gets attention. In a county of $17,000, $100,000 is not just a rounding error.

[46:46] Andy: Does that trickle downhill and do the officers get fired? Do they get a bill?

[46:53] Larry: No, there’ll be no consequences for them. If officers were rated in some category of civil rights violations, it might result in a no-hire decision. But they don’t do that. So they’ll just move on with life as if nothing happened because it’s not their money. In North Carolina, the state would settle these cases. In New Mexico, it’d come out of the state’s funds. But in many places, like Georgia, the county has to pay up. For example, the suit we brought against Butts County over the Halloween signs, the county had to cover that cost.

[47:29] Andy: And then they could run around and post on social media saying because of this person on the registry, we don’t have $100,000. Therefore, we can’t do road improvements. That’s what they’ll say. So we need to make these laws tougher so that we can win. Right? You got it. Okay, I got it all figured out. This is the last episode because we’ve figured it out.

[47:52] Larry: Yep. Don’t need me anymore.

[47:55] Andy: Anything else you want to cover before we head on out? No, I think this was the best episode we’ve done in 2026. That could be. Well, that doesn’t really leave us a lot. We’re only a quarter of the way through. Head over to registrymatters.co for show notes and links everywhere you need to go. You can also of course head over to FYP Education for transcripts and blog posts, and that’s also where the shop is at fypeducation.org slash shop. You can email me over at registrymatterscast at gmail.com and I will forward that over to the Larianator and then also leave a voicemail message at 747-227-4477. And of course, please, please, please, please, please head over to patreon.com slash registry matters to show your support for the podcast. I hope you have a fantabulous weekend, Larry, and stay out of trouble and don’t call me at five in the morning. Cause I won’t answer. All right. I’ll wait till six. Please have a great night, everybody. Thanks for coming around and we will talk to you very soon. Take care. Good night.

[48:59] Announcer: You’ve been listening to F Y P.

A new legal battle is taking shape in West Virginia, and it strikes at the heart of a question that affects thousands of registrants across the country: Should the government be allowed to demand access to every single internet account you own?

The case, known as Al v. Mitchell, was recently filed by NARSOL (National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws) and challenges a West Virginia statute that requires people on the sex offense registry to disclose all of their internet accounts. That means everything — social media profiles, email addresses, Cash App, PayPal, Amazon accounts, and potentially even work-related logins. It is the latest in a growing wave of legal challenges questioning whether these broad disclosure requirements serve any legitimate purpose or simply impose unconstitutional burdens on registrants.

The Scope of the Problem: What Counts as an “Internet Account”?

Consider for a moment how many internet accounts the average person holds. Most people have dozens, if not hundreds. For anyone who works in technology or manages digital accounts professionally, the number can easily climb into the thousands.

West Virginia’s statute casts an extraordinarily wide net. Registrants are expected to report not just social media profiles where they might interact with the public, but financial apps like Cash App and PayPal, shopping accounts like Amazon, and email addresses. The law doesn’t clearly define what qualifies as an “internet account,” raising serious questions about vagueness.

As one legal advocate pointed out during a recent discussion, the idea of requiring someone to hand over their Cash App handle seems particularly absurd. Very few people use payment apps as a vehicle for the kind of conduct the law purports to prevent. The requirement appears to be a case of legislative overreach that sweeps in virtually all online activity without any meaningful connection to public safety.

A Growing Legal Movement Across the States

Al v. Mitchell does not exist in a vacuum. It builds on a foundation of at least 14 similar cases that have been analyzed and litigated across the country. The legal landscape is shifting, and not in the direction that supporters of these disclosure requirements might hope.

Several states have already moved away from requiring internet identifiers:

• Georgia no longer requires registrants to provide internet identifiers
• California has similarly dropped the requirement
• Kentucky, Connecticut, and Michigan have all seen legal challenges on First Amendment grounds

The First Amendment argument is straightforward: individuals have a constitutionally protected right to engage in anonymous speech online. Requiring someone to hand over every internet account effectively strips away that anonymity, creating a chilling effect on protected expression.

The Cornelio Precedent: 15 Years of Data, Zero Results

Perhaps the most damning evidence against internet identifier requirements comes from the Cornelio case in North Carolina. During discovery, the state was forced to disclose how it had actually used the internet identifiers it collected from registrants.

The answer was stunning: over a span of 15 years, the state had never used the collected internet identifiers even once to solve or prevent a crime. Not a single time.

This revelation undercuts the entire rationale for these laws. If the information is being collected but never used for any law enforcement purpose, then the requirement exists purely as an additional burden on registrants — one that infringes on constitutional rights without delivering any public safety benefit.

Legal advocates believe this pattern likely holds true across most states that collect internet identifiers. The data is gathered, filed away, and in many cases — as in West Virginia — published online for anyone to search. This raises additional privacy and safety concerns for registrants and their families.

The West Virginia RSOL: Grassroots Advocacy That Works

While the legal challenges play out in court, advocacy organizations on the ground are doing critical work in state legislatures. West Virginia RSOL (Reform Sex Offense Laws) has proven remarkably effective at this level of engagement.

This year alone, the organization helped prevent at least a dozen proposed registry laws from making it out of committee. That is a significant accomplishment for a volunteer-driven organization operating with limited resources. Hundreds of people contribute their time and effort, and the results speak for themselves.

The internet identifier law being challenged in Al v. Mitchell has been on the books in West Virginia for decades. Removing it through litigation represents a different but complementary strategy to the legislative advocacy that prevents new harmful laws from being enacted.

NARSOL’s Legal Pipeline: More Challenges Ahead

NARSOL’s legal committee takes a disciplined approach to selecting cases. They only bring challenges where they believe there is a strong likelihood of success, ensuring that resources are spent wisely and that favorable precedent is built rather than undermined.

Al v. Mitchell is NARSOL’s fourth case filed in the past year, and the organization has several more in the pipeline:

• Pennsylvania — A strong case challenging internet identifier requirements
• Virginia — Another internet identifier challenge
• Mississippi — A challenge to the requirement that registrants carry a separate identification card labeling them as sex offenders
• Four additional cases pending review by the legal committee

The Mississippi case highlights a particularly egregious practice. Registrants in that state are required to carry a special ID card identifying their status, a modern-day scarlet letter that serves no practical law enforcement purpose while creating significant stigma and potential danger.

The Bible Belt Factor

There is a notable geographic pattern in the severity of registry laws across the United States. States in the Bible Belt tend to impose the most burdensome requirements on registrants. The further south you travel, the more punitive the legal landscape generally becomes.

This creates particular challenges for advocacy organizations working in these regions. Cultural attitudes toward punishment and forgiveness play a significant role in shaping legislation, and changing minds requires sustained effort over many years.

NARSOL’s strategy of incremental legal challenges — what one advocate calls “crumbling” the registry one statute at a time — is designed for exactly this kind of long-term battle. Each successful case establishes precedent that makes the next challenge stronger.

How Registrants Can Make a Difference

For the approximately 6,700 people on the registry in West Virginia, there are concrete steps that can support these legal efforts:

1. Stay informed — Visit wvrsol.org and sign up for The Crumbling Times newsletter to receive updates on legal challenges and legislative threats
2. Contribute financially — Filing fees alone can run into thousands of dollars. Even modest contributions add up significantly when multiplied across the registrant population
3. Spread awareness — Many registrants may not know about the advocacy being done on their behalf or the new laws being proposed that could affect them

The math is compelling. If every registrant in West Virginia contributed just $10, the resulting $67,000 would meaningfully fund legal challenges and advocacy work. These are fights being waged on behalf of everyone on the registry, whether they know it or not.

Looking Forward

The Al v. Mitchell case represents more than a single legal challenge in a single state. It is part of a coordinated, strategic effort to dismantle unconstitutional registry requirements across the country. With strong federal court precedent supporting these challenges and a growing body of evidence showing that internet identifier requirements serve no law enforcement purpose, the legal foundation for reform is stronger than ever.

The work is far from over. New registry laws continue to be proposed in legislatures across the country, and the legal battles must be fought one statute at a time. But with each successful challenge, the wall crumbles a little more — and organizations like NARSOL and West Virginia RSOL are proving that persistent, strategic advocacy can produce real results.

When West Virginia began charging registrants $125 annually starting January 1, 2026, it joined roughly half the states in the country that impose registry fees. But unlike those other states, West Virginia made a critical mistake in how it wrote its law—and a national organization noticed.

NARSOL filed a federal lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the fee as an unconstitutional fine. The case raises fundamental questions about what states can charge registrants, where that money actually goes, and whether legislatures can impose lifetime financial burdens on people who have no way off the registry. In a recent episode of Registry Matters, Stephen broke down the case, its constitutional arguments, and why West Virginia’s statute may be uniquely vulnerable to challenge.

The Legal Line Between a Fee and a Fine

The distinction between a fee and a fine might seem academic, but it carries enormous constitutional weight. Nine cases across state and federal courts have established a fairly clear framework.

A fee is a financial obligation that pays for an actual service. In the registry context, that means the money must go toward maintenance, administration, compliance checks, and verification of registration functions. The registrant doesn’t need to personally benefit from the service—most don’t—but the money must serve the regulatory purpose.

A fine, on the other hand, is what happens when a fee becomes excessive. If the amount exceeds what it actually costs the state to administer the registry, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines kicks in. And if the money goes toward something entirely unrelated to registration? Federal courts have said that’s not a fee at all—it’s a tax.

This distinction is at the heart of the West Virginia case.

What Registrants Actually Face

West Virginia has approximately 6,700 registrants. Between January and June of each year, each must pay $125 to the circuit clerk in their county, who forwards it to the West Virginia State Police. Within 10 days of paying, registrants must appear at the state police office to confirm payment.

The consequences of non-payment are severe. West Virginia’s statute authorizes placing a property lien on any real estate the registrant owns in their county. Want to sell your house or refinance? The state extracts its fee first.

What makes this particularly burdensome is the timeline. West Virginia offers no path to deregistration. There’s no risk assessment, no tiered system, no petition process, and no hearing. For most registrants, the $125 fee is a lifetime obligation. A registrant in their 20s could pay more than $7,500 over a 60-year span.

It gets worse. West Virginia recently began requiring anyone on the sex offender registry to also be placed on the central abuse registry, which carries its own $125 annual fee. That’s $250 per year—$5 per week for life—with no exit.

Following the Money: The $800,000 Question

At $125 per registrant across 6,700 individuals, West Virginia collects over $800,000 annually from registry fees alone. But where does that money go?

This is where the case gets interesting. Stephen explained that he analyzed what’s called a federal book—a publicly available document that shows how much federal funding each state receives. Anyone can look this up for their own state.

West Virginia already receives substantial federal funding for registry operations:

• $100,075 per year under the Adam Walsh Act for overtime, supplies, and equipment
• $400,000 per year through the U.S. Marshal Service for compliance checks

That’s over $500,000 annually from federal sources before a single registrant pays a dime. So the question becomes: how much does it actually cost to update a registrant’s information once a year?

The answer from other states is illuminating. New Hampshire disclosed that it costs them just $17 per person per year to maintain their registry. Even accounting for differences in state systems, the gap between $17 and $125 is enormous—especially when the state already receives half a million dollars in federal funding.

The Mental Health Funding Bombshell

Here’s where West Virginia’s statute diverges from every other state that has successfully defended a registry fee in court.

In every other state, the fee statute explicitly states that the money goes toward registration functions—maintenance, upkeep, compliance checks, and verifications. West Virginia’s statute completely omits this language.

Instead, the fees are directed toward mental health services and healthcare for West Virginia State Police—including former employees. The legislative record even shows that a state police superintendent told a legislator he needed the fees to hire a mental health doctor.

The state has attempted to justify this by arguing that registration work is inherently stressful. Their contention is that officers must analyze crime evidence, review disturbing images, and interview victims as part of the registration process.

But as the hosts pointed out, that’s not what registration involves. Registration is updating addresses, phone numbers, photos, and fingerprints. It’s administrative work. In fact, some states don’t even use law enforcement for this function—in Mississippi, registrants update their information at the DMV.

This misallocation of funds is the strongest argument in the case. Every other state whose registry fee has been upheld specifically tied fees to registry operations. West Virginia didn’t, and that may be fatal to their defense.

The Equal Protection Problem

Beyond the fee-versus-fine argument, the case raises serious 14th Amendment equal protection concerns.

West Virginia’s statute contains no indigency exception. Every other state with a registry fee includes provisions for people who cannot afford to pay. West Virginia does not.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is partially paralyzed and cannot work. He lives on SSI, Medicaid, and SNAP. His annual income makes the $125 fee—let alone $250 with the central abuse registry—a devastating burden. And if he can’t pay, a lien goes on any property he owns.

The absence of an indigency clause, combined with the property lien enforcement mechanism, creates what the legal team describes as a strong equal protection claim.

Why Federal Court?

The case was filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the state police superintendent in his official capacity. This was a deliberate choice. Federal courts offer several advantages: judges are appointed rather than elected, other federal courts have issued favorable rulings on similar issues, and the case can draw on a growing body of precedent.

NARSOL also filed for a preliminary injunction to halt fee collection while the case proceeds. As of the discussion, that motion was still pending.

What Comes Next

The state is expected to file motions to dismiss, arguing the fee is a reasonable regulatory cost. But they’ll face a difficult challenge explaining why registrant fees fund mental health services for police officers.

Through the discovery process, the legal team plans to extract exactly how much it costs West Virginia to maintain its registry. If the cost is anywhere near the $17 per person that New Hampshire reported, the $125 fee becomes very hard to defend.

Whether the case resolves through summary judgment or goes to trial remains to be seen. A trial would establish a fuller factual record that could strengthen challenges in other states. Either way, both sides are expected to appeal any unfavorable ruling.

Why This Case Matters Beyond West Virginia

Twenty-five states and Washington D.C. currently charge registry fees. This case could establish precedent in the Fourth Circuit that ripples outward. The key lesson is straightforward: the wording of the statute matters.

States that earmark fees specifically for registry functions and include indigency provisions are on stronger legal ground. States that—like West Virginia—direct fees toward unrelated purposes without protecting those who can’t pay may find their statutes vulnerable to the same challenge.

As Stephen noted, laws are considered constitutional until someone challenges them in court. Sometimes, legislatures get it wrong.

Key Takeaways

1. Check your state’s federal book to see how much federal funding your state already receives for registry operations.
2. Keep all payment receipts if you’ve paid a registry fee—photo documentation may matter if the fee is struck down.
3. Statutory language is everything—the difference between a defensible fee and an unconstitutional fine often comes down to how the legislature wrote the law.

When two men convicted of sex offenses in other states quietly relocated to New Jersey without notifying anyone, they probably didn’t expect their cases would produce a landmark appellate court ruling. But in a consolidated decision issued on February 23, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that the state must first determine whether an out-of-state conviction is “similar to” a New Jersey Megan’s Law offense before charging someone with failure to register.

The ruling highlights a critical gap in how states handle interstate registration obligations. It also raises important questions about the balance between due process protections and the state’s interest in tracking individuals with sex offense convictions. For the thousands of registered individuals who move between states each year, this case has immediate practical significance.

The Cases of Milner and Gregg

Norman Milner and Shaquan Gregg arrived at the same legal crossroads through remarkably similar paths. Milner had been a registered person forced to register (PFR) in New York since a 2003 conviction. Gregg was classified as a Tier 2 PFR in South Carolina. Both men independently moved to New Jersey without informing their home state authorities of the relocation, and neither presented himself to New Jersey officials to register upon arrival.

Their presence in the Garden State was only discovered when each was arrested on separate, unrelated charges. During routine processing, law enforcement officers ran their information through national databases and discovered their registration obligations in other states.

For Gregg, it happened on November 13, 2023, when the Union City Police Department arrested him on unrelated charges. Processing revealed an outstanding South Carolina warrant for failure to register. For Milner, the Secaucus Police Department arrested him on June 14, 2023, on an unrelated outstanding warrant. When he was transported to the Jersey City Police Department, officers discovered he was a registered PFR in New York.

No surveillance technology, no neighborhood tips, no tracking software. Just routine police work during unrelated encounters.

Grand Jury Indictments and the Legal Challenge

In 2024, separate grand juries indicted both men. Milner was charged with failure to register, while Gregg was indicted for both failure to register in the third degree and failure to notify police of an address change.

Both defendants moved to dismiss their indictments with the same core argument: New Jersey had never conducted the legally required analysis to determine whether their out-of-state convictions were “similar to” a New Jersey Megan’s Law offense. Under New Jersey Statute 2C:7-2, subsection B(3), the state must make this threshold determination before an out-of-state offender can be obligated to register. Both defendants contended this analysis was a necessary condition precedent — legal language meaning it had to happen first — before any registration obligation could attach.

The trial courts rejected their arguments. Milner subsequently pled guilty to a lesser charge of obstructing the administration of law and was sentenced to time served. Gregg appealed, and the cases were consolidated into a joint appeal because they raised identical legal issues.

What Does “Similar To” Actually Mean?

At the heart of this case is a deceptively simple phrase in New Jersey’s registration statute. The law requires that out-of-state offenders register if their conviction is “similar to” an enumerated offense under Megan’s Law. However, the statute itself never defines what “similar to” means.

Prior New Jersey case law has established that an out-of-state conviction triggers registration when the offense “contains the same essential elements and the underlying purposes of the crimes are consonant” — a legal term meaning in agreement or harmony — with a New Jersey offense.

New Jersey’s list of registrable offenses includes aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, kidnapping of a victim under 16, endangering the welfare of a child through sexual conduct, luring and enticing, false imprisonment of a minor, and promoting prostitution of a child, among others.

The question is not whether most out-of-state sex offenses would likely qualify. The question is whether the state can skip the formal process of making that determination.

The Trial Court’s Reasoning — and Its Limits

The trial courts in both cases took a pragmatic approach. The judges essentially reasoned that since both men had tried to live under the radar, they had forfeited their right to demand procedural protections.

As legal commentators observed, the trial court’s logic followed a common-sense trajectory: if you wanted due process, you should have presented yourself to New Jersey authorities. Demanding procedural protections only after being caught seems counterintuitive. One can imagine the trial judge thinking, as one podcast commentator put it, that these defendants were “crying about the lack of due process” while they had actively tried to avoid the system entirely.

The trial court also pointed to evidence that Milner’s failure was “knowing” — he had been registered in New York for 20 years and voluntarily told police he had moved without notifying authorities. This admission proved crucial in establishing his mental state, highlighting a practical lesson: statements made to police during arrest processing can and will be used against defendants.

The Appellate Division Reverses

The three-judge appellate panel reversed the trial courts in a ruling that prioritized statutory text over equitable considerations. The court held that the state’s obligation to conduct a similarity analysis is a legislative mandate that cannot be bypassed, regardless of how the out-of-state offender came to be detected in New Jersey.

The court stated that “indicting defendants before affording them the opportunity to challenge whether their out-of-state conviction is similar to a New Jersey Megan’s Law crime offends principles of due process and the statute itself.”

Critically, the court addressed the obvious counterargument head-on: does an offender who fails to present themselves waive their right to this determination? The answer was no. The state’s duty to perform a “similar-to” analysis exists independently of the offender’s compliance with registration procedures. The state retains the burden of establishing that an out-of-state offense qualifies under New Jersey law before it can proceed with failure-to-register charges.

The Ironic Loophole

The ruling creates what some might call a procedural paradox. An out-of-state registrant can relocate to New Jersey without presenting themselves, and the state cannot charge them with failure to register until it first determines that their out-of-state offense is similar to a New Jersey Megan’s Law crime. But the state cannot make that determination if it does not know the person is there.

As one commentator observed, the practical result is that someone could “move to New Jersey, thumb your nose at registration, hope they never find you. If they find you, you say, ‘Whoa, nobody determined I have a duty to register here.’”

This is technically accurate under the current state of the law. But how long will this gap remain?

How Long Will the Loophole Last?

Legal observers expect this procedural gap to be addressed through legislative action in short order. Prosecutors are almost certainly making their case to New Jersey legislators that the statute needs to be amended. Potential changes could include:

• Eliminating the similarity determination requirement for offenders who fail to voluntarily present themselves
• Adding a catch-all provision that automatically triggers registration based on any out-of-state obligation
• Creating a presumption of similarity that shifts the burden to the offender to challenge

The prediction is that the “prosecution industrial complex” will move swiftly. As one analyst noted, “I wouldn’t spend a lot of money getting ready to go to New Jersey because I think they’re going to close this loophole fairly quickly.”

The Reality of Disappearing in the Modern Age

The discussion also explored a fascinating practical question: Can someone truly vanish from law enforcement’s view in today’s hyper-connected world? The unanimous answer was a resounding no.

Consider the web of detection that exists in everyday life. A single credit card transaction reveals your location. Facial recognition technology operates in most major retail chains. Employment requires either a Social Security number or an under-the-table arrangement that creates its own vulnerabilities. Even converting entirely to cash doesn’t eliminate photo recognition at stores, and the logistics of surviving without bank accounts, credit, or documented employment are staggering.

One host referenced a Wired magazine experiment where a person attempted to completely disappear, using every trick available. Trackers located the individual within 20 hours.

The more practical reality is that any contact with law enforcement — even for something as minor as a traffic stop — triggers NCIC database checks that reveal registration status. Both defendants in this case were discovered precisely this way.

Key Takeaways

1. States have procedural obligations that cannot be shortcut. New Jersey must conduct a formal similarity analysis before charging out-of-state offenders with failure to register, regardless of how the offender entered the state or was detected.

2. Unrelated police contact is the primary discovery mechanism. Both defendants were found through routine processing during unrelated arrests. Any encounter with law enforcement carries this risk.

3. Statements to police matter enormously. Milner’s voluntary admission that he knew about his registration obligation and moved without notifying authorities directly supported the prosecution’s case. The right to remain silent exists for a reason.

4. Legislative responses to favorable rulings are often swift. This procedural victory is likely temporary, as lawmakers are expected to amend the statute to close the gap.

5. Disappearing is not a viable strategy. Modern surveillance, digital footprints, and routine law enforcement procedures make living completely off the grid nearly impossible for anyone participating in normal society.

Wyoming’s Grooming Bill: Child Protection or Pre-Crime Policing?

Wyoming is on the verge of joining a growing number of states attempting to criminalize the grooming of children as a standalone felony. House Bill 9, which has already passed both the state House and Senate, now sits on Governor Mark Gordon’s desk awaiting final approval. The bill would make sexual grooming of minors a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison.

But while the bill’s supporters frame it as a necessary tool to protect vulnerable children, critics are raising serious questions about civil liberties, vague definitions, and whether existing laws already cover the behavior in question. At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental legal tension: Can you criminalize a pattern of behavior that might lead to a crime, even when no crime has actually been committed?

What Is Grooming, Exactly?

Before diving into the legal debate, it helps to understand what grooming actually means in this context. According to the National Office for Child Safety, grooming is the deliberate process an abuser uses to build a relationship, trust, and emotional connection with a child for the purpose of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The manipulative process often involves behaviors that individually may seem completely harmless but collectively serve to lower a victim’s inhibitions, isolate them from support systems, and ensure their silence. This can include:

• Excessive gift-giving or attention (sometimes called “love bombing”)
• Building trust with both the child and their family
• Gradually introducing sexual topics or content
• Creating dependency and emotional bonds
• Isolating the child from other supportive adults

House Bill 9 defines grooming as deliberate acts that establish an emotional connection with a minor through manipulation, trust building, or influence to facilitate acts of sexual conduct, abuse, or exploitation. Critically, the bill covers both online and in-person conduct, and it applies even if no physical meeting ever takes place.

What the Bill Actually Does

The legislation creates a tiered penalty structure based on the age of the victim and the relationship between the offender and the child:

• Base offense: Felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000
• Enhanced penalties: Increased prison time and fines when the victim is younger than 16 or the offender holds a position of authority
• Maximum penalties: Even higher consequences when the victim is younger than 12 years of age

According to Terry Markham, Executive Director of Uprising (a 501(c)(3) organization focused on combating human trafficking and exploitation), the bill also closes gaps related to sex offender registry compliance. Specifically, it addresses situations where individuals convicted of offenses in other states move to Wyoming without registering and attempt to secure employment working with children.

The Gap in Current Wyoming Law

Proponents of House Bill 9 point to a real gap in Wyoming’s existing criminal code. Currently, prosecutors can charge specific components of grooming behavior under existing statutes:

• Wyoming Statute 6-4-303 covers child exploitation
• Wyoming Statute 6-2-316 addresses enticement
• Solicitation of a child under 14 is already illegal
• Sending obscene material to a minor is prosecutable
• Sexual abuse charges apply when physical contact occurs

However, there is no standalone crime addressing the broader pattern of manipulation and trust-building that often precedes these offenses. Current law can alert parents of potential victims, but law enforcement cannot arrest someone solely for grooming behavior as currently defined.

Bill sponsor Representative Bratton argues that by creating a standalone felony offense focused on the preparatory manipulation itself, the bill equips law enforcement and courts to stop predators sooner, protect vulnerable children more effectively, and reduce the escalation seen in recent Wyoming cases involving online enticement and sextortion.

The Civil Liberties Counterargument

Critics of the bill raise concerns that cut to the core of criminal law philosophy. The central objection is straightforward: this legislation criminalizes behavior and intent before any actual crime has been committed.

This is sometimes called “pre-crime” policing, a concept made famous by the film Minority Report. The argument goes that if you can be arrested for behaviors that might lead to exploitation but haven’t yet resulted in any criminal act, you’re essentially being punished for what authorities believe you might do in the future.

The vagueness of the bill’s language compounds these concerns. Consider this: the bill criminalizes “deliberate acts that establish an emotional connection with a minor through manipulation, trust building, or influence.” But where exactly is the line between:

• A predator strategically building trust with a child, and
• A neighbor being friendly with kids on their block, or
• A coach investing time and attention in a young athlete, or
• A teacher going above and beyond for a struggling student?

As one commentator pointed out, advertising itself is fundamentally about building trust and manipulating people. If the legal definition of grooming is broad enough to encompass ordinary kindness, mentorship, or community engagement, the potential for prosecutorial overreach is significant.

The Sting Operation Problem

Another criticism concerns the statistical justification for the bill. Proponents cite increasing frequency of online enticement and sextortion cases in Wyoming. But critics argue that this perceived surge is at least partly manufactured by law enforcement itself.

When police departments devote significant resources to sting operations, posing as minors in online spaces to catch potential offenders, they inevitably produce arrests. Those arrests generate statistics showing a “surge” in grooming-related crimes, which then becomes the justification for expanded criminal laws and additional law enforcement funding.

This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: sting operations produce crime statistics that justify more sting operations and new legislation, which produces more arrests, and so on. The question is whether these statistics reflect genuine criminal behavior occurring in the real world or are largely artifacts of proactive enforcement targeting behavior that might never have resulted in actual harm to a real child.

A Conservative State’s Contradiction

There’s an irony worth noting in Wyoming’s approach. The state has long maintained a conservative governance philosophy that every time legislators pass a new law, they should repeal five or ten existing ones. The idea is that government overreach is best prevented by keeping the criminal code lean and focused.

Yet House Bill 9 represents a significant expansion of criminal liability into the realm of pre-criminal behavior. Critics have asked which existing laws the bill’s sponsor plans to repeal to offset this expansion. The answer, they suspect, is none.

Who Is Uprising?

The organization most visibly pushing for House Bill 9 deserves some scrutiny. Uprising is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose stated mission is to empower communities, volunteers, and donors to confront human trafficking and exploitation through awareness, education, and outreach.

A review of their publicly available 990 tax returns shows the organization is financially healthy, bringing in and holding notable funds. However, the most recent 990 available is from 2023. While this doesn’t necessarily indicate a problem, as organizations can run non-calendar fiscal years and file for automatic extensions, it does raise questions about transparency for an organization actively shaping criminal legislation.

Key Takeaways

1. Existing laws may already be sufficient. Wyoming has multiple statutes covering solicitation, enticement, exploitation, and obscene materials. Before creating new felony offenses, it’s worth asking whether more aggressive enforcement of existing law could achieve the same protective goals.

2. Vague definitions create real risks. When ordinary human behavior like building trust, showing kindness, or mentoring youth can theoretically fall within a criminal statute’s language, the potential for unjust prosecution is not hypothetical.

3. Follow the incentive structure. Sting operations, advocacy organizations, and expanded law enforcement budgets all benefit from the perception that grooming crimes are surging. Understanding these incentives is essential to evaluating the claims being used to justify new legislation.

As Wyoming’s governor weighs his decision on House Bill 9, the state finds itself at the center of a debate that will likely play out across the country in coming years. The question isn’t whether children deserve protection from predators. They absolutely do. The question is whether criminalizing pre-criminal behavior is the right way to achieve that goal, or whether it opens doors that will be very difficult to close.

Can a Registered Person Run for City Council? The Fresno Controversy Explained

In Fresno, California, a political firestorm has erupted over a question most Americans have probably never considered: Should a person on the sex offense registry be allowed to run for public office? The candidacy of Rene Campos, a registered person forced to register (PFR) seeking a seat on the Fresno City Council’s District 7, has triggered national headlines, heated debates at City Hall, and even the beginning of legislative efforts to prevent anyone in his situation from ever running again.

The story raises profound questions about constitutional rights, the purpose of punishment, and where the line between public safety and civil liberties truly lies.

The Candidacy That Shook City Hall

The controversy began when Fox 26 News reported that Rene Campos, a registered PFR, had filed to run for Fresno City Council District 7. The story didn’t stay local for long — it quickly attracted national media attention and stirred intense discussion within the PFR advocacy community.

At a public session at City Hall, Fresno Council member Annalisa Pereira was among the first officials to speak out. “While I respect anybody’s ability to serve our community, I find this quite disturbing,” Pereira said, setting the tone for what would become a coordinated push to change the rules.

Pereira wasn’t alone. Councilman Miguel Arias echoed her sentiments, framing the issue squarely in terms of public safety. “Given any Tuesday, we have kids in this room, we have families,” Arias stated. “And the last thing I want to be concerned about is whether there’s a registered sex offender in these chambers.”

The Push for New Legislation

The political reaction went beyond public statements. Pereira announced that she was actively working with colleagues on legislation aimed at preventing registered PFRs from ever holding public office in Fresno. The proposal would effectively create a new category of civic disqualification based on registry status alone — regardless of the nature of the original offense or how long ago it occurred.

Pereira argued that practical limitations made PFR council service untenable. “If you want to be an effective council member, you need to at least be able to go to school campuses,” she said. The implication is that registry restrictions on proximity to schools would make it impossible for a PFR to fulfill certain council duties.

This argument, however, raises more questions than it answers. City council members interact with schools primarily through policy discussions and budget votes, not by physically visiting campuses on a daily basis. And the suggestion that children would be endangered simply by being in the same council chamber as a registrant strains logical analysis.

Challenging the Safety Narrative

The hosts of the Registry Matters podcast subjected these safety claims to pointed scrutiny. How, exactly, would a registered person pose a danger while sitting on a public dais during a televised council meeting? The scenario doesn’t hold up to even basic examination.

As one host observed, council meetings are among the most surveilled and documented public proceedings in any city. Cameras roll, minutes are taken, and citizens sit in the audience. The idea that someone would commit an offense in this setting reveals more about public fear than about actual risk.

The hosts also drew a pointed comparison to other forms of bias in public office. Politicians with financial investments in pharmaceutical companies routinely vote on healthcare legislation. Developers with real estate holdings serve on planning commissions. Yet these well-documented conflicts of interest rarely trigger calls for blanket bans on candidacy. The double standard reveals how differently society treats people on the registry compared to virtually every other group.

The Constitutional Rights Argument

Robin VanderWaal, board chair of the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL), offered a forceful defense of Campos’ right to run. “Individuals who have completed their sentences should have full constitutional rights, including the ability to run for office,” VanderWaal stated.

His argument rests on a fundamental principle of American justice: that punishment has an endpoint. Once someone has served their time, completed probation or parole, and fulfilled every obligation imposed by the court, they should be able to participate fully in civic life. “Even if they don’t like folks on the registry, at least they have to deal with the fact that these are also human beings,” VanderWaal added. “They’re entitled to dignity and their rights as American citizens.”

This position aligns with a growing body of legal scholarship that questions the constitutionality of civil restrictions imposed on registrants — restrictions that function as ongoing punishment long after a sentence has been served. If the registry is truly regulatory and not punitive (as courts have historically claimed), then it shouldn’t disqualify someone from basic civic participation.

A Bipartisan Problem

One of the most striking aspects of the Fresno controversy is that opposition to PFR rights doesn’t follow predictable partisan lines. Fresno is a politically purple region — not solidly liberal, not staunchly conservative. Yet elected officials on both sides of the aisle have rallied against Campos’ candidacy.

As the podcast hosts noted, restrictive legislation targeting registrants has come from liberal lawmakers just as often as from conservatives in recent legislative sessions. This bipartisan consensus makes reform efforts especially challenging, because there is no reliable political coalition defending registrant rights.

The pattern reflects a broader truth about sex offense policy in America: it is one of the few areas where political courage is almost entirely absent. The political calculation is simple — no elected official loses votes by being tough on registrants, and very few are willing to spend political capital defending an unpopular group.

Realistic Electoral Prospects

Despite the symbolic importance of his candidacy, Campos appears to face steep odds. The podcast hosts assessed his chances as “virtually none,” noting that his public presentation and interview style were unlikely to win over skeptical voters.

Still, the candidacy itself has value beyond its electoral outcome. It has forced a public conversation about the limits of registry restrictions, the meaning of completing a sentence, and whether American democracy truly extends to all citizens. One podcast listener even donated to Campos’ campaign — a small but meaningful gesture of solidarity.

What This Means Going Forward

The Fresno case is likely to be a harbinger of similar conflicts across the country. As more jurisdictions expand their registries and add new restrictions, the question of civic participation will become increasingly difficult to avoid. Can a democracy claim to uphold equal rights while systematically excluding a class of citizens from public service?

The answer to that question will be shaped not just by courts and legislatures, but by the willingness of ordinary citizens to think critically about who deserves full participation in civic life — and why.

Key Takeaways

• Completing a sentence should mean something. If the justice system imposes a punishment and someone fulfills it completely, additional civic penalties undermine the entire framework of rehabilitation.
• Safety arguments must be grounded in reality. Claiming that a council member poses a danger in a public chamber requires a plausible scenario — and critics of Campos’ candidacy have not provided one.
• Registry reform is a bipartisan challenge. Neither party has shown consistent willingness to defend registrant rights, making grassroots advocacy and legal challenges the primary avenues for change.

[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters. This is an independent production. Our opinions are our own, and we’re thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, FYP.

[00:20] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the internet, this is episode 367 of Registry Matters. Happy Saturday, Larry. How are you? I’m doing awesome. I’m basking in the sun. Basking in the sun. I haven’t seen sun. You know there’s seasonal affective disorder up this way, right? I live above the Arctic Circle. We have that 24 hours of darkness at this time of year.

[00:47] Larry: I’ve heard of that. I thought it was like three months of darkness or something like that.

[00:51] Andy: We’re right dead in the middle of it. It sucks. I’m going to leave. I’m good at that. Hey, make sure you show your support by hitting like, follow, subscribe, thumbs up, five-star review on your podcast. Any of those things would be incredibly helpful for us. And you could also become a patron. Head over to patreon.com/registrymatters, and for as little as a buck a month, you could become a patron and we would love you forever. I believe we got a new patron this week, and I’ll have to go track that down during the show so I don’t forget. So Larry, what are we doing tonight?

[01:28] Larry: It’s a lot of doom and gloom tonight.

[01:29] Andy: When is it not doom and gloom with you, Larry?

[01:33] Larry: Well, we had upbeat. We had two wins last week, didn’t we? I thought it was upbeat last week.

[01:38] Andy: I think it was one and a half.

[01:40] Larry: Okay. Well, we have this case from the Appellate Court of Maryland. It’s not a win, but it does provide some clarity in terms of what the word “knowingly” means.

[01:52] Andy: Is this another one of those words, kind of like “the President shall”? Like what the word “shall” means? Or what the meaning of the word “is” is?

[02:01] Larry: What does it mean? All right. And we have a letter from a person in Georgia that was quite interesting, and it deals with early termination from probation supervision and termination from the registry. We invited him on, but he was not able to make the decision without consulting with his PO. And I’m going to advise him not to consult with his PO, because I can’t see anything good that would come out of consulting with a PO to go on a podcast about PFR issues. So we decided to do it as best we can without him. So we’re going to cover that part. And you do have some experience in Georgia, as do I. And I think you have a question from one of our patrons that I’m struggling with, but I’ll do my best when we get to that part.

[02:57] Andy: I was going to say you have a fair bit of expertise in the Georgia code, and then I lived it. So I kind of have some level of expertise of living the Georgia code. Shall we stroll along down this journey of ours?

[03:13] Larry: I think so. I’ve got enough bourbon to last for an hour. Okay.

[03:17] Andy: Well, the first thing up is a question from Big Mike. All right, here we go. When two people or groups of people are exercising their constitutional rights and they conflict with each other, how can you decide who is right? For example, the LGBT couple and the Colorado baker, and more recently Don, I think it’s Lamon. You kept saying Lemon, but I think it’s Lamon. I think. I’m not positive. And his group claiming they have the freedom of speech while interrupting people conducting a religious service in a church. My take is that all groups should be able to exercise their rights without affecting others. Wouldn’t that be like, I have the freedom to swing my fist around until it touches your face? Possibly the LGBT couple should have gone to another bakery to get their cake, and Don Lamon and his group are free to protest outside of the church, but not interrupt people conducting their religious service. Please don’t use the “fire in the crowded theater” thing. Everyone goes back to that. That analogy has been shown to be wrong in a court case, because you don’t have absolute First Amendment protections. You have very extensive ones, but there are those that cross the boundaries of, um, what’s that? Um, inciting unrest or something like that. Inciting a riot.

[04:37] Larry: True. Well, on the issue of Don Lemon, I’ve always heard them announce him as Don Lemon on the air.

[04:44] Andy: Oh, well then—

[04:45] Larry: It could be the wrong…

[04:46] Andy: guy. So you go with Lemon.

[04:48] Larry: So the CNN, and he was there, and I don’t know how many networks he’s been on, but this question still confuses me, and I don’t know what Big Mike is looking for from me. I would never condone disrupting a religious worship service. And I didn’t even know that Don had been accused of that. I hadn’t been paying much attention to news lately, but apparently, as we were in pre-show prep, he was arrested for that. And he says it’s an attempt to silence him. Well, if you go into a church, into a house of worship, and you disrupt the worship service, you should expect bad things to happen to you, certainly an ejection. And depending on what you did, you could possibly face criminal charges.

So I don’t have much more comment on that. I commented on the bakery situation many times. And when the question was first posed, I don’t understand why a person would want a business to do something for them if the business doesn’t want their money. I would gladly walk down the street if you told me, “I don’t bake for your kind,” and I would look for another baker. “Your kind.” So I don’t understand what’s being sought here, but perhaps what’s being sought here is for me to tell you what I think the court should rule, because I know the courts at all levels, state and federal, are listening to us for guidance.

So I would rule that the, uh, I would decide in favor of the person who has the right to public accommodations, because we decided that decades ago, that if you go into a restaurant, whether you’re African American or Caucasian, you still have to be served. And there’s no religious doctrine that you can assert that says, “I don’t serve black people here.” Same thing with lodging. So although I wouldn’t personally insist on a baker baking for me, if they told me, “I looked at your text of what you want on the cake, and I don’t want to make a cake like that,” I would not want you to make a cake like that. Would you?

[07:00] Andy: Because I’d be like, “Oh, I’m sorry, I did the best I could, and it’s all janked up. The people’s faces are all misaligned.” Yeah, I don’t know why they would want to. Go find someone that does want your business.

[07:12] Larry: Oh, well, that’s the way I look at it. But if I have to be forced into making a decision, I would err on the side of protecting those who are seeking something that’s open to the public. If you open your business to the public, you can have a dress code, you can have a behavior code, but you can’t do it on a lot of things. And I think imposing your religious belief is what you’re doing. They’re not imposing their religious belief on you. If you get right down to it, you can believe anything you want to as the baker, and you can go to any church you want to, and you can scream and you can do whatever you do at your church. And that LGBTQ couple is not interfering with that. You’re interfering with their opportunity to have something made professionally by a person, by a business, who’s open to the public. So if I’m forced to make a choice, I’m going to come down that way. And I hope that’s a satisfactory answer, because that’s the best I know how to do with the facts I’m being given here.

[08:12] Andy: Understand. Moving along, then we will cover this Maryland appellate court. And so what type of court are we talking about here for Maryland? That’s the appellate court. Well, as most, if not all states,

[08:28] Larry: they have trial-level courts, and then they have intermediate appellate courts, and then they have the top court. And Maryland had this wonky system where they called their highest court the Court of Appeals, and that was very confusing. So now they’ve gone apparently to what everybody else does. So the appellate court structure now was referred to as the Court of Special Appeals, but now it appears to be the Appellate Court. And then they have the State Supreme Court of Maryland, which is the highest court. And these courts review a trial court’s—being a circuit court or district court—actions and their decisions in given cases, and they decide whether the trial judge properly followed the law and existing legal precedent. That’s what they…

[09:13] Andy: do now by candlelight because there’s no light up here. I read the case. Well, yeah, I mean, I was running the snowblower in my driveway, and I can see that it has some interesting, especially on the issue of the meaning of the word “knowingly” and preservation. In fact, I think we’ve discussed, or we discussed it last week. Did we do that last week? We did mention

[09:37] Larry: preservation last week. I did indeed mention that though. So are you

[09:45] Andy: wanting me to explain it again? Yes, I would like you to explain it again, please. So, all right, well, somebody that set the script up has the wrong name there. Who did that? That would not be me, so I’m going to blame it on Jacob. So, so

[10:05] Larry: At least as in the state of Maryland, and it’s very similar in all those states, to preserve an issue there must be an objection, and the objection in Maryland must appear on the record. An objection must be accompanied by a definite statement of the ground of the objection, unless the ground for objection is apparent from the record. And without a contemporaneous objection or expression of disagreement, the trial court is unable to correct, and the opposing party is unable to respond to any alleged error or inaction. So you’ve got to give the trial court a bite at the apple. If you don’t do that, you take it up on appeal, you haven’t preserved it below, you get shot down.

[10:47] Andy: I see. So I think so. So you don’t need me here.

[10:47] Larry: No, definitely don’t. We don’t need you here.

[10:47] Andy: But we’ll keep you here because you’ve been around so long, and we’re just going to put you over in the corner. I’m going to pat you on the head and go, “Ah, look, it’s nice Larry. He’s old.” But look, if you don’t mind, I will set up the case. This appeal arises following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Charles County before the Honorable William R. Greer. Andre Jerome Hammond was convicted of knowingly failing to register in violation of Section 11-721 of the Criminal Procedure Article. Around the time of Mr. Hammond’s reregistration date, he was grieving the loss of many family members and suffering from a worsening depression. On August 1st, 2023, his registration deadline, Mr. Hammond attended the funeral of a family member with whom he had a very close relationship, and he just forgot, literally. Mr. Hammond was charged with a violation two weeks later. Mr. Hammond, his trial took place on April 30th of 2024. Hey, Larry, how did the trial go?

[12:00] Larry: Oh, it went, he did pretty well at trial. The parties dispute whether a defendant who forgets to timely register due to extenuating circumstances can be convicted under that article that you mentioned from Procedure 11-721. Judge Greer acknowledged Mr. Hammond’s hardships, but determined that Mr. Hammond knew of his duties. Mr. Hammond refused to register, failed to do so, and thus he violated…

[12:26] Andy: the statute. That’s amazing that he got unsupervised probation after taking the case to trial. That’s

[12:35] Larry: definitely an unusual outcome. And you weren’t supposed to spring that on the audience just yet. So whoever set the script up is a quack.

[12:44] Andy: So Mr. Hammond presented one question for review. The question was, did the trial court err in convicting Mr. Hammond of knowingly failing to register under the Maryland Sex Offender Registration Act after finding as a fact that extenuating circumstances caused him to, quote-unquote, forget to register? I think I read that he is a repeat offender. God, those are the best. Yes.

[13:08] Larry: You did read that correctly. Hammond has two convictions. He was convicted August 26th, 2009 for misdemeanor sexual abuse, and again on February 6th, 2018 for secondary child sexual abuse under the District of Columbia code. When Mr. Hammond moved to Maryland, he was classified as a Tier I PFR and required to comply with the appropriate laws. And as a Tier I registrant, Mr. Hammond was required to report to the appropriate supervising authority and register with the state every six months.

[13:40] Andy: At trial, Detective Garner explained that in Charles County registrations occur on the first or third Tuesday of every month. She testified that Mr. Hammond’s last registration date was February 9th of 2020. Three, six months later would be August, and the first Tuesday fell on August 1st, 2023. On August 14th, 2023, Detective Garner filed a warrant for Mr. Hammond’s arrest after he missed his August 1st registration date and she had not heard from him. Upon receiving notice of the warrant, Mr. Hammond took several steps in an attempt to comply with the registration statute. At trial, Detective Garner testified about her interactions with Hammond on August 16th. Can we go through that kind of exchange?

[14:24] Larry: Okay. Yes, we can go through them so long as you read them. I don’t have to.

[14:26] Andy: I will very much try to narrate this as if it were in a court. Can I have a gavel sound? I’m like, bang, bang, bang, right? Yeah. So the defense counsel is speaking first. “So he called at around 3:11, 3:13, and then sent an email around five. Around five, is that right, Detective Garner?” “Yes.” Defense counsel: “On the 16th?” Detective Garner: “Yes.” Defense counsel: “When he found out he had a warrant?” Detective Garner: “Uh…” Detective Garner: “And he said yes.” Defense counsel: “And he informed you that he had all of those deaths in the family?” “Yes.” “And his mental health, he was mentally drained at this point, correct?” “I can’t attest to his mental status, but…” “Okay, but he’s telling you that literally. He’s saying he had a death in the family and mental health?” “Yes.” “And he’s pleading to reschedule that registration?” “Yes.” “He wants to come in to register.” Now, Larry, I got to tell you, that does sound like a person who you would think is not shirking. I mean, he’s not really shirking his registration obligation. He’s trying to comply.

[15:41] Larry: It doesn’t sound much like that to me, that he was shirking his obligation. Unfortunately, the officials in Charles County don’t seem to have any problem with wasting taxpayers’ money. Now, Maryland is a state firm under the control of the liberal pointy heads, but I’m not sure about the politics of that particular county. So I don’t know if it’s pointy head or flathead, but the state is definitely a pointy head.

[16:03] Andy: And so, according to the court, it was undisputed from the testimony that Mr. Hammond forgot to register or reschedule his appointment due to extenuating circumstances. It was also undisputed that as soon as Mr. Hammond became aware of his mistake, upon receiving notice of the warrant out for his arrest, he took several measures in an attempt to comply with the registration statute, including calling Detective Garner several times, leaving a voicemail, sending an email, and showing up in person and refusing to leave until he was registered. How did Judge Greer justify convicting him? Well…

[16:37] Larry: In targeting and articulating his reason for the decision, the court noted, it’s difficult to imagine that you didn’t have the memory to register in this case. Maybe you missed a day, maybe you missed a week, but two weeks becomes a little bit long and you had to be reminded. So that does cause some concern, according to Judge Greer.

[16:58] Andy: I can deal with that one. So Mr. Hammond argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of knowingly failing to register under the Maryland PFR Registration Act. It’s MSORA. After finding as a fact that extenuating circumstances caused him to forget to register, Mr. Hammond argued that “knowingly” requires more than just a showing of prior notice. Now, I guess it does kind of make sense to me. Well…

[17:26] Larry: It does, but Hammond argued the court should assess whether an offender knowingly failed to register at the time he failed to register. His theory was that he was not capable of remembering due to all the stress of what was going on in his life at that time. Now, isn’t there

[17:45] Andy: Some kind of mental health defense that could be asserted?

[17:48] Larry: Ah, there used to be in this country, but it’s really all but evaporated due to the not guilty by reason of insanity of John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, I remember. And so it’s fairly limited and it seldom works. It seldom worked back before it was gutted by most of the states. But 2024 version of Maryland statutes provides, in their criminal procedure under Title 3, in competency and criminal responsibility, Section 3-1: a defendant is not criminally responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of that conduct, the defendant, because of a mental disorder or mental retardation, lacks substantial capacity to, one, appreciate the criminality of the conduct. You can’t be so diseased or defective you can’t understand that what you’re doing is criminal. And if you pass that test, then are you so defective by mental retardation or disease that you cannot conform your conduct to the requirements of law? And they have a third provision: for purposes of this section, mental disorder does not include an abnormality that is manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. So you can’t do something for 15 years and get away with it and say, “Oh, well, I can’t help myself. I’m mentally defective.”

[19:14] Andy: So you don’t think that he would have been able to pull it off. It wouldn’t have been a viable defense.

[19:18] Larry: I don’t think that there would have been any not guilty by insanity coming from, the way I read the Maryland statute.

[19:26] Andy: No, no. Look, Larry, from the information that I’ve gotten so far is that he says multiple deaths, and they were close members. Somebody has got to have sympathy for someone if you’ve got like back to back to back. Like, what was it, like the family was in a minivan and they got T-boned and the whole family got wiped out? So he was going to a five-person funeral or something. That wasn’t clear in the 29 pages I read. Something’s up to have multiple funerals like that.

[19:26] Andy: But anyway, so Mr. Hammond argued that the trial court found as a fact that he forgot to register and thus was precluded from convicting Mr. Hammond of knowingly failing to register. Mr. Hammond points to a case from Minnesota, State versus—oh my God—Makealuck. You’re going with Makealuck? I think that’s pretty good. And that’s from 903 Northwest Second 600 from 2017, for the proposition that while a temporary memory lapse may not negate what someone once knew, it does negate any contemporaneous knowledge or awareness of their conduct at the time of the violation. What did the state argue?

[20:33] Larry: Oh, the state has plenty of creativity. They argued that Hammond did not preserve this issue for appellate review. The state contended that defense counsel urged the trial court to take pity on Hammond and acquit him based on circumstances. The state also contended that Hammond failed to resolve what he now alleges to be a discrepancy between the trial court’s factual findings and its ultimate legal conclusion on the merits of the case. The state argued that Hammond did knowingly fail to register because he was appropriately advised of his duty to register, failed to do so, and there was no intervening event that rendered him incapable of remembering his obligation.

[20:33] Larry: I agree with almost everything they said, except for that last thing. I don’t know that I can agree that there was nothing that rendered him incapable. I don’t think we have any evidence that I saw that would come to that conclusion, that he was not capable, that he didn’t have something that rendered him…

[21:27] Andy: incapable. So the state argued that the issue was not preserved for appeal. Now look, I need you to go over that again. Go over that, please.

[21:38] Larry: Trial judges need to be given chances to fix something that they might be doing wrong. So in Maryland, and similarly most states, to preserve an issue there must be an objection. You have to say, “Your Honor, I object,” and the objection must appear in the record. And generally it’s going to appear because there’s a stenographer and there’s a recording being made—recordings for the stenographers these days. But the objection must be accompanied by a definite statement of the ground for the objection, unless the ground is obvious. You know, if a battering ram knocks the court wall out and it discombobulates the jury and you say, “Let the record show that we’re missing them all in the courtroom,” you probably have pretty well preserved that. But otherwise you have to state the reason for the objection—why you’re objecting. You may be overruled, but there has to be some manifest reference to it in the record.

[22:29] Andy: So then can you explain why preservation is so critical?

[22:34] Larry: Well, otherwise you’d be getting multiple bites at the apple. Limiting appellate review to preserved issues is a matter of basic fairness to the trial court and opposing counsel, as well as being fundamental to the proper administration of justice. According to the court, without contemporaneous objection or exception—expression of disagreement—the trial court is unable to correct, and the opposing party is unable to respond to any alleged error in the action of the court. You just don’t get to have a private conference with the judge and say, hey, you goofed up. Everybody needs to be on the same page. It’s important that the parties and the trial court had notice of the issue and had a chance to address any issues. And so that’s why preservation is critically important.

[23:14] Andy: Did they decide that he had preserved the issue?

[23:17] Larry: Yes, they did. They stated, we disagree with the state and hold that Mr. Hammond sufficiently preserved this issue for appeal. Defense counsel explicitly made the legal argument in a motion for judgment of acquittal, and that’s what you make at the conclusion of the state’s rest. You say, I’m moving for a judgment of acquittal, or something along that line—for, it’s called directed verdict or judgment of acquittal. And he argued that the state had proven that it’s a violation that he did not register by the expiration date, but the state did not prove that this is a knowing violation. The court was afforded an opportunity to correct the alleged error and, in fact, declined to do so. As such, the trial court was put on notice of the issue and had ample opportunity to address it. The issue is preserved, according to the appellate court. Well,

[24:04] Andy: Then the court moved on to interpret the word “knowingly.” The court stated, “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and therefore we review de novo the decision of the circuit court.” De novo means what? I’m going to have to have you remind me of that one because that’s one that we don’t use often enough that I have it in my brain.

[24:24] Larry: It means that you’re starting out from scratch when you’re going up on appeal. And when you hear these standards where you talk about what was the standard of review, well, in this, there is no standard of review. It’s a brand-new review from scratch because there’s no deference given to the trial court. It’s a matter of legal interpretation of the law, and the trial judge is not the final decider. So there’s no deference to what the judge did below.

[24:52] Andy: The court stated, “The paramount goal of statutory interpretation is to identify and effectuate the legislative intent underlying the statute at issue. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute’s provisions and our analysis ends.” They went on to say, “If, however, the language is subject to more than one interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we endeavor to resolve that ambiguity by looking to the statute’s legislative history, case law, statutory purpose, as well as the structure of the statute.” They went on and on for many pages. Did they look at the Model Penal Code?

[25:33] Larry: They did indeed, and the Model Penal Code states as follows: “A person acts knowingly”—and this was word soup to me, hoping you can understand it—“a person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when, one, if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist”—that’s word soup too—“if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.” I guess that means if you go out and fire your gun into a crowd, I suppose you’re supposed to have an idea of what the result will be. But I really have trouble understanding this. Did you make any sense out of it?

[26:33] Andy: Not really. There was a lot of soup-age. Okay, so all right, so why was the fact that he forgot—and everyone seems to agree that he forgot—not sufficient? Why doesn’t that work if everybody thinks that he’s being legit in saying that he forgot? Well, okay, I’m going to—

[26:48] Larry: Give you a legal term here that explains that. The court stated, “We fear that allowing mens rea to be negated by temporary lapse of memory will have far-reaching consequences, hindering prosecution of PFRs who recidivate. Even including the limiting principle that only voluntary conditions can negate mens rea presents a difficult line-drawing problem we’re not prepared to address at this juncture. While we suspect that individuals with diminished capacity resulting from late-stage Alzheimer’s disease could lack the requisite mens rea necessary to be convicted under the PFR registration statute, that is your sample for us.” And mens rea means the state of mind. You’re supposed to have a state of mind of intending to commit a crime, and if you don’t have the ability to form that requisite intent, then it creates problems.

[27:40] Andy: So, but they could have established the criteria. Well, they could help with that. That would be legislating from the bench. Now, you don’t want to do—no, no, no, no, no, no. So forget it. Forget I even brought it up.

[27:52] Larry: But footnote eight shows the difficulty they were having. They say that the following questions come to mind: how severe does one’s depression have to be in order to be excused from PFR registration requirement? Is a medical diagnosis necessary? Is expert testimony required? Are those with chronic, lifelong depression forever excused of their obligation to register? Are there other involuntary mental disorders or conditions that similarly excuse one from the obligation to register—for instance, generalized anxiety? Must you be educated and competent prior to seeking this exception? Is memory loss due to ongoing alcohol and drug addiction treated similar to other involuntary conditions? What about memory loss from traumatic brain injury? It’s a bit complicated, for sure.

[28:41] Andy: Would you agree, sounds like it’s almost like everybody going around with their emotional support animal. It kind of tarnishes the ones that do need an emotional support animal when someone just throws a vest on and walks around with their dog, even though the dog’s sniffing everyone’s behind. I

[28:56] Larry: I see that all the time, and it drives me up the wall. Grocery stores are loaded with people that are abusing that.

[29:03] Andy: All right, so you are defending the system, it would seem. Can you not admit that the judge could have shown Dewitt some mercy?

[29:13] Larry: Oh, I can admit that, and the judge did show mercy. In imposing Hammond’s sentence, Judge Greer expressed his concern about the length of time that passed before Mr. Hammond actually registered, scrutinizing the two-week delay. Judge Greer also recognized that Mr. Hammond did not realize his mistake on his own and he had to be reminded. And after all, the longer the delay in registering, the less credible the claim “I forgot” becomes, according to the judge.

[29:40] Andy: So, like, I mean, did he all of a sudden be like, “God, I forgot. What’s that significant dark cloud over my life? I don’t really think I remember. Oh, that’s right, I’m on the registry.” That didn’t cross his mind? It was something that was on my mind all the time. So the judge could have shown him more mercy and dismissed the charges.

[30:02] Larry: No, he really couldn’t have done that. He would have had to find him not guilty, and the evidence was there to find him guilty. So he couldn’t just arbitrarily dismiss it at the end of the trial. But Judge Greer sentenced Mr. Hammond to five years of incarceration, all suspended, placed him on five years of unsupervised probation, with instruction that Hammond continue to seek mental health support. I see ample mercy here. This outcome would have been unheard of in the Bible Belt if he’d done this in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, probably Georgia, with all their habitual offender statutes and their desire to see people get decades in prison. Can you imagine a two-time sex offender in the Bible Belt getting a probated sentence, unsupervised probation?

[30:46] Andy: No, because I know that in Georgia failure to register is a year just for the first attempt at it. After that it’s five, and then thirty.

[30:55] Larry: So yes, I think it’s a very lenient outcome. I think he showed plenty of mercy, and I think he did proper with the mitigation. He mitigated based on what he saw; he mitigated the sentence down to the most minimal sentence he could have given. It’s unsupervised. Basically, all he has to do is go away, stay in treatment, and not violate any laws for the next five years.

[31:18] Andy: Can he take it to the next echelon up, the next highest court? Is that an option?

[31:24] Larry: He could. He could request review by the Supreme Court of Maryland, but I don’t expect that would change the outcome. This decision is well written; they went on and on explaining how they got there, and I don’t think he would be well advised to do that. It’s not going to change the outcome. If he’s paying for this representation, all he’s going to do is burn up a whole bunch of money.

[31:46] Andy: Is your shingle out there, Larry?

[31:54] 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 FYP.

[32:44] Andy: Let’s talk about John in Georgia, if you’re up for that.

[32:49] Larry: Yes, I mentioned John in the opening of the show. We got this letter, and it was sent to NARSOL, but we examined it, and I reached out to him Friday night at eight o’clock Eastern time. And he answered his phone. He picked up the phone. I had bet my colleague that he wouldn’t answer, because nobody does, but he at least picked up the phone. I think I had to initiate the conversation because he was afraid it was a junk call. But he did answer.

[33:17] Andy: All right. So the writer said, “My name is John, and I’m a PFR in the state of Georgia. I was sentenced to 20 years’ service in prison—service, I don’t think that’s the right word. My sentence will be completed on October 1st of 2028. My offense date is listed as May 1st, 2004 to September 1st, 2004, with one date unknown. The female who was my victim was 14 and one month from 15 at the time. I have no prior known history of deviant behavior and nonsense.”

[33:53] Larry: Now, I like the way he said, “no prior known history.” Can you at least admit that that’s funny?

[33:57] Andy: That is funny, because how do you not know? Do you not know, or is it that they don’t know?

[34:03] Larry: I think he means that there’s none other than detected, but it almost implies there might be some other history that’s not known.

[34:12] Andy: All right. Well, he went on to say, once I was released from prison on October 1st, 2017, I was on parole for three years and had no serious—these are, we’re splitting some hairs here, Larry—he didn’t have any issues. He had no serious mistakes. The act was consensual, no physical harm, and nonviolent. I am currently on probation and therefore under sentence. My probation officer told me that if I wanted to go back to court to get off probation early and removed from the registry, that she would recommend that I go back to court, and she would recommend it for me. What do you think about this?

[34:47] Larry: I am totally amazed that he has that level of support that he appears to have from his P.O., and I’d like to see him and help him even achieve that early termination from both probation and the registration as well. I will absolutely guarantee you that no probation officer within the borders of the state I live in would ever recommend early termination from probation. That doesn’t happen here.

[35:11] Andy: As we’re starting going over this, though, and I talked to him earlier today, his story sounds just like mine, or similar at least. A lot of the details and circumstances sound similar. He went on to say the only guarantee that I would have with an attorney for 10,000—I’m assuming that’s 10,000 bucks—the only guarantee that I would have is if I was denied, I could wait a year and try again and continue the cycle over and over. Also, he said, I forgot to mention that I’m 100 percent disabled from an injury I sustained several years ago. I will never have 10,000 bucks to try and buy my freedom from the state of Georgia. Money is a potential impediment. Yes, it is. And—

[35:53] Larry: I feel bad because that’s one of the things that impacts John and so many in this situation. These processes exist, but he doesn’t have the capital to take advantage of them.

[36:09] Andy: So John went on and stated PFR law is, in fact, oppressive, cruel and unusual punishment, and it is unconstitutional. PFRs, after the end of their sentence date, must report in person to their local sheriff’s office 72 hours prior to their birthdays to register as a PFR. This requires the search and photographing of a person’s body, fingerprinting, seizing your person to the state, county, and residents, seizing your person to search your personal information by being forced to fill out all the paperwork about your personal property and effects. You are also forced to relinquish information about your family. Do you agree with all of that?

[36:53] Larry: I agree with almost all of it. The seizing the person’s body and the photographing, I’m hoping that, I mean, did they photograph parts of your body that shouldn’t be photographed, or did they photograph your face and eyes and take your iris scan and stuff like that? But did they photograph your junk?

[37:13] Andy: No, all I got was just from the neck up, that’s all I got, and they did the fingerprint. But even the last handful of years, the guy was like, “This is stupid,” because it just stays on their system. I don’t understand how all this stuff works later, but they got the big copier-machine-looking thing that they do the digital scans now. And he was telling me, so you know, you get on there and they put the ink, whatever that puts the oil on your hands and stuff, and he goes, “I don’t know why they do this. It just stays here in the office. It’s not like it goes to the GBI, because your fingerprints don’t really change much.” And I was like, “Got me, Bob, I’m just here. I just work here.” But that’s what it was. He just, like, stopped doing it the last, at least the last time, if not the last two times. He was super professional. He would call ahead of time and make the appointments. It was the first couple years it was stressful, over the top about it. It was so bad.

So anywho, John pointed out that Georgia restricts PFRs, even after the end of their sentence date, to 1,000 feet from where they can work, live, or go. Not true; there’s not presence restrictions. Other states have stated that this is unconstitutional because it denies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, so how do the states get away with making laws that are unconstitutional? And I’m channeling my inner Larry right now: it says laws are presumed constitutional until challenged in court.

[38:39] Larry: That is correct, and that’s what I would say in response to that. I’m assuming that at some point he’ll be a voter again if he was a voter previously, because Georgia will restore him when he’s off. I think, doesn’t restoration occur mostly automatically after you finish your sentence? After you’re—

[38:56] Andy: Off of supervision. Yes, that’s correct.

[38:58] Larry: So anyway, he will be able to vote again. And when you elect people, one of the things you should ask them is, how do you feel about the Constitution? Do you support all of it? Of course they’re going to say yes. And then you give them a particular example of something, and you say, “Oh, how would you resolve this? Because to require someone to go to a police station after they’ve served their sentence and to have all these invasive things seems to be unconstitutional. Do you support that?” And of course they’re going to squirm and try to change the subject. But I agree with him that any disabilities, restraints, as a part of a regulatory scheme, makes it potentially unconstitutional.

But he went on to say, “Most people that I have met who are on the registry and are aware of how this affects them, and that’s hard for me to understand. It’s just assumed I am forced to register for the rest of my life with no choice or no say-so in the matter. My charge does not carry a life sentence, yet I’m required to register”—I think he means register with them—“for life. Registrants, even after the end of their sentence, are continuously monitored by the local sheriff’s office.”

That is true. The sheriff’s office will send out officers to the citizens’ residences to do residency verification, and there are no specified limits that I’m aware of in any state that tells them how often they can go out and do those checks. In fact, in some states they’re required to do them on a certain schedule, once a quarter or something. But there’s no prohibition. You’re not going to tell a sheriff’s department they can’t go out and check people that they’re responsible for monitoring.

[40:34] Andy: That’s right. So if it’s okay with you, do you mind if we dig into the removal process in Georgia a little bit?

[40:42] Larry: Well, I haven’t been doing this. I’m sure I don’t mind, but I haven’t been doing this for several years. I haven’t looked at the Georgia code, but my memory is pretty good, so we can dig into it. And if I’m wrong, you can correct me, because I think you’ve gone through it.

[40:57] Andy: I mean, I did go through it, but I sort of went through it with you holding my hand too. So how does one get off the registry in Georgia?

[41:05] Larry: Well, they can refer to the Official Code of the State of Georgia 42-1-19, and that section, subsection (a) of that title, of that section, provides some opportunity to file a petition even before the passage of 10 years. Ten years used to be the basic framework. The petition is filed in the county of conviction, unless the conviction occurred outside Georgia or is a federal conviction.

[41:33] Andy: Where do they file if they are from out of state? If it’s a non-Georgia conviction, where do they file?

[41:39] Larry: In the county of their residence, and that gives the people a little bit of latitude, because you’ve got 159 counties to choose from of where you want to plop down your residence—unless you plop it down right on the Florida line, like we have a supporter that does, and he’s plopped himself right in the middle of the most conservative part of Georgia. And he’s…

[41:58] Andy: Having a grand old time, isn’t he? So let’s dig deeper. What is the criteria from there?

[42:07] Larry: Well, following the petition of removal, it creates a thorough review process, and my understanding is that the path to removal rests on a strict set of conditions by the Georgia PFR Risk Review Board, or the SORRB, and a judge. A convicted PFR can request removal if they’ve completed all prison, parole, supervised release, and probation for the offense and meet the following requirements. Now, this gets you an expedited, if I remember right: if they’re confined to a hospice or nursing care or residential care facility, they’re permanently and totally disabled, and they’re otherwise physically incapacitated due to injury or illness. But I think that otherwise you had to wait 10 years. Was it 10 years, I remember? Do you remember that? And then there was a workaround for being a Level 1 and for these conditions I just enunciated.

[43:01] Andy: I mean, none of those applied to me, but yeah, if you were a Level 1. And then you also had to be leveled, and I was going to ask you about that when we’re done here. So what other factors come into play?

[43:14] Larry: The way I understand it is most people are not leveled, and he said he’s not leveled. I think he said that, or at least I got it somewhere. I think they get leveled after they file the petition, because magically the SORRB finds time to do it after a judge tells them to. Right, that’s correct. But another important factor is whether the court or the board considers the offender a low risk.

In the past, all PFRs weren’t allowed to petition for removal until 10 years after they completed all the prison time and supervised release and probation. However, changes to the law now allow those classified as a Level 1 to petition for registry removal immediately after completion of their prison term and all supervised release and probation. So only the Level 1s, to my understanding, can file immediately. I hope I’m right on that.

[44:03] Andy: Do you think I’m right? No, I believe that you’re right, and I think the process then is if you are a Level 2 or 3, you’re trying to get your level reduced as you’re going through. So you can petition to get to the 2 to 1, 3 to 2, and that’s how you can be removed. I could have that wrong.

But one thing that I wanted to bring up is we would have meetings, the board meetings for Restore Georgia, and we would cover the SORRB meetings. They would report how many people they had leveled, and every month it was less than a hundred people that they would level in a month. And there’s thousands backlogged. Thousands.

You know, and I was on supervision for six-ish or seven years, and I still hadn’t been leveled. And I had to hire an attorney, and I had to go to court to get the judge to file an order to tell the management board to level me so that we could then turn around and go back to court to get my supervision terminated. Well, and that’s—

[45:09] Larry: Where that’s where John is facing, and he doesn’t have the financial resources to hire the attorney. He discussed his financial situation, and his income stream is barely existent level, and he doesn’t have those resources. But although he can file this thing pro se, I don’t advise him to do that. I would prefer that he do it with representation, even if we have to scrounge around and try to find some reduced-cost attorney, because you just can’t do effective representation of yourself. I bet you can’t be objective.

[45:47] Andy: I completely agree that you can’t really, it’s hard to be objective about yourself.

[45:51] Larry: And you can’t even get access, because the responding party is the district attorney of the county of your conviction, or in the case of non-Georgia convictions, the county where you’re residing. And you can’t go in and talk to the district attorney. Say you have a Georgia conviction, as he does. You can’t go in there and say, “What do you think about me? How do you feel about me after all these years?”

[46:16] Andy: But okay, so in his circumstances, his crime was in 2004. I don’t remember when he was convicted. He was sentenced to 20 years, and he was going to get out, so his conviction happened in 2008, if I’m not mistaken. There’s nobody in the DA’s office that’s going to remember him. Nobody was there. Some of them were barely in law school when he got convicted. That would be true.

[46:46] Larry: Those very few district attorneys would still be around, but some would. I mean, those are pretty cushy jobs, and some of them linger for a long, long time. I know the Clayton County District Attorney, south of Atlanta, stayed there forever. And so it could be that that’s true. But they certainly have files, and if they have any victim notification requirements—which I’m not that well versed in Georgia law, but most states do have that opportunity for victims—if the victim has any angst, those are things you really need to know before you get blindsided at the hearing. You need to know what the judge is going to base the decision on, so you need to know what your risk level is going to be. That’s why I always tell people: have your own risk assessment done so you can counter the SORRB, if need be.

And also, you just can’t do effective representation of yourself, talking in the third person. You know, “What do you think about my client?” If you’re an attorney, you can do that. “Hey, you know, this has been 20 years ago. My client’s done this. My client’s got a small business. He’s working and paying taxes. He hasn’t even had a speeding ticket.” You can’t get that done when you’re representing yourself. Even if they see you, they’re not going to give you the same level of respect, because they’re wired not to like you. It’s us versus them, and you’re them and they’re us. Right?

[48:11] Andy: So, all right, practicality here: a guy is just scratching two nickels together. What are they supposed to do to scrounge up representation? Does he just keep pounding the pavement until he finds an attorney that will have some sympathy and just put forth the minimal effort to try and help him?

[48:33] Larry: Well, I would hope that’s not the only option. I would hope that some way or another—I mean, he won’t qualify for any earned income credit from the federal government because he’s not working—but if there’s anything they can do to help raise some money… I’ve never seen anybody do a GoFundMe for a PFR deregistration, but they do it for everything else. It’d be interesting to see.

We had a person in Vermont that used to do GoFundMe to attend our conference, and I don’t know that it worked very well, but he did create a PFR—“I’m not going to do it for me, so I’m going to give him some money to GoFundMe to attend the conference.” Do you have any idea what I’m talking about so I don’t have to name the person? Could you give me a first initial?

[49:11] Andy: Nope, I have no idea. So, yes.

[49:17] Larry: We had, and that person’s from a family of lawyers. His father—

[49:25] Andy: I think I know who you’re talking about now. All right, that’s bizarre. Okay.

[49:30] Larry: But I would really not want him to go in unrepresented or unregistered, because he’s got to wait two and a half years on the deregistration petition to file it again and on the remembering, too.

[49:42] Andy: Two and a half years of scrounging together. You don’t have to spend 10 grand to do this either. That is a pretty high number from my experience. There should be a number a good chunk lower than that. So maybe you’re saving some hundreds of dollars per month, if you could possibly pull that off, to save up for it. He would have such a hard time saving.

[50:05] Larry: Hundreds of dollars a month with his income stream, I get it. His, uh, he didn’t—I’ve got to pontificate about Social Security. He didn’t get to collect Social Security Disability because he wasn’t currently insured when he got out of prison, because being in prison kept him out of the workforce for five years. And you have to have had a steady work history five of the last 10 years prior to becoming disabled—your onset date. And if you’ve been in prison for five and a half years out of the last 10, you can see real quickly that you don’t have the ability to have five years of work, and it rendered him not currently insured for disability benefits. So he’s having to get SSI, which is a pittance. I think it’s just sub-$1,000 a month, like $985 or something. Wow, that is low. Okay, so he doesn’t have a lot of elasticity in his budget. And call it, even if he’s got a residence that’s paid for, paying for utilities and some rudimentary personal items, you know, you can go through a thousand dollars pretty fast.

[51:08] Andy: All right, I don’t think I have anything else to go into here, Larry.

[51:18] Larry: I would like to have had him here, and if he decides he wants to come, we can go a little bit deeper into some things we may have missed or not gotten correct. We can make the show available to him, the recording. I’ll send him a link to the YouTube so he can listen to it there, and if we botched it up, we can come back and fix it if he wants to come on. I wanted to get the message out that it is an amazing accomplishment to have the probation department supporting you. You do not want to go out and broadcast that, and I told him that on the phone. This is a career breaker if this PO has a desire to work their way up to a supervisor, to management. You go out and broadcast that—and I told him that on the phone—and the word gets out to the community that this probation officer is recommending early termination. And I asked him, I said, “How do you think that the voters of the county would react if WSB-TV comes in and says, ‘Now let me make sure we got this straight: you recommended this person for termination from supervision and from registration. They committed a crime nine months later. Can you explain why you did that?’” And nobody wants that. It can potentially derail a career.

[52:45] Andy: Of course, I get you. So it’s amazing, but I would not go out and be telegraphing to the world what’s going on. I don’t think I would call the probation officer and discuss that, because I think it puts everybody in jeopardy, and I don’t see the need to do that. Gosh, Larry, I see the article here posted of “No Showers, Black Mold, and Clogged Toilets.” Boy, we should go right into that one, but I think we’ll call it quits for the night.

[52:53] Larry: Yes, and we were thinking of not making it this evening because of the legislative session, but when I saw that the Capitol was going to be filled with protesters today, I didn’t go up. But, oh, come on, you—

[53:07] Andy: You can’t leave me with that one. Tell me what kind of protesters.

[53:11] Larry: People asserting their rights to open carry.

[53:16] Andy: Do they exhibit this open carry right while they’re protesting the right to carry?

[53:23] Larry: They do indeed, and they used to do it inside our capitol. About five years ago, the legislature changed the rules that you can’t come in the building. But we would be trying to have a committee hearing, and there would be 14, 15, sometimes 20 people with sidearms sitting there. So now, when you go in on these protest days, they don’t get to take them in the building, but they start in the parking garage, they’re on the steps of the capitol, they’re all around the capitol holding signs, and it’s a powder keg waiting to explode. So I decided to take the day off, but I will likely go next weekend because it’s the final weekend of this year’s session. So we may not be able to produce an episode next week.

[54:02] Andy: Well, all right, this could be a short month on episodes for sure. So I would encourage everyone that hasn’t already to head over to registrymatters.co. There you can find all the show notes, and you can find links to whatever you want to find from there: if you want to find how to download the podcast, if you want to find the YouTube channel, get on Discord, you can find all of that. And I’ll see you next week. I’m saying this as I am furiously typing to get over to Patreon. You can also leave voicemail at 747-227-4477, email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com, and as I’m looking at Patreon, it’s patreon.com/registrymatters. And who was it that gave? Was it Steven? Okay, all right then, well…

[54:59] Larry: Then you’ve got it perfect. I don’t want to give his last name, but no, no, I don’t ever want to do that. Steven, yes, Steven. Thank you. Thank you for coming in at stimulus level. Absolutely that, absolutely.

[55:10] Andy: Perfect. Well, have a great night, everybody. Have a great weekend. Stay warm, if that’s something up your alley. If it’s above freezing, then you don’t count. That’s all I got. Have a great night, Larry. Take care. Bye.

[55:29] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Turning Symbolism into Substance: Inside Arizona’s First Real Shot at Registry Relief

When a new bill appears that could let some people off the sex offender registry, it sounds like a breakthrough. In Arizona, advocates have pushed exactly that kind of proposal: a bill that would allow certain people who’ve been on the registry for years to petition a court to terminate their duty to register.

On paper, that’s big. But as with most legislation, the fine print determines whether the promise is real or just political window dressing.

In this article, we’ll walk through how one legal analyst, Larry, breaks down this Arizona bill. We’ll look at who’s sponsoring it, what the bill actually does, why it’s drafted in a way that would make relief almost impossible for most people, and what needs to change if this is going to be meaningful reform instead of a headline.

The core of the bill is short and simple. It says that a person who:

• Is required to register under Arizona’s sex offender registry statute (section 13‑3821), and
• Has been registered at least 10 years for an offense committed as an adult, or at least 5 years for an offense committed under age 18,

may petition the court for an order terminating any duty to register.

In other words, after a significant period on the registry, some people would finally have a way to ask a court to free them from ongoing registration requirements.

That’s the promise. But the way the bill is drafted makes a huge difference in whether that promise can be kept.

Meet the Sponsor: A Freshman with Unusual Clout

The bill is sponsored by Representative Powell, a freshman Republican in the Arizona legislature. On its face, “freshman” is usually a bad sign if you care about a bill passing; new legislators don’t typically have much pull.

But Powell comes with two big advantages in a state like Arizona:

1. He’s a conservative Republican. In a conservative state, that gives him cover on any bill that might be painted as “soft on crime.” Fewer colleagues will accuse him of unleashing a crime wave simply for supporting limited registry relief.

2. He has a law enforcement background. On his campaign website, Powell highlights his time working for the Phoenix Police Department and the FBI. Even if the exact roles aren’t specified, any real law enforcement experience buys political credibility. Voters and fellow legislators are more willing to trust that he won’t push a bill that puts the public at obvious risk.

So while his freshman status is usually a strike against him, his party alignment and law enforcement resume make him a plausible champion for this kind of reform—if the bill is written to actually work.

Why the Bill, As Written, Barely Works

Larry identifies at least five major drafting problems that, if left unchanged, would make it extremely hard for anyone to get off the registry, even if the bill passes.

Let’s go through them one by one.

1. Calling the Applicant a “Defendant” Is the Wrong Frame

The bill’s text refers to the person seeking relief as a “defendant.” That seems small, but it’s not.

Sex offender registration is technically a civil regulatory scheme that follows a past conviction. When someone petitions to get off the registry, they aren’t being accused of a new crime. They’re asking a civil court for regulatory relief.

Calling them a “defendant” suggests they are currently on trial or being sued. It subtly signals to the judge that this is still an adversarial criminal posture, and it frames the person as someone who must be guarded against.

The bill actually uses the word “petitioner” later on—which is the correct civil term. Larry’s fix is simple:

• Use “petitioner” or “individual” throughout, never “defendant.”

That small change helps ensure the court views the proceeding as what it really is: a civil request to modify regulatory obligations, not a replay of a criminal prosecution.

2. “Petition the Court” – But Which Court?

The bill says that eligible people may “petition the court” to terminate registration. But it never says which court. That’s a serious omission.

In practice, venue matters a lot. Different counties and courts can have very different cultures, resources, and attitudes toward people on the registry.

Larry recommends:

• Specify that the petition must be filed in the Superior Court (the court of general jurisdiction) of the county of the petitioner’s residence.

Why county of residence?

• It avoids forcing people back to the county of conviction, which might still harbor resentment or political pressure against them.
• Larger counties like Maricopa (Phoenix) and Pima (Tucson) likely have more experience, more resources, and potentially a more institutional approach to these petitions.

Other states, like Georgia, split this in ways that can harm petitioners: if you still live in the county where you were convicted, you must go back to that county to petition. Larry explicitly wants to avoid that structure in Arizona.

Without clear venue language, courts and lawyers will waste time arguing over where to file instead of what the law actually requires. Worse, hostile jurisdictions might seize control of these cases simply because no one clarified otherwise.

3. Letting in “Any Reliable and Relevant Evidence” Invites a Retrial

The bill says the parties may call witnesses and present “any reliable and relevant evidence.” That sounds fair and flexible—but in this context, it’s a trap.

Here’s the problem: if prosecutors can introduce any “reliable and relevant” evidence, they will often:

• Re-read the original complaint in detail,
• Re-describe the underlying offense conduct from years ago, and
• Call the original victim (or their family) to give a fresh impact statement.

At that point, the hearing becomes, in effect, a mini re-trial of what happened ten or more years ago. No matter how much someone has changed, judges will find it difficult to look past an emotional replay of the old crime.

The focus should instead be on:

• Current risk,
• Rehabilitation efforts,
• Stability of housing and employment,
• Treatment history, and
• Evidence-based risk assessments.

This isn’t to say the past offense is irrelevant. It will always be part of the analysis. But if the rules actively invite a full emotional rehash, very few judges will ever feel comfortable granting relief.

Larry’s view is blunt: if this language stays, “you might as well forget getting off the damn registry.” He has drafted alternate language (not yet finalized) aimed at narrowing what evidence is appropriate in this specific type of hearing.

4. The Burden of Proof Is Set Too High

The bill reportedly uses the “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

To understand why that’s a problem, it helps to see where that standard sits among others:

• Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not (>50%). Standard in most civil cases.
• Clear and convincing evidence: Higher than preponderance; the fact-finder must be firmly convinced. Used in certain serious civil matters.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt: Highest standard; used in criminal convictions.

“Clear and convincing” is just one notch below “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s appropriate when the state is trying to do something very serious in a civil case—like terminate parental rights or keep someone in pretrial detention.

Larry notes that in his jurisdiction, the state must show by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of release conditions can protect public safety in order to keep someone in jail pretrial. That’s a very high bar for the government to meet.

Here, the bill flips that around and forces the petitioner to meet that bar to win relief.

He recommends:

• Lower the burden to preponderance of the evidence.

That still requires the petitioner to prove their case, but at a level consistent with ordinary civil proceedings. Keeping the bar at clear and convincing would make successful petitions the rare exception.

5. Proving You Are “Not a Danger to the Community” Is Nearly Impossible

The bill apparently requires the petitioner to prove they are “not a danger to the community,” and to do that by clear and convincing evidence.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. No one wants to release a clearly dangerous person from oversight.

But there are two serious problems:

1. It’s too vague and broad.
2. Almost everyone is a potential “danger” in some abstract sense.

3. If you’re alive and able to leave your house, you could, in theory, commit a crime.

4. It doesn’t match what the registry is supposed to do.

5. The registry is aimed at managing risk of specific types of re-offending, usually sexual or violent.
6. It’s not a general tool to manage every possible risk a person might pose.

Larry proposes tightening the language to something like:

• “Not a danger to commit a crime of violence,” or ideally,
• “Not a danger to commit a sexual crime of violence.”

That kind of specific standard:

• Ties the question to the registry’s stated purpose,
• Gives courts and experts a clearer target, and
• Reduces the impossible task of disproving all conceivable “danger” to the community.

With the current broad language and high evidentiary burden, the bill would be only marginally better than having no removal process at all.

The Political Battlefield: Advocacy vs. Optics

Will This Bill Pass?

Larry is cautiously unsure. The bill has a plausible sponsor and a clear reform goal, but organized opposition is already forming.

Victims’ advocacy groups are reportedly:

• Lining up media support,
• Planning campaigns to highlight worst-case fears, and
• Preparing to frame the bill as a mass release of dangerous people.

That means any missteps by supporters could be magnified in TV segments, talk radio, and social media.

Why a Crowd of Registrants at the Capitol Is a Bad Idea

Andy asks whether all the people on the registry (“PFRs”) should gather at the Capitol and show their support.

Larry is unequivocal: No.

Reasons:

• This will be a high-profile bill; hearings will be covered by the media.
• A large visible group of registrants testifying can easily be spun as “offenders demanding to be freed.”
• Opponents will use that imagery to stoke fear and kill the bill.

In his view, the risk far outweighs the reward. Quiet, strategic work behind the scenes is far more effective than a large, emotionally-charged public display from the very group the media is most ready to demonize.

How to Turn This Draft into a Working Law

If this bill popped up in his own state, Larry outlines how he’d try to shape it into something that actually works.

1. Clarify the Sponsor’s Intent

The first conversation with Representative Powell would be straightforward:

“Do you actually want this to work, or is this just window dressing?”

If Powell just wants something on paper to say he tried, there’s not much point in heavy drafting work. But if he truly wants people who’ve been offense-free for many years to have a realistic chance at relief, then the hard legal work begins.

2. Use the Legislature’s Drafting Office – With Real Experts

Most legislatures have a legislative council or drafting office. The key step is:

• Get Powell to authorize someone with actual subject-matter expertise to work directly with that drafting service.

Then, together they can:

• Eliminate “defendant” and use “petitioner” or “individual,”
• Specify the Superior Court of the county of residence as the venue,
• Narrow the evidence rules to focus on current risk and rehabilitation, not a replay of the original crime,
• Lower the burden of proof to preponderance of the evidence, and
• Replace “danger to the community” with a more targeted standard tied to violent or sexual re-offense.

Getting these changes in before the bill’s first committee hearing is crucial. Waiting until the hearing and trying to draft real-time amendments on the fly, with a dozen lawmakers staring and the media watching, is a recipe for sloppy compromises.

3. Arm the Sponsor with Clear Talking Points

If Powell is cornered by a reporter in a Capitol hallway and asked, “Why are you about to let hundreds of sex offenders off the registry?” he needs more than a vague answer.

Larry would equip him with concise, policy-grounded talking points, such as:

• Resource prioritization: “We want law enforcement focused on people who pose a current, higher risk, not on decades-old cases.”
• Risk management: “This bill lets people who’ve proven themselves over many years ask a court to review their risk.”
• Fiscal responsibility: “I ran on no new taxes; that means making smarter use of the resources we already have.”

The goal is to show that registry thinning is not a giveaway—it’s a public safety and fiscal management strategy.

Final Thoughts: Real Reform Requires Real Drafting

This Arizona bill is important because it shows that advocates have moved the debate far enough to get a pathway off the registry written into a bill. That alone is progress.

But progress on paper is not the same as progress in people’s lives.

Without fixing the:

• Terminology (“defendant” vs. “petitioner”),
• Venue (which court, which county),
• Evidence rules (no full retrial of the old case),
• Burden of proof (clear and convincing vs. preponderance), and
• Substantive standard (vague “danger to the community” vs. specific violent/sexual risk),

this law would likely free very few people—if any.

Real registry reform demands attention to these details. It requires lawmakers who are serious about outcomes, not just optics, and advocates who are willing to do the unglamorous work of line-by-line drafting.

If Representative Powell truly wants this bill to work, and if Arizona advocates can secure access to the drafting table, this first attempt can be turned from symbolic gesture into a law that finally gives long-registered, low-risk individuals a fair shot at leaving the registry behind.

Actionable Takeaways

1. For advocates: Focus on the text. Getting a bill introduced is step one; fixing the details is where success lives or dies.
2. For legislators: Before sponsoring or voting, ask whether a bill’s process is realistically usable, not just politically attractive.
3. For impacted individuals: Support your advocacy groups, but understand that quiet drafting and strategy—not mass demonstrations—often make or break sensitive criminal justice reforms.

For years, courts and legislatures have treated criminal restitution as if it were something softer than punishment—a kind of civil payback to victims that somehow floats outside the usual constitutional protections. In Ellenberg v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court just shattered that illusion.

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. That single sentence has big consequences for anyone sentenced under the MVRA for conduct that occurred before the law existed, and it forces the legal system to confront the way massive, long‑term financial obligations function as a “second sentence” after prison.

But the ruling is not the revolution some advocates are hoping for. It doesn’t overturn Smith v. Doe, the 2003 case that upheld sex‑offense registration as “civil.” It doesn’t magically convert every collateral consequence into punishment. And as one of the commentators in the transcript warns, Congress could rewrite the restitution scheme to make it look more “civil” again.

This article unpacks what Ellenberg actually decided, how the Court got there, what Justice Thomas is signaling in his separate opinion, and what it all means for the future of ex post facto challenges and criminal justice reform.

What Is Restitution, Really?

At its core, restitution is money a person convicted of a crime must pay because of that offense. In federal cases under the MVRA:

• The defendant is ordered to pay a fixed amount.
• The state collects it.
• The victim ultimately receives the money.

On paper, that can sound like a purely civil remedy—one person compensating another for a loss. But functionally, restitution is wrapped into the criminal process:

• It is imposed at sentencing, alongside imprisonment and fines.
• Only someone convicted of a crime can be ordered to pay it.
• The government, not the victim, appears as the party opposing the defendant.

For decades, courts often treated restitution like a hybrid: civil in label, punitive in feel. Ellenberg forces the system to say out loud what’s been obvious in practice: this is punishment.

The Human Story Behind Ellenberg

The case doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It comes out of what happens after a prison sentence ends.

The petitioner, Ellenberg, was ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution. Over decades, with interest, that amount nearly doubled. He had committed his crime before Congress enacted the MVRA in 1996, but he was sentenced after it took effect—and sentenced under the MVRA’s mandatory scheme.

Advocates like Andrew Burrell describe this as a “second invisible sentence.” You serve your time, but you walk out of prison into:

• Decades of accruing interest
• Collection efforts by the government
• Ongoing financial obligations that you may never realistically satisfy

As the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) put it, thousands of people have been “shackled by debt long after their prison cells were opened.” The Court’s decision meets that reality head‑on: if something walks, talks, and bites like punishment, you can’t simply label it “civil” to escape the Constitution.

The Legal Issue: Ex Post Facto and the MVRA

The Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution prohibit laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime. Two key points matter:

1. The law must be retroactive (applied to conduct that occurred before the law was enacted).
2. The law must impose punishment.

Ellenberg’s argument was simple:

• He committed his crime before the MVRA.
• He was later sentenced under the MVRA.
• The MVRA made restitution mandatory and more severe.
• Therefore, applying it to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause—if restitution counts as punishment.

The Eighth Circuit held that restitution under the MVRA was not criminal punishment, treating it as a civil, compensatory device. That meant the Ex Post Facto Clause didn’t apply. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed.

An Unusual Twist: When Both Sides Say the Lower Court Was Wrong

One striking feature of Ellenberg is procedural rather than substantive.

On the very first page of the opinion, the Court notes that both Ellenberg and the United States agreed the Eighth Circuit had erred and that MVRA restitution is criminal punishment.

When both true parties to a case abandon the judgment they’re supposed to be defending, the Court can’t just declare victory and move on. Someone has to stand up for the lower court’s ruling so the justices can hear both sides.

So the Court appointed John F. Bash as amicus curiae to defend the Eighth Circuit’s judgment. Bash argued that Ellenberg’s restitution wasn’t actually imposed under the MVRA at all, despite the timing. The Court acknowledged he did a capable job but ultimately rejected that framing because the lower courts had clearly treated the case as an MVRA case.

That cleared the way for the Court to tackle the central question: Is MVRA restitution punishment?

How the Court Decided Restitution Is Punishment

To decide whether a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Court first asks whether the law imposes a criminal or penal sanction, or instead a civil remedy. This is a question of statutory construction, guided by text, structure, and context.

The Court identified several features of the MVRA that point unmistakably toward punishment:

1. Text labels it a penalty. The statute explicitly refers to restitution as a “penalty for a criminal offense.”
2. Tied to a criminal conviction. Only someone convicted of a qualifying federal crime can be ordered to pay MVRA restitution.
3. Imposed at sentencing. Restitution is ordered at sentencing, alongside prison terms and fines.
4. Government as opposing party. In restitution proceedings, the government, not the victim, is the party adverse to the defendant—just as in ordinary criminal sentencing.
5. Placement in Title 18. The entire restitution regime is codified in Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, specifically in a chapter labeled “Miscellaneous Sentencing Provisions.”
6. Mandatory sentencing language. A related statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3556, states: “The court shall order restitution in imposing sentence for a covered offense.”

Put together, the Court concluded, the text and structure of the MVRA “make abundantly clear” that restitution under that act is criminal punishment.

Where Smith v. Doe Fits In

Many reform advocates focused on one citation in the opinion: Smith v. Doe, the 2003 Supreme Court case that held Alaska’s sex‑offense registration statute was a civil, non‑punitive regulatory scheme. Because Ellenberg cites Smith, some in the community leapt to the hope that the Court might be ready to revisit or even overturn Smith.

That’s almost certainly an overread of this particular decision.

Here’s what the Court actually does with Smith:

• It uses Smith as a template for how to analyze whether a law is civil or punitive.
• Smith upheld a registration law as civil because the legislature adopted “distinctly civil procedures” and expressly declared a non‑punitive, public‑safety purpose.
• In Ellenberg, the Court contrasts that with the MVRA, where Congress explicitly labeled restitution a penalty, located it in the criminal code, tied it to conviction, and made it part of sentencing.

Then the Court effectively says: Smith does not control here. This is not a soft attack on Smith; it’s a way of saying, “Even if you accept Smith’s framework at face value, MVRA restitution clearly comes out punitive.”

So, Ellenberg is important, but it is not a stealth reversal of Smith v. Doe.

Why Sex‑Offense Registration Is Different (For Now)

The hosts in the transcript repeatedly compare MVRA restitution with PFR (sex‑offense) registration. The contrast is instructive:

• Labeled a penalty
• Codified in Title 18 and a sentencing chapter
• Imposed at sentencing
• Government is the adverse party
• Nonpayment can lead to resentencing or further punishment

Sex‑offense registration schemes (under Smith)
– Legislatures declare non‑punitive, regulatory intent
– Processes and procedures are designed to look civil
– Registration duties generally considered collateral consequences, not part of the sentence
– Often codified in public safety or administrative titles, not sentencing chapters

Under the current doctrine, courts first ask: what did the legislature intend? If lawmakers say “this is civil and regulatory,” courts then examine the effects to see if those effects are so punitive that they override the label. That two‑step intent–effects analysis comes from cases like Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez and is sometimes called the Kennedy–Mendoza–Martinez test.

In MVRA, Congress made the Court’s job easy: it intended to punish, and it said so. That ends the inquiry. With registration, legislatures have gone out of their way to say the opposite. That’s why Ellenberg doesn’t, by itself, crack open Smith.

The Limits—and the Power—of the Decision

The Supreme Court is explicit about the scope of its holding:

“Our ruling today does not mean that a restitution statute can never be civil. But the statutory text and structure of the MVRA demonstrate that restitution under that act is criminal punishment.”

That qualification matters. It means:

• This ruling applies directly to MVRA restitution.
• Other restitution schemes could still be drafted and defended as civil.
• Congress is effectively invited to rewrite the law if it wants to avoid Ex Post Facto issues.

As one commentator in the transcript puts it, that’s an “invitation for you to fix it.” All Congress has to do is change the text and structure to emphasize a civil, compensatory aim and place it outside the core criminal sentencing framework.

Still, for people like Ellenberg and others whose crimes predated the MVRA but who were sentenced (or re‑sentenced) under it, the ruling is very real. It means retroactive application of the MVRA can violate the Ex Post Facto Clause—and those claims now have the Supreme Court’s blessing.

Justice Thomas’s Concurrence: A Bigger Vision of Punishment

If the majority opinion is significant, Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate concurrence is potentially transformative—down the road.

Thomas agrees fully with the Court’s reasoning and result. But he writes separately to talk about something deeper: the foundation of Ex Post Facto doctrine.

He points back to a 1798 case, Calder v. Bull, where the Court said the Ex Post Facto Clauses forbid only retroactive laws that impose punishment for a crime. So far, that sounds uncontroversial. What Thomas emphasizes is how punishment would have been understood in 1798:

“Punishment for a crime would have been understood to refer to any coercive penalty for a public wrong.”

That is a much broader conception of punishment than the modern Court typically applies. Over the past two centuries, Ex Post Facto doctrine has grown more complicated, layering on multifactor tests and heavy deference to legislative labels. Thomas is skeptical of that trend.

Reading his concurrence fairly, he appears to be saying:

• If a law coerces you or burdens you because you committed a public wrong (a crime), it should count as punishment.
• Many laws that are nominally civil today would have been understood as punishment under Calder.
• We should restore Calder’s broader approach to the Ex Post Facto Clauses.

If that view ever becomes the majority, it could have sweeping consequences for collateral consequences, including registration, lifetime bans, and other post‑sentence disabilities.

For now, though, he stands alone. None of his colleagues joined his concurrence in Ellenberg. That makes his opinion a roadmap, not a rule—but for reformers, it’s a roadmap worth studying.

What This Means Going Forward

Ellenberg v. United States does three main things:

1. Reclassifies MVRA restitution as punishment. This squarely brings MVRA restitution under the Ex Post Facto umbrella. Retroactive application is now constitutionally suspect.

2. Exposes the reality of post‑sentence financial bondage. The Court’s analysis implicitly acknowledges that decades of accruing restitution debt operate as a serious criminal sanction, not mere housekeeping.

3. Signals a live debate over what counts as punishment. The majority works within the existing Smith / Kennedy–Mendoza–Martinez framework. Justice Thomas sketches a more historical, expansive view that could reshape that framework in the future.

Practical Implications

For defendants, lawyers, and advocates:

• Ex Post Facto claims. If the underlying conduct predates the MVRA, Ellenberg strengthens arguments that applying the MVRA’s mandatory restitution scheme violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
• Litigation strategies. Lawyers can now cite Supreme Court authority that restitution is punishment when challenging other statutory schemes modeled on the MVRA.
• Legislative reform. Advocates can use the Court’s language to push legislatures toward more realistic, restorative restitution systems that don’t trap people in unpayable debt.

For policymakers:

• There is a clear warning: you cannot simply label a sanction “civil” to escape constitutional scrutiny when everything about its structure says otherwise.
• There is also a clear escape hatch: if you truly want a civil‑like compensation scheme, write and place it like one—and accept that it may be less coercive.

Actionable Takeaways

1. For defense attorneys: Review older cases where clients were sentenced under the MVRA for pre‑1996 conduct. Ellenberg may support renewed Ex Post Facto challenges or resentencing efforts.

2. For advocates and organizers: Use this decision in messaging and policy work to highlight how financial obligations function as punishment, and push for caps, interest reform, and realistic payment structures that support reentry.

3. For legal scholars and reformers: Track and build on Justice Thomas’s concurrence. Develop arguments and scholarship that reconnect Ex Post Facto doctrine with the broader, historical understanding of “any coercive penalty for a public wrong.”

Ellenberg doesn’t fix restitution or collateral consequences overnight. But it does something rare: it calls a punishment a punishment, and in doing so, reshapes the constitutional conversation about how long the state’s hand can lawfully stay on someone’s shoulder after they have served their time.

When Emergencies Collide With SORNA’s 21‑Day Travel Rule: Are You Really Protected?

If you’re a person forced to register (PFR) and you’ve ever thought about international travel, you’ve probably heard about the infamous “21‑day rule.” Under federal law and related regulations, many PFRs are expected to provide at least 21 days’ advance notice before leaving the United States.

But life doesn’t always give 21 days’ warning.

Family members have strokes. Jobs demand last‑minute trips. Flights get reassigned. Emergencies don’t schedule themselves around federal notification requirements.

In a recent podcast segment, two hosts, Andy and Larry, tackle a listener question about exactly this situation: What happens when you must travel internationally on short notice? Is there any legal protection for emergencies, or are you just rolling the dice with a federal felony?

The answer is complicated—and far less comforting than many would hope.

A listener wrote in after a previous episode where the hosts discussed international travel for PFRs and the 21‑day notice requirement. The listener pointed out that there is language in federal law that seems to recognize emergencies.

They referenced 18 U.S.C. § 2250(c), which deals with an affirmative defense to liability for failing to comply with SORNA (the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) when uncontrollable circumstances prevent compliance.

The gist of the statute is this:

A PFR may have an affirmative defense to liability if uncontrollable circumstances prevented compliance with SORNA, the PFR did not recklessly create those circumstances, and they complied as soon as those circumstances ceased to exist.

The regulations even provide a concrete example:

• A PFR needs to travel to a foreign country on very short notice (less than 21 days) because of an unforeseeable family or work emergency.
• It’s impossible to give 21‑day advance notice of travel before the intention to travel even exists.
• In such a case, the PFR could have a defense to liability for failing to give the full 21‑day notice—if they notify their registration jurisdiction as soon as they form the intent to travel.

But there’s a crucial catch: if the PFR fails to inform their registration office at the moment they do intend to travel—even if it’s short notice—this defense no longer applies.

On paper, that sounds like a safety valve. In reality, it’s a lot murkier.

“May Have an Affirmative Defense”: Why the Wording Matters

Larry, who is very careful to describe his comments as a lay opinion rather than formal legal advice, zooms in on one critical phrase: “may have an affirmative defense to liability.”

Two words jump out to him: may have.

He doesn’t like it—and for good reason.

Why “may have” is a problem

The statute does not say:

• “The 21‑day requirement is not enforceable under defined emergencies,” or
• “There shall be no criminal liability when these specific conditions exist.”

Instead, it says the PFR may have an affirmative defense. That means:

1. You can still be charged. Nothing in this language prevents a federal prosecution.
2. You must raise the defense after the fact. The protection only kicks in once you’re already in the criminal justice system.
3. A judge or jury decides if they believe you. It’s not automatic; it’s an argument you must win.

That’s a far cry from a clear, bright-line rule that would let someone confidently accept a last-minute trip without fear of serious criminal consequences.

What an Affirmative Defense Really Means For You

Larry then explains what an affirmative defense actually looks like in practice.

It’s not a shield that prevents arrest. It’s not a waiver that blocks charges. Instead, it is a concession plus justification:

• You admit you did the thing the prosecution says you did.
• You argue that the law should not hold you criminally liable because of specific legally recognized reasons.

He compares it to self‑defense in an assault or homicide case. A defendant might say:

“Yes, I shot him. But here’s why I was justified in doing it.”

The burden is then on the defendant to present enough credible evidence to persuade the fact‑finder (judge or jury) that the shooting was legally justified.

Apply that to SORNA and travel:

• You admit: “Yes, I traveled internationally without giving 21 days’ notice.”
• You argue: “Uncontrollable circumstances made it impossible, and I notified as soon as I could.”

Meanwhile, you’re already:

• Charged with a federal offense,
• Hiring a lawyer,
• Spending thousands of dollars, and
• Living under the stress of possible conviction and prison time.

For Larry personally, that’s nowhere near enough security to make him comfortable with emergency international travel.

A Real-World Scenario: The Pilot to Mexico

To ground the issue, Andy revisits a real situation they discussed in an earlier episode.

A man—presumably a PFR—works in aviation, flying short‑notice trips to Mexico. His employer might say:

“You’re on the schedule to fly to Mexico in three days.”

Under SORNA’s 21‑day notice expectation, that’s a clear conflict. He doesn’t have 21 days—he has three.

The emergency-travel affirmative defense could, in theory, help someone like this. But only if:

• The trip truly qualified as an unforeseeable emergency, and
• He notified his registration jurisdiction as soon as he knew he would travel, even if that’s just a few days before departure.

Andy likens it to driving your pregnant wife to the hospital at high speed. You’re technically speeding, but you have a compelling reason. When the cop pulls you over, you say:

“Look, she’s in labor. I’m trying to get her to the hospital.”

Maybe the officer lets you go. Maybe you still get a ticket. But either way, you were pulled over, delayed, and had to justify yourself.

Likewise, with SORNA, the emergency defense doesn’t prevent you from being “pulled over” by the system; it only gives you something to say once you are.

Have You Really “Entered” a Country If You Never Leave the Tarmac?

Another gray area they explore: what counts as entering a foreign country for purposes of SORNA and related travel rules?

An expert the show consulted previously stated that yes, if you land in a foreign country, you’ve entered it for legal purposes.

Larry is not fully convinced.

He looks at what the statute is trying to prevent. In his view, the concern is PFRs moving about foreign countries, potentially scouting for new victims. If you land, stay on the plane or within the secure tarmac area, hand over some paperwork, pick up passengers, and depart—have you actually been “in” that country in the sense the law was designed to regulate?

From a purely physical standpoint, you are on that country’s soil. From a functional standpoint, you never had freedom to roam.

This is exactly the kind of legal question Larry would like to see litigated:

• Does landing, docking at a gate, and handling operational tasks count as entering a country?
• Or does “entering” imply admissibility and movement beyond the secure zone?

Until a court squarely answers this, PFRs engaging in such travel operate in a legal fog.

“Go Ahead and Travel and See What Happens” – Not Reassuring

Larry’s overarching message is not, “This is safe—go for it.” It’s closer to:

“The language exists. It’s vague. If you’re comfortable taking the risk, you can test it—but understand what that means.”

This is where individual risk tolerance becomes central.

Some PFRs may decide:

• The emergency is so serious that they’re willing to take the legal risk.
• They’ll rely on the affirmative defense and hope for a sympathetic judge or jury.

Others will conclude:

• The possibility of a federal charge, expensive legal defense, and prison time is simply too high a price.

In either case, doing it blindly, without preparation, is the worst option.

Why You Probably Need a Lawyer on Speed Dial

Andy raises a practical point: if you’re even thinking about using this emergency travel defense, you should line up an attorney in advance.

That means:

• Finding a lawyer familiar with SORNA and federal criminal defense.
• Explaining your situation and your job or family circumstances.
• Letting them know you may need urgent help if law enforcement or federal agents get involved.

But this is not cheap peace of mind.

Larry estimates that an attorney willing to take on a potential federal criminal case tied to SORNA compliance is likely going to require several thousand dollars, not a symbolic small retainer.

Federal criminal defense is:

• Complex,
• Time‑intensive,
• High‑stakes, and
• Logistically demanding.

So even if you never end up charged, just being ready for that possibility can be financially burdensome.

Key Lessons for PFRs Considering Emergency International Travel

When you put all of this together, a few core insights emerge:

1. The emergency-travel language is not a free pass.
   It offers a possible defense in court, not guaranteed immunity from arrest or prosecution.

2. You must still notify as soon as possible.
   Even in a true emergency, failing to contact your registration office promptly once you decide to travel can destroy your ability to use this defense.

3. You are gambling on how prosecutors and judges interpret vague language.
   Words like “may have an affirmative defense” and unresolved issues like “entering a country” create real uncertainty.

4. The real cost is not just legal—it’s emotional and financial.
   Facing a federal charge, even with a decent defense, is stressful, disruptive, and expensive.

5. Advance planning is crucial if emergencies are likely.
   If your job or family life makes short‑notice travel probable, you should be consulting counsel now, not at the airport gate.

Actionable Takeaways

If you’re a PFR or advise someone who is, here are a few practical steps:

1. Read the statute and regulations yourself.
   Look up 18 U.S.C. § 2250(c) and the related SORNA travel regulations (including the 21‑day notice provisions). Don’t rely solely on summaries.

2. Consult a lawyer familiar with SORNA and federal law.
   Discuss your work and family realities. Ask how they would approach an emergency travel situation in your jurisdiction.

3. Create a personal emergency protocol.
   If an emergency arises:

4. Who do you call first?
5. How do you document that it was unforeseeable?

6. How and when do you notify your registration jurisdiction?

7. Weigh risk honestly.
   For some, the emergency will justify the risk. For others, the possibility of federal prosecution will make even critical travel feel off‑limits.

Conclusion: A Safety Valve That Still Feels Dangerous

The emergency travel language in SORNA and its regulations is often presented as a humane safety valve—a recognition that the real world doesn’t always give three weeks’ notice.

But as Andy and Larry’s discussion makes clear, it’s a narrow, uncertain, and after‑the‑fact remedy. It doesn’t stop you from being charged. It doesn’t spare you the cost of a lawyer. It doesn’t guarantee a judge or jury will see things your way.

For many PFRs, that means emergency international travel remains a high‑risk endeavor, even when the law appears to offer a lifeline.

Understanding that risk—and planning accordingly—isn’t just smart. It might be the difference between a stressful week and a federal criminal case.

[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our views are solely our own. We’re thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. Join us as we dive into important discussions every week. And always remember FYP.

[00:23] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West. Transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 364 of Registry Matters. Larry, it is a fine Saturday evening. How are you?

[00:34] Larry: I’m nice and cool today. It’s, 19 degrees this morning, so it’s more like your weather now. That’s cold. Jeevers.

[00:43] Andy: Please, as always, in your podcast app, in your, YouTube videos, in your, I don’t care where it is. Thumbs up, like, subscribe, follow, five star rating. You know the drill. Especially, that is how you can support us and show the whole world that you are a fan of Registry Matters. And then, of course, we have the dozens of people that are patrons that are listening to us live. If you could why are you putting that in the chat, man? Anyway, become a generous patron over at patreon.com. If you’ve been listening for multiple years and we spend our time sharing it with you and you have the resources, it would be really helpful to help us out. Don’t you think, Larry? I think that’s a good idea. And I know there’s some people in that category. Alright. So tell us what we were doing. Was that too much on the nose?

[01:41] Larry: Well, we have some good news from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in a case that involves GPS monitoring. And we have some listener questions, either two or three. One deals with a pilot and his need to travel outside The United States. The other deals with registration or moving from one state to another, which is really more of a comment on observation. And, if time permits, we have a third exchange of a segment of firsthand accounting from PFR civil commitment in the state of Iowa.

[02:14] Andy: Does anybody live in Iowa? Don’t they have, like, 45 people? A tad bit more than that. Jeepers, man. Those are those places where there’s far, far, far, like, the lowest population densities in The United States. Big ass open places and a handful of people live there.

[02:32] Larry: Well, but that’s where we have to get our food from. Remember?

[02:36] Andy: That’s true. It’s pretty important. So here is the first question slash comment. It says, good morning. Do we have a name for this person? Even like a first name? We did, but I didn’t put it in because I was afraid of re revealing it. By the way, Iowa has 3,200,000

[02:51] Larry: people.

[02:54] Andy: Alright. Well, so somebody is this person from Iowa? I don’t think so. Oh, alright. Well, good morning. Thank you for answering my question on the podcast. It is surprising to me how much, how each state has such different requirements. I live in Pennsylvania where tier one is a fifteen year term and automatically ends. There is no court petition or additional requirements. I am wondering if you or the audience knows of states that also end automatically after completing the term. Thank you for support. Well, I I know one of them. I don’t know of very many.

[03:30] Larry: What state do you know that automatically ends the term other than BA? Isn’t it Vermont that after 10 you’re removed from the registry? That would be one. Yes. There are others. That’s the only one I know of. Well, actually, yours truly, we do that here, but it’s only for a small list of offenses. But they automatically, in after ten years and some in in after twenty, automatically hear a no petition. They just send you a letter.

[03:55] Andy: Well, that’s kinda snazzy.

[03:58] Larry: And, like, that’s three. Three out of 50? No. There are others. I don’t have the complete list, but there are other states that automatically end. But the problem that this, lister may run into is if he were to try that in New Mexico, we have what’s called Regina’s Law here. And that’s, an invention of my part because of the former head of the registration for the state was named Regina. Okay. And Regina was tasked, her department was tasked with formulating, promulgating and formulating regulations to affect the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act. And she decided that since it says that you shall register for ten years after your initial registration and for ten or twenty, whichever the case may be in those instances, she s decided that that means, under Regina s interpretation of New Mexico code, you could theoretically finish your ten years in Vermont and come here. And under Regina’s law, you would start all over again with ten years again, if it was the ten year translated if the offense translated to ten years. Now, that would be funny if you moved here and then they told you, what? By the way, it’s not only not a ten year, it’s a lifetime or it’s a twenty year. You have to get start you have to start all over. You have to admit that’s funny. Right? That’s definitely funny. Hey, someone in chat says that, Washington state automatically

[05:16] Andy: ends if you’re convicted by the state, which I’m assuming the opposite would be if you were convicted by the feds?

[05:23] Larry: I don’t know why there would be any difference because the feds don’t control registration. But they could have incorporated in their law that that you get off automatically unless there’s a different term prescribed by the federal, sorter. They could have done that. But this answer, I’d like to add to it. The AWA, the horrible thing that everybody gripes about, it does not require nor does it even suggest that there should be a petition process at the end of the recommended tier terms. This is an invention of the states to create work for attorneys and to placate victims and their advocate, advocate apparatus.

[06:02] Andy: Well, this individual says, yes. PFRs convicted out of state or federally must petition in Washington.

[06:10] Larry: So, yeah, that’s all I did. It would be different, but that’s their prerogative to do that.

[06:15] Andy: And and I and I mistakenly said 50 states. Should I start saying 51? Because we’re gonna have that new giant territory to the Northeast.

[06:22] Larry: Yes. But also, we had 54 when Obama or was it 57 when he was president?

[06:30] Andy: Alright. Moving on. Weird world. I have been contemplating contacting you for a number of years. It is finally time, and I am ready to ask whether my experience might be appropriate for discussion on registry matters. That’s us. I am a registered individual who works as a professional pilot. I started my career as a US Air Force pilot. Since release from a military brig in 2015, I have been continuously employed in aviation. I currently serve as the head of an aviation department for a private company. My work occasionally requires international travel on short notice. In practice, the twenty one day international travel notification requires, excuse me, requirement makes it impossible for me to reliably perform essential parts of my job. Aviation does not operate on fixed timelines, emergencies, weather, and business needs often require immediate decisions. When that happens, I am forced to choose between declining critical work, imposing significant costs on my employer, or risking a technical violation. I want to be clear that I am not attempting to change what foreign countries do. My concern is with US law and how it operates domestically. I often hear people like me free to travel, but that are, that is not completely true. During those twenty one days, I am not free to travel for work, family, or emergencies without fear of investigation or prosecution. This situation has had serious psychological impact. The constant fear of inadvertent noncompliance combined with the responsibility of transporting others safely has been exhausting. It has affected my mental health, my family, and my professional stability. I’m not seeking sympathy, and I’m not disputing my past. I’m trying to understand whether others are experiencing similar employment based harms and whether these laws are being examined for their real world consequences. If this sounds like something that may be useful to discuss, I would be open to open to sharing more details. I have also recently contacted NARSOL to inquire about possible legal avenues. Thank you for all the work you do. Best regards.

[08:32] Larry: Okay. Well, we deliberately omitted that name because this individual is very unique in many ways. We’ll call him John as in John Doe. Well, or William or some very common name. But but, the first thing that was odd about him is he actually answered his phone. After I responded to his email, I told him, I need to answer the phone because I don’t play tag and he answered it. So I gave him kudos for that. But beyond that, he’s amazingly articulate. I think he’s, in his prior life, he was at broadcasting. Okay. And, and he has an amazing ability to communicate in a way that is very disarming, which has prevented him from being in what would have been a troubling situation for others. So this person has a lot of potential in many regards. And, but as we batted this around on the hour conversation we had, I think that he does have some avenues. I’ve always thought of the international travel twenty one day advance notice. I think it is constitutional, but I think it has to provide for exigent circumstances, which it does not. So, therefore, I believe that if they would barely focus a challenge on that and a couple of provisions of IML, you might be able to gain traction because you do have a right to travel. You are only in a civil regulatory scheme, and this prevents all but three week in advance planned travel, which is not what our travel right entails. It has to be you have complete freedom to travel. So, therefore, it’s infringing on his constitutional right to travel. You agree with that? I believe I do, especially the way that we talked about it. But, I think that after batting this around in my head and with you and with him, I think that he actually does have something that could be taken to court. And, I explained to the individual that part of the problem is lack of resources. There are a lot of things that are good challenges legally, but we just don’t have the monetary resources in the registrar community. We do not have the ability to draw money from private foundations. We do not have the ability to get government grants for our work. Our government grants are non existent. Our money comes directly from you, the registrant community, and from cases we win and if we are able to collect prevailing party fees. So registrants, hear that very carefully. What keeps us from being able to litigate is oftentimes that we don’t have the money, and oftentimes a lot of you that could don’t contribute. And but I think his pathway would be a a petition for declaratory judgment. Damn. You’ve heard that before, haven’t you? I hear it for but here you usually say it in a very disdained kind of framing, almost like a summary judgment. Yes. Well, in this case, it’s a good tool to use. It’s the right vehicle when you’re asking a court to establish what your laws and what your responsibilities are under a particular law and whether you’re covered by a particular law. And I think that where I’m confused is I haven’t had enough time to cogitate about whether we would file it in federal court or state court. My inclination is we would file it in state court because this particular thing is something that’s been imposed by the nameless state that he lives in that I’m not gonna, disclose right now. Yes. But it’s it’s similar to many other states that have adopted that recommendation from the Adam Walsh Act that you have to require your PFRs to give twenty one days written notice to the registrar in the state that he lives in has done that. But since it’s a state law at the behest of federal law, that the federal law is clearly not enforceable in my mind, if it’s not in your state law because you haven’t received the requisite notice, that you’re obligated to do that. And since you have to report it to your registrar, your registrar doesn’t collect it. I don’t know how you would report it. But I think he would probably I’m leaning towards he would file a petition for declaratory judgment in the state where he resides and ask a trial level court to determine that under the scenario to which he’s traveling, he’s basically not traveling in my estimation. Yes, he is moving across Earth, in the air, and he is crossing international boundaries. But he’s not entering these foreign nations, per se, as a visitor. He’s dropping off passengers and picking up passengers and delivering freight and equipment, and he’s entering the country only briefly and departing, which is not what the IML, that notification, is intended to do. It’s intended to prevent people from lurking around the country undetected preying on vulnerable victims. Well, he’s not lurking around the country. So, I think he might have a shot at getting a declaration that he is not actually traveling internationally even though he’s crossing international boundaries. I know it sounds crazy, but I think he might be able to do it.

[14:04] Andy: And and and I hope that, the example that I gave, if if you are flying from New York to Los Angeles and you have a layover in Chicago, do you have to then immediately hop off the plane, go down to the registry office and tell them that you’re here because you have landed there for two hours? The answer is no. Or if you’re driving, I used to travel a lot and drive from Georgia to some other place, and I didn’t visit every state along the way. How is this like I’ve realized international boundaries are different, but this sounds incredibly similar to that.

[14:37] Larry: It does indeed. Now, I would push back slightly on the airport. Theoretically, if you’re in Chicago’s or here airport, you might be able to do some inappropriate stuff because that is a busy place. Airports are busy. But, if you’re sitting on the tarmac in PODUC City, you name a country in Latin America because that’s where I think he flies typically to, maybe Mexico or some other countries. If you’re flying onto a facility there and you’re not ever actually getting out of the aircraft and they’re coming to the plane and they’re saying, hey, I need to see your whatever, all that they collect. And this is where we need our, our patron Brian to explain what all they would collect. But if he’s never leaving the aircraft, he has not actually entered the country per se for what they were trying to prevent. If you’re in Chicago at the airport, you you actually have entered the airport. There are minors in the building. But he doesn’t have any he doesn’t have any opportunity to do any of that stuff. Yeah. He’s just whatever, like, handing paperwork over to the flight crew, refueling, whatever, and then out the door he goes. I think that he’s got a justiciable contra controversy, and I think he’s got a small to moderate probability of success. I would need to talk with an open minded, attorney or two and figure out what the pros and cons would be of going into federal court versus state court. Right now, I want to do state court, but he told me that his state is so conservative that he doesn’t believe that, that any court would give him a fair shot. And, of course, that narrows it down to about half of our states that are very conservative.

[16:22] Andy: I mean, at least that. Sure. So, but Now can I can I kinda put you out just, what does a declaratory judgment say? Does it just say, I, judge so and so, declare that William, John, whatever name we’re using, when he travels for work in this manner, is not traveling regarding to IML,

[16:44] Larry: signed judge so and so? Is that it? That would be yeah. It would be a petition. It would be styled petition for declaratory judgment. It would cite the section of the law of the state that allows you to bring such an action. It would cite the facts of why you’re asking for the declaration from the judge. And the judge would simply say that under the interpretation here that this person, if they’re on a tarmac in a foreign nation, they have not entered for purposes of the you wouldn’t use IML, you would say the state registry. So, if you were to file it in the state of Alabama or the state of Colorado or whatever, you would say that under Colorado law under this section, the judge would proclaim that simply stopping over at an airport facility does not constitute entering that nation. Therefore, he is not obligated to report that. That’s what that’s the limit of that declaratory action. It would not say that he’s not subject to IML reporting requirements. It would just say that that does not constitute international travel as defined in that section of law.

[17:48] Andy: I would even want to extend this one step further, Larry. I’m gonna guess, like, the guy probably has a passport and v and a visa, depending on whatever. But he probably doesn’t need one to do this. He has one for personal purposes, but he doesn’t have one for this. Therefore, that further supports the whole idea that he’s not, quote unquote, traveling regarding IML kind of obligations?

[18:17] Larry: I don’t know if he has to show that that when they when they come up to the window of the plane, and I don’t think they actually come up to the window, but however they exchange documents, I doubt they they probably do ask for a passport, but I don’t know that for sure. Again, it’s out of merit of expertise. I’ve never left US borders. But, if he’s there as a passing through simply to fuel, pick up a passenger, and return to The United States.

[18:47] Andy: I don’t think he entered that nation. I really don’t. I agree. Yeah. I agree with you. I completely agree with you. It’s interesting. Very interesting. And and I’m sure that this was never even brought up when they were talking about IML. What happens

[19:02] Larry: if we have this pilot who’s going to do something? Who would have ever thought to to Nobody would even thought of it. Stupid Mike Smith from his from New Jersey. Yeah. But but nobody would ever thought of this question. And that’s why the PFR community needs to be present when these things are debated because you would give testimony about how this has not been addressed. And there’s a gap in the law, and it’s gonna cause confusion and unequal enforcement and all sorts of problems. But since you weren’t there when it was debated, there was nobody speaking on your behalf explaining these nuances.

[19:35] Andy: I’m with you. Alright.

[19:38] Larry: Time for the main event. Alright. You Before before we go to the main event, sometimes things seem absurd. And this is no longer the case, but just to show you how things can be absurd. When I moved to this state forty plus years ago, technology wasn’t what it is today. And, when you got a traffic ticket, the police could not log in to computer systems and the court system in the eighties when I arrived here. That that technology didn’t exist. So they gave you a, a citation and the citation said you need to set up a court date within ten days. I believe it was what it said. You know, you’ve got ten days to set up a court date. Well, that was not an order of the court because you had never appeared in court. That was merely a direction from the police officer. Well, people didn’t bother to appear in court. And, I got rear ended by a guy with a big old Chevy van when I was driving a little tiny vehicle and he got got hurt. I wanted justice and I was, not understanding why he did a hit and run and then he didn’t fail he failed to appear after they tracked him down at the hit and run. They gave him a citation for hit and run and he didn’t appear. And, they explained to me, when there was no warrant issued for him not appearing, they explained to me that he had not failed to appear. I said, well, you people told him that on the on the summons that he had ten days to appear, and he didn’t appear. And, they said that is correct, but that was the police giving him the direction to appear and set a court date. He never set a court date, so it’s not failure to appear unless you appear and then stop appearing. He had never appeared at the direction of a court, so he had not failed to appear because the court had ordered him to appear. So, you have to appear first, under the the way the the system worked back then, and then you had to stop appearing. That was failure to appear after the court had set a date for you. But the the officer telling you, you need to get down to the court, set a date. It was not failure to appear if you never appeared. Right. Well, can you at least admit that’s funny? Definitely the funniest thing ever. Yeah. Well, I couldn’t understand it, but they changed the law now because of technology when you when you get a citation. Just by the way, don’t sign the title citation. Don’t accept the penalty points. There are too many things that can go wrong in the case that can go right for you. It doesn’t do the officer any favor. The officer hates it when you sign the type of citation. At least here they do because they will get overtime to appear in court. They they are vomiting all over themselves when you sign the the citation at bit guilt. They want you to say, set a court date, but now they issue you a court date right on the spot. And And it’s under the authority seal of the of the court. And they hand it to you and say you have been ordered since you plead not guilty to appear in court. And now it is failure to appear if you don’t appear. But back then, if you never appeared, it wasn’t failure to appear.

[22:41] Andy: I gotcha. Alright. Well, you have this case in here from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and I’m assuming that’s the state’s highest, tribunal? That would be correct. And this is the Commonwealth versus Arnold decided right before Christmas. Did we win? We did. Alright. Peace out. We’re we’re done. Good news. Good night. Alright. My research shows that general laws chapter two sixty five subsection, something provides that a defendant convicted of a certain PFR type crime shall be subject to global positioning system monitoring at all times for the length of his probation. That’s the law. Has it been previously upheld as written?

[23:31] Larry: No. It has not. Back in 2019 in the case of Commonwealth versus Feliz, 41, Massachusetts, 689690 To 91. And it’s also in the Northeastern reporter and blah, blah, blah. The court held it mandatory imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of probation without an individualized determination as to the reasonableness of such of such a search violates article 14 of the Massachusetts declaration of rights.

[24:03] Andy: Alright. Well, here we go again. A bunch of liberal pointy headed judges overruled the will of the people and legislated, from the bench back in 2019. I should have figured that would be the case. Well, it seems to me that legislating from the bench is wonderful when you agree with the what the black robes choose to legislate from the bench. It’s amazing that the people don’t like it except for when they like it. I I like it when I like it. The appeal raises questions concerning the duration of GPS monitoring. The court stated, for reasons we elaborate on today, the reasonableness of GPS monitoring as a probation condition turns in part on its duration. A judge conducting the individualized determination required that feliz, therefore, must consider the duration of GPS monitoring condition. Moreover, as a result of our holding in feliz, a judge may order GPS monitoring of a defendant under subsection 47 only for a duration, if any, that the judge determines to be reasonable. Tell us about this defendant.

[25:06] Larry: Well, in March 2012, Arnold plead guilty to one count of rape of a child, two counts of rape of a child aggravated by age, which means the child was younger, two counts of incest, and one count of indecent assault and battery on a child around the age of 14. The victims were the defendant’s own children. Other details had to be admitted due to being rather graphic, and we can’t do that on family pro program. But the the victims disclosed this information when they were still minors, and the defendant was 53 years old. Now in some of the Southern states, that list of charge for that severity, he would never be breathing free air again.

[25:47] Andy: Definitely not. Definitely not. Arnold received concurrent said sentences on the six charges amounting to a total of from ten years to ten years and one day in a state prison followed by ten years of probation. His conditions of probation included GPS monitoring for the entire period of probation under subsection 47. The GPS exclusion zones required by subsection 47 were not established at the time of his sentencing. The reference section requires the commissioner of probation to establish, defined geographic exclusion zones including, but not limited to, the area in and around the victim’s residence, place of employment and school, and other areas defined to minimize the probationer’s contact with the children’s, if applicable. How did Arnold get this matter before the state state’s highest court?

[26:38] Larry: Well, he, he he did it very carefully. In September 2021, Arnold had completed his prison sentence and began his probationary term subject to the monitoring. In February 2024, he filed a motion seeking the individualized determination required by feliz of whether the GPS monitoring condition was reasonable. He argued that the condition violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and Article 14 of the State Constitution because the intrusion of his privacy interests interests were not sufficiently justified by their countervailing government interests and because the ten year duration was arbitrary and excessive, which it was, they just simply matched it to his term of probation. In support of his argument, he pointed to his compliance thus far with all conditions of probation, the reduced risk of recidivism generally posed by a person of his age, which was then 65, assessments conducted by his counseling program concluded that he posed a very low risk of reoffense, notwithstanding his level three classification by the Sex Offender Review Board. And the lack of defined exclusionary zones to protect the victims such that the defendant, such as he what his name was Arnold, such as Arnold argued, the GPS monitor and served, no meaningful purpose.

[27:59] Andy: Well, then how did the state attempt to justify the long period of GPS monitoring? Obviously, they knew about feliz.

[28:06] Larry: Well, they did. They introduced statements from the victims expressing their ongoing fear of Arnold and describing harms they continue to suffer as a result of of the crimes. These harms included, among others, post traumatic stress, chronic anxiety disorders, insomnia and night terrors, and feeling haunted and a constant state of crippling stress and anxiety at the thought of contact with Arnold. The Commonwealth argued that imposition of the GPS monitoring was required to protect the public given the nature and gravity of his offenses and his level three SORB classification and also urged that the exclusion zone should be established to protect the victims.

[28:49] Andy: So how did that argument go?

[28:52] Larry: Well, very well for the state. In a memorandum decision, an order entered on 06/05/2024, the judge denied Arnold’s motion for relief from GPS monitoring from that condition. The judge also directed that the GPS exclusionary zones be established for both victims and instructed the parties to file a motion with the court by 06/28/2024, if there were any inability to set exclusionary zones or abide by them due to present residences or employment. According to the court, no such motion was filed.

[29:26] Andy: Arnold appealed judge’s order, and the state’s highest court allowed his application for direct appellate review. That seems like that would be something that’s unusual.

[29:36] Larry: It normally would be, but based on Feliz, they decided that, hey. We need to nip this in the bud. So we’ve already ruled on this before. So but, yes, that would normally not be the trajectory. He would have had to have waited for an for a mid level appellate review before getting to the Supreme Judicial Court.

[29:52] Andy: Arnold argued that the ten year duration of his GPS monitoring condition originally sent sent excuse me, originally set at his sentencing under subsection 47 to match his ten year probationary term is an arbitrary and unreasonable duration that violates his unconstitutional rights under the fourth amendment and article 14 and that the motion judge who declined to vacate the condition upon, conducting the individualized determination required by Feliz erred in failing to evaluate the duration of the condition. Now I read in the decision that they normally use the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the denial of a condition of probation. Now that’s a really high standard to meet. How did Arnold overcome that?

[30:36] Larry: Well, you’re correct. That’s what he would have been required to do with most situations because judges have broad discretion. But the court riveted that. They stated, although ordinarily, we review a judge’s decision on a motion to vacate a condition of probation for abuse of discretion, which is an extremely high standard. We conduct an independent review, whereas here the judge’s decision is based on a constitutional determination, meaning completely different framework if you simply don’t like that they gave you a curfew. Well, that’s not a decent description. But this sounds like then GPS monitoring is not a search. It is a search. That’s that’s the reason why this this track it’s a search and seizure of of the most private information you have. Yeah. Like your whereabouts.

[31:22] Andy: Where are you now?

[31:24] Larry: So it is indeed a search. The court stated GPS monitoring is a search under the fourth amendment and article 14 of the state constitution. And they cited feliz again, and I got all that citation there. And they also cited Grady versus North Carolina. We saw a US Supreme court decision in 2015. And, they concluded that it’s a warrantless search, and that it’s and all warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, and and, are not presumptively reasonable. They’re presumptively unreasonable, and therefore, presumptively unconstitutional.

[31:57] Andy: What is the burden on the state of Massachusetts that they must overcome to justify the monitoring?

[32:04] Larry: Well, to prove reasonableness of the GPS monitoring as a probation condition, the Commonwealth must establish that the government interest imposing GPS monitoring outweighs the privacy intrusion occasioned by GPS monitoring. Again, going back on police. And then because because reasonableness depends on the totality of the circumstances, no one factor will be positive of every case, and they quote a Grady. That’s a Supreme Court case. The Government’s interest in opposing GPS monitoring depends on the extent which the search advances a legitimate Government interest. The Commonwealth must establish how GPS monitoring of this particular defendant furthers its interest and then the court considers the weight of this interest. So they just can’t say, well, you know, it’s just to keep the victim safe. You can’t just do that. You’ve got to give particularity. You’ve got to have a bill of particulars, so to speak.

[32:57] 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 d.

[33:46] Andy: Now the court recognized that the Commonwealth invoked two legitimate government interest in GPS monitoring of Arnold. First, the government has a valid interest in deterrence where the Commonwealth provides sufficient evidence that a defendant poses a demonstrable risk of reoffending. And as the judge did here, a judge may rely solely on Sorb’s classification of a defendant as sufficient evidence to establish such a risk. Also, where the crime of which a defendant has been convicted was committed against a specific identified victim, the Commonwealth may have a strong interest in enforcing exclusion zones in order to prevent further victimization of that individual. The court noted that exclusion zones ensure that defendants stay away from victims, thereby protecting victims’ safety provide by providing them with a safe haven. How are those interests then balanced against the defendant’s privacy rights?

[34:38] Larry: Well, the court answered that. They said with respect to a defendant’s privacy interests, although a probationer has a diminished gee, you’ve heard me say that. Diminished expectation of privacy relative to the general population. The government does not have unlimited ability to infringe upon it. She also said that too. They recognize that GPS monitoring results in a far greater intrusion on a probation or celebrity than that associated with traditional monitoring, meaning the probation officer may show up at 09:00 at night. It requires the probation department to attach a GPS device to the defendant’s person. Though you don’t wear it, they attach it in such a way that the defendant cannot remove the device, thereby significantly burdening the defendant’s liberty interest in, in bodily autonomy and integrity. If they attach something to your body, that’s pretty intrusive.

[35:29] Andy: Yeah. And it’s hard to go out and wear shorts and not have everyone know what is happening. Perhaps you could wear long pants and cover it, but not in the summertime when you’re wearing shorts and it’s a 100 degrees. Beyond that, they stated, the information exposed through GPS monitoring is uniquely revealing. It provides the government with a detailed encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled log of the individual’s movements. As currently in use in the Commonwealth, GPS devices collect one data point of latitude and longitude per minute, as well as information about a wearer’s speed of travel such that it is possible to tell if a person is driving, running, or walking with data then stored for an indefinite amount of time. Now this sounds like the court understands the GPS more than most for real. It it does. A bunch of damn liberals say ought to be kicked out of office. They do. And they stated, we agree with the defendant.

[36:23] Larry: And that would be Arnold. That because of the nature of GPS monitoring as a search, a judge determining the reasonableness of a GPS monitoring condition must consider, among other circumstances, the duration of the monitoring. The appeals court recently expressly so held in Commonwealth v. Streed, which was a 2025 decision. A case also involving a defendant sentenced to ten years probation with GPS monitoring pursuant to subsection 47 prior to the lease. Stree dually recognized that a Judge must consider the incremental effect of GPS monitoring over time would have on, defendant’s liberty, weigh that against the government’s interest in monitoring and determine an appropriate period of monitoring. Folks, try to understand. You can’t do anything you want to do as long as you don’t use the blanket broad brush. If if you want to give somebody a GPS monitoring, set a specific period of time. State the reasons that are unique to that individual and it will withstand appellate scrutiny.

[37:28] Andy: The conclusion states whether GPS monitoring as a condition of probation is a reasonable search turns in part on its duration, and the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating the GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire ordered duration, notwithstanding the requirement in GLC what is GLC? General Pause, chapter two sixty five, subsection 47. Oh, that excuse me. So notwithstanding the requirement of general laws, that a defendant sentenced there under shall be subject to GPS monitoring at all times for the length of his probation. A judge may order GPS monitoring only for a duration, if any, that the judge determines to be reasonable even if the resulting period of GPS monitoring is shorter than the defendant’s probationary term. Now what will happen next for mister Arnold?

[38:19] Larry: Well, the court stated, and this is a little bit confusing to me, so I’m gonna leave it a little bit vague. We vacate the order to enter on June entered on 06/05/2024, and that was the order denying the defendant’s motion. Every man this matter to the Superior Court for further proceeding consistent with this opinion. In the proceedings on remand, the defendant shall be given notice of all locations of any GPS exclusion zones, but what they didn’t say was that the duration shall be set. It seems like to me that’s part and parcel to this whole thing. They have to give him those specific exclusion zones, which they didn’t do in 2024, and they have to set a duration that’s less than a ten years. But it didn’t say that. So let’s leave it at what they did say.

[39:02] Andy: Alright. Well, interesting. Sounds good.

[39:09] Larry: Alrighty.

[39:10] Andy: And this then applies to other people in other places, or does it only apply to this dude in Massachusetts?

[39:15] Larry: Oh, no. This applies to the entire state of Massachusetts. Cool. And, and and not only that, since it is a respected court at some level, particularly in parts of the country. I don’t know if it’d be respected in Alabama, but this is is, powerful, persuasive arguments for other states. In fact, Feliz, Street, and now this one is in my repertoire because I wanna do this litigation here. We have it in our state law that a person has to wear GPS for the entire period of their post prison parole. It’s in the statute. And I wanna knock that down, before I croak. I wanna get that taken down. And you you guys there can have,

[40:00] Andy: parole for a really long time.

[40:02] Larry: Indeed. It can be anywhere from five to 20 or in a few instances for certain offenses, it can be five to life. That’s that, that qualifies as a long time. And it’s not really parole because you have to serve all your time before you get to that. We just call it parole. I did know that. Yes. You serve all of your prison time, manage your good time, which is 15% for most sex offenses. And then you get released on, quote, parole, and then you have all this stuff to deal with.

[40:31] Andy: Interesting. Well, then what’s the difference between parole and probation in in New Mexico?

[40:36] Larry: Well, the difference is who would be monitoring at the parole board administrative. You wouldn’t have an opportunity to go to court on violations like you go before a parole board hearing officer. In a court case of probation, you could appear before a court on violations. The rules of evidence would be different. The competency level of the, it would be much more formalized in court. Not completely formal. The rules of evidence in a probation revocation are somewhat relaxed, even in a real court. But at an administrative hearing, it’s Katie bar at the door. You don’t have you don’t have much in the way of due process.

[41:15] Andy: Do you wanna cover this final question? We’re at forty minutes. I think we should do it because you can read really, really fast. I can read significantly faster if I wanted to. So Alright. Well, this is question number three. Now this person asks, a couple years ago, I sent NARSAL a letter about the Iowa Civil Commitment Unit, a k a ccuso, in Cherokee, Iowa. Now I just recently heard it was printed or part of it since it gave you permission in the letter. My previous letter addressed the major issue we are facing with civil commitment here in Iowa. In this letter, I wanted to address the unconstitutional process of getting to a civil commitment trial here in Iowa. In my previous letter, I mentioned that on the tenth anniversary of the state’s civil commitment program, that only one person had successfully graduated and gave the many issues one faces in the failing program at CCUSO. The Cherokee newspaper where CCUSO is located had an article stating concern for CCUSO now that the civil commitment program is twenty five years old. I will enclose a copy of that article as they were concerned that now that the civil commitment unit which has over 300 men has only graduated 27 men in the twenty five year history. We have a facility that only manages to graduate an average of one person a year among the 300 men there. I will also enclose the enclose the newest statistics on CCUSO. In that statistic, you will see that since 2015, the number of men being civilly committed has skyrocketed. Now how does this continue?

[42:56] Larry: Because that’s what the voters at Iowa want. Alright then. Alright. Short segment again. Well, the writer also states, I want to address the unconstitutional process of getting a trial for civil commitment. Here in Iowa, before an offender is nearing release, the state has a multi discipline committee that meets and goes over the offender’s record and then makes a recommendation. The major problem is that the committee members are not professionals and most have little to no training in the field. Now that’s funny. They’re expected to make decisions that affect the rest of our lives. Seriously, and that’s a question mark. Then a recommendation is made to the attorney general’s office. This is when our own state codes and laws are not followed. No. They wouldn’t violate the law.

[43:45] Andy: I wanna drill down on what he stated about the laws not being followed. Now he said, first, most of the now former inmates had parole orders assigned and in hand when they are served papers holding them for a civil commitment trial. Second, offenders have not been charged with any new crimes yet were held without bail on the disciplinary unit at the Newton Correctional Facility until trial. Iowa code two two nine a point five is not followed by the state or the courts. Iowa code 2298.5 lists the following rights of one being detained as a safekeeper. A, to be provided with a prior notice of date, time, and location of the probable cause hearing which must be held within seventy two hours after detainment. There are not normally an issue with this being held timely. Now, b, to respond to the preliminary finding of probable cause, though it’s nice to get the process going within seventy two hours, it does not give us enough time to respond to the prosecution statement of probable cause and be ready for the hearing. C, to appear in person, we appear by video making it difficult to talk privately with our attorney. D, to be represented by counsel. Counsel’s automatically assigned to us from the special defense unit for the state of Iowa. Our attorneys warn us in advance not to speak at the hearing and to allow the attorney to do all the speaking. E, to present evidence on our own behalf. We are not allowed to present evidence on our behalf because personally or through our assigned attorney. Since the probable cause hearing must be held within seventy two hours, it would have been near impossible to gather or present evidence. A mutually agreed upon continuance should have been an order. Two more to go. F, to cross examine witnesses who testify against the respondent, we cannot call nor does the state call any witness. I have argued in my case that I had had I been able to present evidence, the court would not have had any reason to hold me. Same story with other safekeepers. And lastly, g, to view a copy of all petitions and reports on file with the court, a review of the record will will find I am not afforded the opportunity to speak at the hearing. I could not present evidence, cross examine, or raise any objection to the controversial accusations by the state prosecutor which heavily persuaded the judge to hold me for a civil commitment trial.

[46:13] Larry: K. Before I go to the script, I wanna push back just a bit on on number e, because he’s focusing on the probable cause hearing. I think he’s over reading that part there because the probable cause hearing doesn’t they’re not that in-depth because it’s such a low threshold that they’re having to meet. So probable cause hearing, yes, he technically what he and his attorney would have the right to do those things. But you’re gonna they’re gonna find probable cause in most cases because the so called experts that he described as not experts above, they’ve recommended it. And the attorney general has filed the petition based on that recommendation. So there’s where it breaks down to begin with. If those are true or not, professionals. And what’s even sadder about it now listen to what he said above. He said they filed this after you’ve been granted parole. So let’s assume that Iowa gives you parole after you’ve earned it by good behavior and doing all the compliant things, getting treatment. So they decide you’re safe enough and can be monitored safely in the community, and they agree to grant you conditional release on parole, and then a petition comes through your way. I mean, I can see his point, on that, but I just wanted to push back a tad, but that back down to the script. This is the foregone that you read is scary enough, but he went on to say, my counsel did not properly defend me in the probable cause hearing. This severely prejudiced me, resulting in the court ordering me to be held for a civil commitment trial, which took four and a half years to get to trial. Now, that’s the scary thing. If you’re gonna make a joke out of a probable cause hearing, then the the full adjudicatory hearing should happen rapidly, not four and a half years later, because you’re presumed you should be presumed that you’re ready for release and have have that four and a half years. I’d have to really find out why they did that. Again, reading on, he says again, four plus years sitting in prison, in a prison setting, when I could have been on parole and being a tax paying citizen and contributing to society. I don’t want to pontificate again, but that’s sad that that that that the professional parole board found him suitable for release, and then they they filed a civil commitment, proceeding and took four and a half years to to hear it.

[48:31] Andy: And it appears that many of the civil commitment problems begin with the process it takes to be civilly committed.

[48:38] Larry: Indeed, it does. He states, we have men who pass treatment, have very low re offense scores, and so on, still being committed by the courts. I’ve I have only seen one person win at trial in the past four and a half years of civil commitment. And if you read the attached statistics, you will see now I don’t have those available, but but it it Gander, it looked like those statistics bear out what he says.

[49:05] Andy: Now, I had always been under the impression that the commitment, quote unquote, was for treatment, and the goal was to be released, release them back into society. Because I I bet you this is, like, god awful expensive. Forget $50,000 a year for, like, quote, unquote prison. This has gotta be way more expensive than that. So why wouldn’t we want to treat them and make them better and okay and say, have a nice day. You’ve graduated.

[49:30] Larry: Well, we would want to if we were true to those conservative beliefs that we claim that we hold, particularly in a state like Iowa. But, you’ve got an apparatus there that’s making its living off of these 300 men, so I would guarantee the staff as many dozens. To run a facility like that, they would have a significant sized staff. And it’s out of the boonies and it’s probably the major employer. Trying to dismantle that is a problem. But he also mentioned he stated, finally, while we’re on civil commitment, hold, and he calls that safekeeper status under Iowa code two twenty nine a, a. It’s very clear that we are to be held in the least restrictive environment since we are no longer inmates. The system does not follow this. Three years ago, they closed the house that they kept them in as safekeepers

[50:16] Andy: and they moved us to the main prison. And I’ll let you read what he says about what the prison confinement looks like. Alright. This sounds just like, you know, being in the hole as it were. So at the main prison, which is all PFRs, we face the following. Lockdown for twenty one hours a day, no contact with the inmates, special exercise yard away from general population, no religious services or bible studies, smaller portions at meals, and most recently a different menu. That one’s confusing. Why would they do that? But must be escorted everywhere we go, such as visits, medical appointments, or legal calls. Wow. This doesn’t sound at all very this just sounds like you are locked down. End of story. That’s exactly right.

[51:02] Larry: Therapeutic. Now I hate to I hate to say it’s funny because I do wanna agree. But what it appears that they have done is they have figured out a way to make civil commitment cheaper by putting them in the wing of a prison and keeping them there basically for the rest of their life and release one a year so they can say we’re releasing people. If all this is true and validated by evidence,

[51:25] Andy: this is despicable. That’s pretty bad. Alright, well, so what would someone do? I mean, how would some, how would they, I mean, they’re the ones with skin in the game, right? So who fixes this? The ACLU takes these people under their wing and tries to sue the state?

[51:42] Larry: Well, I don’t see the ACLU, like, being the likely it would be more likely us, you know, but, again, it’s always a resource problem. This is the same situation, very similar in Littlefield, Texas. Their civil commitment. This is not unusual in civil commitment. It’s not inherently unconstitutional to civil commit people. I think all 50 states do it. But the way this is being done is inherently unconstitutional. But it needs a big bank account and very competent attorneys that are in for a multi year fight, kind of like they did in Moose Lakes, where they fought it, they won, and it was overturned by the eighth circuit on appeal. It needs to be done all over again. And I’m not sure what circuit I was in. But if it’s in eighth circuit, it screws them up because they’ve already got bad case law in eighth circuit.

[52:32] Andy: Alrighty then. And any, soapboxes you wanna get on before we head out?

[52:39] Larry: No. I think we have covered it quite well other than reminder that we may not likely won’t be here next week because of the NARSAL annual strategic planning, which I’ll be on from Friday through Sunday afternoon.

[52:51] Andy: Right. I’m pretty sure we already decided that we wouldn’t record next week, so I’m I’m leaving the country. Just kidding. But we’re taking the week off.

[53:01] Larry: But you’ll still get your four sessions because there’s five Saturdays in January.

[53:06] Andy: Of course. Well, make sure that you head over to registrymatters.co for show notes and links to go everywhere. You can visit FYP education for that brand new snazzy search tool that I made. Head over to registrymatterscast@gmail.com, and you can send in some email that some folks did this week. You can leave an old fashioned voicemail, and that is at (747) 227-4477. And please consider becoming a patron even for a buck a month or more at patreon.com/registrymatters. Larry, I hope you have a fine fantabulous weekend and stay out of trouble and don’t do anything I wouldn’t do, which leaves you with a lot of options. And, hope you have a good weekend. Thank you. We’ll see you in two weeks. Take care, buddy.

[53:52] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, and we love that. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, FYP.

[00:22] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 363. Happy New Year of Registry Matters. Larry, what’s up? How are you tonight? Oh, doing awesome. It’s a balmy 55 degrees here. Fuck. Are you you’ve got me beat by, like, 40 degrees. It’s cold as anyway. Hey. Show your support. Like and subscribe. Do all those five star ratings. Thumbs up. Follow. Reviews. You know, all those things depending on your platform. I can’t say them all because I don’t know what platform you’re listening on, but we appreciate the love and in return, we’re here to keep delivering the content you enjoy.

[01:03] Larry: So tell me what we’re doing tonight. Well, we had to do an abrupt change of plans. We had a case from New Mexico from the stakeholder appeals dealing with PFR probation of the five to 20, and the guest fell through. Are you whoops. Are you familiar? She didn’t, like, hurt herself, did you? No. But are you familiar with guests guests falling through at the last minute?

[01:28] Andy: I have heard of this and have experienced it. Hell, we had a guest that, like, bailed out middle of the show and haven’t seen him or heard of him since. Who was that? Was it on this program? It was 100% on this program. It was an individual that we were sort of having an interview with, and he was, like, an up and coming

[01:45] Larry: blogger podcaster and, poof, gone. I don’t even remember that. That’s how, you know, I’ve got old timers. Oh, yeah. I knew that already. So what else are we doing? What are we doing? Well, we You had a guest and they bailed. Yeah. So we transitioned to the United States Court of Appeals for the eighth circuit. Very good win to talk about, and we have a couple of listener questions. So this episode probably won’t go for hours and hours like they typically do, but we have a couple of questions, and one of them transitions to an article that you people found.

[02:19] Andy: Fantastic. Alright. Well, I’m gonna read this one as it is. To me, it doesn’t quite go right, but here it is. Anyway, so question one came in by an email from an individual who emails us pretty regularly. And it says, subsection is that what SS is? Is that subsection or statute section? Okay. What is SS? Oklahoma section 21 dash 51.1

[02:40] Larry: a.

[02:42] Andy: And it reads, second offense of rape in the first degree, forcible, sodomy, lewd, molestation, or sexual abuse of a child. Any person convicted of rape in the first degree, forcible, sodomy, lewd, molestation, or sexual abuse of a child after having been convicted of either rape in the first degree.

[02:59] Larry: Anyway, says no three strike law here. What do you people think? Well, it it also says that shall be sentenced to life without parole.

[03:07] Andy: So I probably should’ve added that part. Yeah. So,

[03:10] Larry: so basically, this is the legislature, imposing tying the judicial branch’s hands in terms of what would be an appropriate outcome for an offender. And they’ve decided that they know best collectively, and that’s their prerogative, that’s what the people voted for in Oklahoma. But they’ve decided that there will be no judicial discretion if a person has a prior offense for these enumerated offenses, that they will get life without parole. Now, I’m going to get more and more on my soapbox because it doesn’t seem to do any good. These are the people who promise you when they run for office, particularly in conservative places like Oklahoma, they promise you that they’re watching the public purse like a hawk, and they’re considering every dime they expend, and they’re carefully measuring if it’s the best use of resources. But yet, they mandate that no judicial involvement, that a person will get life without parole, without, it’s like, even if it’s, if you could justify that, after a certain stage of life, a person is no longer capable of doing those offenses. But we’re going to house them and pay for their medical care, the guardians of the purse, for the rest of their life. That’s what I’m pontificating about. But what I think, I think that the people of Oklahoma, like the people in most of the Bible Belt, are very unforgiving, And I think that they are hypocritical, and they say one thing, and they believe another, and the voters are dumb enough to go along with it and elect those people. That’s what I think.

[04:48] Andy: Wow. Hey, tell me what you’re really doing. I mean, total of that.

[04:53] Larry: Damn. Well, I’ve I’ve tried to be gentle for a few years, and people, they don’t seem to draw the connection between what they vote for and what they get. And it’s not just on the conservative side. It’s on the liberal pointy head side. People in California just lost their last refinery. That’s gonna close down in Los Angeles, and they’re already paying the nation’s highest gasoline prices. And they don’t seem to draw the connection between their policies and what they pay at the pump. Are you stupid out there in California as well? Alright then. So Shall we move along? Okay. That’s the best I can to answer Jay’s question is that I think it’s inappropriate, for the judiciary to be, dictated to by the legislative branch. But that’s what the people elected. That’s what the governor signed. That is the law. Unless there’s a successful challenge, these people will die in prison if they have a prior conviction barring any mitigating circumstances. That’s the way it apparently based on what I’m reading in black letter law, unless this is not quoted correctly, it seems like this is what’s gonna happen to people and has been happening to people.

[06:02] Andy: And just, like, it this this probably can’t really happen this way. But if a person got convicted the first time and only served a year, they probably can’t. But if they were 18 years old and they did the first one and 19 when they did the second one, they are presumably going to spend the next, I don’t know, sixty years in prison at $50,000 a year. Probably not in Oklahoma, but that’s a lot of money to put out for the state for that. Not saying that the person that was harmed

[06:29] Larry: I don’t know how you put a price tag on that. I’m just saying that is a mountain of money to pay out. Well, then it gets more expensive as they age because even with the substandard medical care, they do have increasing medical needs. That’s another fact. Very few people make it to 80 years old and stay healthy and never have any problems related to prostate, heart, to you name it. They deal with it in older age, hip replacements, you name it. So you’re running a convalescent center in a prison.

[06:57] Andy: That’s true. Alright. Well, then question number two from Matthew. And, Alton Antrim versus Jay Hoy contests lifetime GPS monitoring for recidivus. I do not have a means to review the briefs or previous decisions in this case. Now as far as I can tell and I’m quoting what the person wrote. As far as I can tell, no opinion has been given on this case yet, but oral arguments have been completed. The oral arguments indicated there have been decisions going both ways on this issue at state supreme courts and federal appellate courts. I don’t know if you have specifically covered this issue in the past, but this might be a good time to review it. And that takes us does the segue over to the article Yes. That you wanna talk about? Yes. This was a very timely question. How about that? So this article was just published in Courthouse News in December on the sixteenth. The headline is convicted PFR challenge Wisconsin’s lifetime GPS tracking at seventh circuit. Now I’ll read a class of convicted PFRs in Wisconsin say the state’s ankle monitor requirement for repeat offenders infringes on their fourth amendment

[08:06] Larry: rights. What is this, about? That’s a very old case. Under the law, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections requires all repeat BFRs at those who have been convicted two or more times. But I I challenged that writing because I believe it’s two or more offenses, even if it’s in the same case, it’s two or more counts. But anyway, the way this is written, two or more times to wear an ankle monitor for life, unless they move out of the state, or if after twenty years, without a new conviction of any kind, they can petition for removal. And this has been under challenge for about six years now, I think.

[08:40] Andy: And okay. So I remember this. A class of registrants challenged the law in 2019 and said the ankle monitor requirement infringes on their fourth amendment rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable government search and seizure and safeguards privacy rights.

[08:56] Larry: That it does do. But the fourth amendment, does not ask whether a search feels intuitively justified. Meaning, if you just put your finger up in the air and ask a group of people, they would say, sounds pretty good to me. But that’s not what the Fourth Amendment does. It asks whether in light of the evidence, the State has put forth a constitutionally sufficient justification for the search, and that’s according to the plaintiff’s attorney, none other than Adele Nicholas. Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin Joyce Schmelster agreed the law implicates the Fourth Amendment, but she said it survives constitutional scrutiny under both totality of circumstances, analysis, and under the special needs doctrine. And I think I said it wrong. It’s Jody.

[09:45] Andy: Yeah. And just just to, like, go off script for a moment. The Fourth Amendment protects your your from search and seizure without a court order, without some sort of judiciary oversight that said, here’s the evidence and here’s you can go do these things within this context. Back, I don’t know, what was it, like, fifteen years ago that the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t just drop a GPS monitor on someone’s car? You gotta do the legwork? Correct. Like, that’s your Fourth Amendment. That is correct. And there are rare rare exceptions for that. The, you know, PFRs and Fellows Under Supervision, they, they forfeit a lot of their Fourth Amendment Privacy while they’re under supervision,

[10:21] Larry: but they don’t lose all privacy. And this person is no longer under supervision. They’re just, a registry.

[10:28] Andy: Yeah. Just quote unquote on the registry. Mhmm. Alright. And then the story points out that this isn’t the first time this class action has come before the Seventh Circuit. A lawsuit was initially filed in 2019. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction with federal court denied, which a federal court denied. The seventh circuit affirmed the denial of the injunction in 2022 and sent the case back down to a US district court in Wisconsin, which ultimately ruled in favor of the Wisconsin statute.

[11:00] Larry: Yes. And, at at that time, US district judge Brett Ludwig wrote in his order that the plaintiff’s fourth amendment claim faces an uphill climb because it contradicts how the Seventh Circuit has ruled in similar cases in the past. He particularly pointed out Baloo versus Wall, which was a ’26 Teagan case, where the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin’s lifetime TPS monitoring requirement, calling it a reasonable search in the interest of prevention and not punishment.

[11:31] Andy: I remember So who’s handling this case then? The Oh, go go. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you. I remember,

[11:36] Larry: reading that at the time, and I’ve had arguments with attorneys in North Carolina and various states. A reasonable search is not reasonable doesn’t become reasonable just because you say it’s reasonable. So You’d have to prove it, kinda sort. Right? Someone has to make that. A judicial officer has to make that. Okay. Go ahead. So who’s handling the case then? Yeah. The, attorney’s name is Adela Nicholas, a very gifted and talented, very communicative attorney out of Chicago. And, she’s a civil rights attorney. She argued before the panel that the district court improperly treated the Ballou versus Wall case as dispositive rather than engaging in the fact sensitive inquiry that the Fourth Amendment, demands.

[12:22] Andy: And miss Nicholas stated, as a result, the district court failed to consider the breadth and heterogeneity of the population the statute applies to, the proof of substantial privacy and dignitary dignitary harms the statute imposes or lack of evidence that long term monitoring of this particular population meaningfully advances the state’s interests.

[12:43] Larry: Also, miss Nicholas said, quote, I’m not sure that’s a fair, character. Nope, she didn’t say that. Nope. Nope. Judge David said that I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of the district court’s thinking. And David Hamilton was appointed by that communist Obama. Then the Obama appointee asked Nicholas specifically about a 2013 Supreme Court case in The United States v. Kibito, which determined that the requirements of the PFR were constitutional. In the context of regime like registration, where an individual is being required to report information about their residence and other demographic information about themselves on a regular basis, categorical regimes have been upheld and the government is allowed to proceed by presumption, Nicholas said. But as we move along this continuum towards restrictions that are much more intense, gee, that sounds familiar, much more intrusive, much more long lasted, and affect constitutional protected interests so much more strongly, then the categorical justification can’t be involved. And that is consistently what the F Y P has said for years. You can do almost anything as long as you don’t try to punish people and restrict their liberty and movements. A registration scheme in of itself is not unconstitutional. But they can’t they can’t stop there.

[14:07] Andy: Who’s paying for the, GPS? Is it the PFR paying for it? Yes. So you are required to spend this $200 a month or whatever it is for

[14:17] Larry: whatever it is for eternity. You gotta pay this couple $100 a month for GPS monitoring for your old life. That’s the way I understand it. If we’re wrong, please correct us out of Illinois. But I think that’s the way it is.

[14:27] Andy: Oh, wait. And this is Illinois. I thought we were talking about Wisconsin. I mean, Wisconsin. I was like, isn’t this the it is Wisconsin. This this is the place that also charges you a $100 a month for your a $100 a year for your registration. Yes. Even when you move away, they send you a bill. US circuit judge Amy St. Eve, a Donald Trump appointee, pushed back on Nicholas’s argument and noted the seventh circuit previously rejected the argument that GPS monitoring is more onerous than registration. Nicholas responded that the court assumed in Belew that GPS monitoring is minimally invasive. But through discovery, she learned it is much more intrusive because all GPS data is treated as public record. We learned a lot on both sides of this equation. Reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful fact bound analysis of both those individual interests that are affected, but also the government’s interests, she said. And there was expert discovery in this case that showed this statute in the monitoring of this particular population that is subject to this statute is not really advancing the government’s interest as they put forth.

[15:30] Larry: What will happen next? So I I like the way that this case has been framed. I don’t have any faith that’s gonna win because the court’s been stacked stacked with radical, law and order people. But they’re doing what they need to be doing. You notice expert discovery? You know, what we don’t ever I’ve heard of that. Yeah. That seems kinda rare. So it’s something we don’t ever spend any money on. We actually money got spent this time apparently. And I I know why it got spent because Weird. NARSAL actually paid the expert cost. So Oh. So give kudos to NARSAL. They funded this with your donations. So what happens next? Well, we wait for a decision. US District Judge Diane Sykes, a George Bush appointee, joined Hamilton and Saint Eve on the panel, and they did not indicate when they might rule. It could be months. It could be weeks. It could even be over a year. So we don’t know.

[16:20] Andy: And, obviously,

[16:21] Larry: it would remind me where this is in the, like, the hierarchy. It’s This isn’t the state supreme court, is it? It’s in The US district, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one step between the district trial courts and the US Supreme Court.

[16:34] Andy: Okay. So if if the,

[16:37] Larry: if the state loses, if the, the the if if we win, they’re going to appeal and ask for cert, aren’t they? Well, they’re first asked for for on bike review. They’ll they’ll try to bypass the panel. And then if the panel, if the, the a full court review is not granted, then they’ll do a cert petition. Yes. But, I’m not confident we’re gonna win. The merits are good, but the personnel on the court suck. Are you gonna tell me that elections have consequences now? They do. And they have, and they will continue to have for a long, long time after some of us are dead because these people that have been appointed have been appointed at very young ages, and they’re gonna be around for decades.

[17:19] Andy: Somebody in chat says GPS monitoring is public record. I I hadn’t heard that easy either. So anyone can see anywhere you have been, gone, or going

[17:30] Larry: just because you’re a PFR with a GPS model? Well, apparently that was asserted in this case in Wisconsin. I was not aware of that either until I read this from this story. So we’ll have to have Adele on and we can get deeper into this in another episode, but I don’t know. I’m reading from what was reported in courthouse views.

[17:46] Andy: Yeah. I’m with you. I just yeah. I’m with Mike. I’d never heard that it was public record. I I I would have expected that you have the GPS monitoring app, whatever the hell, and that that data is just more or less given to your PO or the PO’s office, whatever. Like, they they have the private login to go see where you have been and notifications of geofencing and whatnot. That’s that’s what I would have expected it all it is. So, well, that would be funny if it’s a discoverable under a public records request, wouldn’t it? Alright. Well, that’s all where all the rest of our fourth amendment protections are going anyway. Alright. Well, then we have this win that came out. I just started seeing it on the listserv in the last handful of days, whatever, from the eighth circuit court of appeals, and this is a Halloween sign case from Missouri. That would be correct. Carl, this is for you, buddy. That would be correct. Tell me again what states are in the eighth circuit. Arkansas,

[18:42] Larry: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

[18:48] Andy: I think collectively, that’s like 250

[18:51] Larry: people in total that are in those states. Yeah. Tab. Collective. A tad bit more than that. There’s 250 people in South Dakota. Come on. There’s 2,000,000 in Nebraska, 2,000,000 or more in Arkansas, and, millions in Minnesota. There are a couple There’s more cows. There’s, Iowa’s populated. Now, Nebraska I mean, North Dakota and South Dakota are not very well populated. Well, those other states have people. No. Dakota, South Dakota are not very well populated. But those other states have people.

[19:13] Andy: No. Alright. Well, then this means that this is now the law of the land, correct, that we had this eighth circuit court. So this is done. Right? It means it at the moment. It’s indeed the law of the circuit unless it’s overturned.

[19:25] Larry: And, explain on that, please. Well, it it could be a nonblank review by the eighth circuit. So what you do you typically do is you file a motion for reconsideration with the panel or hearing en bloc. And ninety nine, 95% of those are denied because the full court can’t hear all the cases that would defeat the purpose of breaking off in a three judge panels. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. They feel from time to time they don’t like what a panel did if there’s if there’s a renegade panel. So the panel could be overturned by the full eighth circuit. But if if the, eighth circuit declines to review the panel, then there are not their other option is to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court. And if they grant cert, then the the Supreme Court would have the final say.

[20:18] Andy: So it’s a a little bit of a mini check and balance on the individual little panels?

[20:23] Larry: Yes. But like I said, it doesn’t work very often. We’ve covered a couple of cases recently where the full court undid, moved to undo a panel decision, but it doesn’t happen often.

[20:35] Andy: A little side story. I remember we had, an attorney from Louisiana on, and he used that term. And I was like, I don’t know what the heck en banc. It’s spelled e n b a n c. That’s two words. And I was like, I don’t what did you just say en banc? Like, I anyway, I was lost. So there you go. There’s a little history lesson for you. And we discussed this case before, and I I I looked it up in our new search tool, Larry, and it said that it was in episode two seventy nine. And can you set it up for those who may not remember?

[21:05] Larry: Sure. I thought it was in two seventy nine, but I don’t know how to use that tool as effectively as some people around here. It’s easy. Yep. It has to I usually search my transcripts. That’s easy, but it said 279. Anyway, it has to do with the law in Missouri that requires signs to be posted by registrants on Halloween. And a person named Thomas Sanderson challenged the Missouri the Missouri statute a provision that requires all registrars to post a sign at their residence on Halloween stating, quote, no candy or treats at this residence. The district court concluded that that this mandate violates the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement statewide.

[21:47] Andy: And, of course, the state appealed?

[21:50] Larry: Of course. And I’m gonna pontificate again. Remember, these are the people who promise you that they’re watching every dollar like a hawk. But they magically, they, they, the, the general, the, the state appeals everywhere while at the same time claiming that they’re understaffed and they can’t handle their crushing workload.

[22:12] Andy: And this is this the first, the absolute, the number one time that a Halloween challenge has been successful? No. It is not. The first challenge of this nonsense was undertaken years ago by NARSOL

[22:23] Larry: at my urging. NARSOL, you heard those? The National Association for Rational Sexual Defense Laws. I’ve heard of them. In fact, you sat in on the injunction hearing held at the United States District Court in Macon, Georgia. I did. And I was the lone voice in the wilderness at the time, not another organization on the Left Coast, but I was the one wanting to tackle this stuff. And, NARSAL budgeted the money to pay a an Atlanta based attorney to undertake the challenge in Georgia against two counties. We laid the foundation for this. So, you can pontificate all you want and you can give all the accolades you want to to the Left Coast, but, we set the stage for this.

[23:06] 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 FYP.

[23:54] Andy: Hey. Just another quick little detour. How much threat was I under for delivering the they weren’t subpoenas. They were cease and desist. What were those letters that I delivered?

[24:05] Larry: Well, those those, you were not under a lot of threat. But what we did is we didn’t wanna have to litigate because it’s a last resort. So we wrote letters to the sheriffs and the counties that we targeted, which were Butts and Spalding. Spalding. Yeah. And we had, I think a third county cropped up in Southern Georgia named Ben Hill County, but we, we, we targeted those two counties particularly. We gave them an opportunity to stop doing what they were doing. So, we delivered a letter to them explaining to them how the law was unconstitutional because, A, they didn’t, Missouri at least had it on the books. Georgia invented it out of their recti. There was nothing on the books. It’s just the, the sheriff’s association said do this or something like that. Yes. The Georgia sheriff’s association urged their sheriffs so they could go out and get big PR having news cameras following them around in their 159 counties in the state of Georgia. And they didn’t have any legal authority. Just because you have legal authority doesn’t mean you can do it constitutionally. But what I explain to people is when there’s no legal authority, that makes your cause even easier because we have, a, substance unconstitutional if there were statute, and, b, we have no statute. So

[25:22] Andy: Well, anyway, I drove around the state delivering these things to people while I was still under supervision. And I you know, people are like, I can’t do anything up under you can do stuff. I promise you could do stuff while you’re under supervision. You you not only did that, you went and took a order when you were needing a travel permit to a judge’s office to have it signed. I did. And that could have gotten you in trouble. And I almost got pounced on. If anybody’s seen the movie, Monsters Inc, when they come back and there’s the sock on Sully or whoever’s back and they just freaking jump on them, my god, they were running down the hallway. That was I was terrified. And I’ve been out of, like, I had just gotten out there. I was out for a month, six months by then. Anyhoo, to continue, on page two it states, since 2000, Thomas Sanderson and his family have consistently set up large elaborate Halloween displays involving decorations, sound effects, and fog machines. But when Sanderson was convicted of a PFR type crime in 2006 and ordered to serve a term of imprisonment, those displays ceased. While he was incarcerated, Missouri passed a law restricting registrants from participating in Halloween. After his release from custody, Sanderson asked the Saint Louis County Police Department and later the Hazelwood Police Department if he was required to abide by the Halloween statute given when it was enacted after the date of his conviction. Both assured him that he had been grandfathered in and thus could continue participating in Halloween festivities.

[26:47] Larry: Sounds reasonable. What does the law require? Well, I’m reading from the law as it was as it was presented in the case. Any person, not not listen, lawmakers, please listen to this. You can do all this stuff if you’ll narrowly tailor it. If you’ll stop saying any person and you’ve narrowed down this language, you can do this. But it says, any person required to register as a sexual offender under sections five eighty nine point four hundred to five eighty nine point four twenty five, which is the full, get, the full PFO Registration Act, shall be required on October 31 each year to one, avoid all Halloween related contact with children. It doesn’t even say which children. It doesn’t even talk about your own children. So problem number one Wait. On Halloween, I have to avoid my own child. But under the literal little reading, now remember, these are the people who believe in individual liberties, and they believe in they believe in a family raising a child. A kid needs a father and a mother. These people stand in front of the camera and say that, but they’ve just wrote a law that says you can’t have any contact with children. That’s number one. Remain inside his or her residence between the hours of 5PM and 10:30PM unless required to be elsewhere for just cause, including but not limited to employment or medical emergencies. Three, post assign his or her residence stating no candy or treats at this residence. And four, leave all outside lighting off during the evening hours after 5PM. So you have to unsecure your house, turn turn the lights off, you can’t spend any time with your children, and you have to post a sign. Oh, and these are the people who believe in individually, but keep going.

[28:45] Andy: But you have to kick your kid out because you can’t leave. And if you can’t be in contact with children and you have a child, you have to kick them out. That’s what I’m saying. I’m trying to illustrate to the people who refuse to understand

[29:00] Larry: what they vote for and what they get. And then they scratch their head and they go, How did this happen? It happened because of you. So the subsection that says, unless required to be elsewhere for just cause seems a bit vague. Like, what is just cause? That is indeed vague. And I’m surprised if I had been coordinating this challenge, I would have focused in on that as well, because that’s a section that needs to be stricken. And I might just be cantankerous enough to launch a lawsuit myself if I can find someone, because it is indeed vague. What constitutes just cause? Who determines if it’s just? What are I mean, it it gives to medical emergencies, which sets a pretty high bar. The next highest bar is employment. Those seem justified, but it says, but not limited to those. Okay. What else is it? What else would they be? Sure. But nobody has any My neighbor called me to fix their leaking faucet. Oh, no. That wouldn’t qualify.

[30:00] Andy: And do you have to get a judge involved, or is it just the probation officers or whoever the sheriff? Like, how do you

[30:07] Larry: how do you request this? What’s the process to say I have just cause to be elsewhere? I don’t know. But remember, these are the people who claim that the law should be written in a way that’s understandable and that understandable and that we should not intrude on personal liberties. I’m gonna harp on this until I get kicked off this program because people don’t hold the people they vote for accountable. If you really are serious, you all will be on the phone right now saying, look, you idiots. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating this totally ridiculously unconstitutional law, and you put your hand on the bible, and you took an oath. Why did you why are you still fighting this? Make sure you encourage the state not to keep fighting this. This is crazy.

[30:49] Andy: So since they had told him he was grandfathered in, then what caused the problem? That’s a good question.

[30:56] Larry: For the next fourteen years, Sanderson’s Halloween contain, displays continued. But in 2022, Hazelwood police received a call that a PFR was participating in Halloween, and Sanderson was consequently arrested and charged and convicted for violating the Halloween statute. Can you admit that’s funny?

[31:17] Andy: That’s not funny.

[31:18] Larry: Could he have done anything of, like, recording them saying he was grandfathered? Could he have gotten it in writing saying he was grandfathered? I doubt it. Here, at least, you when you go to see law enforcement, they take your phones away from you. You can’t take them and record those people with

[31:36] Andy: so Anyway, as usual, you’re not funny. Sanderson brought a facial challenge to the statute under the first amendment. He argued that subsection one pair, sub whatever. Subsection three, the sign mandate, unconstitutionally compelled the speech of all individuals required to register in that state. Just before Halloween twenty twenty four, the district court found Sanderson was likely to succeed on the merits and entered a preliminary injunction. Then after a bench trial, the district court found the signed mandate to be unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction preventing the state from enforcing it anywhere in Missouri.

[32:11] Larry: What is the standard of review in this kind of case? Well, that was an interesting question. And as I was pulling in the part of the case, there are two different standards in play on this case. The court reviews the legal conclusions de novo, meaning brand new with no deference. But the factual findings, there’s deference and the review is for clear error. The Court stated, under the clearly erroneous standard, we will overturn a factual finding only if it’s not supported by substantial evidence in the record, if it is based on erroneous views of the law, or if we’re left with the, definite and firm conviction that an error was made. So they have two standards in play here. You know, the the, De Novo on on the, one side and then the, the clear error. So so okay. Alright. Well, then do me a favor and facial challenge, what does that mean? Well, all through the years, I’ve generally pontificated that a facial challenge can almost succeed if there’s no set of circumstances where something can be done constitutionally. It appears to be a different in the eighth circuit. Because again, I’m reading from the what they said. They stated a facial challenge is successful only if a law’s unconstitutional applications are substantial compared to its constitutional ones. And I’ve always said that it’s only facial and constitutional if there’s no set of circumstances. They went on to say that the sign mandate has, in effect, one application. Those required to register, regardless of their underlying offense, must post a sign bearing the phrase No candy or treats at this residence. Because the statute does not apply differently to anyone within the category of those required to register, we need only to consider whether the sole application violates the First Amendment. That does make their job a little bit easier because it’s such a broad brush brush.

[34:00] Andy: And and then I need also an explanation on what the first amendment means in the context of this challenge.

[34:08] Larry: Well, the court answered that. According to the court, the first amendment’s protection include both the right to speak freely and the right to refrains refrain from speaking at all. And they based that on the 1977 US Supreme Court and Woolley versus Maynard. So that was way back, what, almost fifty years ago now.

[34:30] Andy: Almost. Yep. Two years shy of it or one year shy of it even. The court stated, in other words, compelling an individual to personally speak the government’s message or host or accommodate another speaker’s message contravenes the first amendment.

[34:44] Larry: And therein lies the problem. The government of Missouri is com is compelling registrants to speak. Now remember, these are the free urban blocks of people.

[34:54] Andy: The court pointed out that the sign mandate is not merely incidental to conduct. It explicitly requires registrants to post a sign bearing a specific message. The other three provisions of the Halloween statute regulate a registrant’s conduct.

[35:09] Larry: I think I, blundered there. That continues with you. Alright. Well then, so well,

[35:15] Andy: and so the court stated we agree with the district court that the sign mandate compels speech and thus is unconstitutional unless it can survive strict scrutiny. What is strict scrutiny?

[35:30] Larry: Well, it’s the most rigid form of scrutiny for the least amount of deference that a court can apply. And the and the side mandate will only survive strict, strict scrutiny if it furthers compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. So, you can always get past the first test of nobody is going to argue that protecting the community from offenders is not a government interest. But you have to narrowly tailor. Listen, folks, in Missouri and across the country, you can do almost anything if you narrowly tailor it.

[36:10] Andy: So which, what what did the trial court determine on these two questions?

[36:15] Larry: Well, the district court found that defendants, the state, have established a compelling interest in restricting certain conduct of PFR offenders on Halloween that satisfies the strict scrutiny standard. Neither party challenged that determination, so it is not an issue on appeal. The court moved on to the question of whether the statutory revision is narrowly tailored. In other words, is the side mandate the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s compelling interest that no one contested?

[36:50] Andy: Alright. Well, then, so something tells me that this law was not narrowly tailored? That is correct. They just can’t help themselves.

[37:00] Larry: They have to, placate the law enforcement apparatus, the victim’s apparatus, the news, apparatus, and they have to paint with a broad brush. And you’re gonna keep losing until you learn that lesson. I think you’ve got a clip for for that.

[37:17] Andy: I need to go track it down. I have been slacking. I need to go find that one. But it basically says until you get that through your thick effing skull, you’re gonna keep losing. Yes. So at trial, the state’s witness offered several justifications for the sign mandate. Law enforcement officers testified that the signs were beneficial for enforcement purposes because the signs allow them to be able to ensure that there is compliancy. Compliancy? That’s a weird word. Really? Wouldn’t it just be compliance? Anyway, that’s their writing. Make enforcement of the Halloween statute more efficient, that’s really vague, and provide an extra layer of protection for children. Did they prove those assertions?

[37:59] Larry: Hard hardly, they did not. The evidence presented, however, failed to show that the sign made it achieve these goals. The statute does not set any requirements for the size or the location of the mandated signs. According to what law enforcement Oh, cool. You could make one that’s like the size of a potion stamp. According to what law enforcement were offered, that’s exactly a registrar could put a little bitty post it note on the door. It’s still being applied so long as the note had the correct verbiage. Another law enforcement witness confirmed that the sign, that a compliance sign could be as small as a postage stamp. Now admit that’s funny.

[38:34] Andy: That’s pretty damn funny. So I I I’ll ask a question later. I noticed on page eight, it says officers further testified that under the statute, a registrant would not be in compliance even if the sign was on the back of the door inside the house. That’s awesome. Yes. My sign is right here where no one can see it. Even if a sign could result in greater efficiency for law enforcement and heightened protection for children, a sign that is not invisible to law enforcement or trick or treating children fails to serve either purpose. Well, it sounds like you’ve admitted that’s funny. That’s if you could put it on the back of your door, that is pretty damn funny. Maybe you could put it on a interior door even further. If it just says hang it on your door, doesn’t say it has to be on the exterior front facing door of your domicile or some dumb stuff like that. Right?

[39:23] Larry: That’s correct.

[39:25] Andy: Now I’ve heard you pontificate for years that states could do almost anything

[39:29] Larry: as if they narrowly tailored the restrictions. Could they go back to the drawing board and fix this? Yes. They could. The court practically invited them to do that. They stated, we agree with the state that narrow tail narrow Tailoring does not require perfect tailoring. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the State’s insertion to the signed mandate is the least restrictive means of achieving the goal. Hint hint that tells you to go do a little tailoring and come back to see us. The record does not support the claim that despite the remaining provisions of the Halloween statute, the signed mandate is necessary to further the government’s compelling interest in protecting children on Halloween. And I’ll let you read the conclusion. But, yes, I take this as an invitation that they can clean this up and they can they can have an effect. And I think they could. If they would contact with me, I will write them a very constitutional law, but it’ll only apply to probably 25 people in the whole state.

[40:23] Andy: Now the court stated, quote, accordingly, the sign mandate burdens more speech than necessary and fails strict scrutiny. They cited McClendon versus Long, and that’s a sheriff Gary Long there on that long one. 22 federal four thirteen thirty, concluding that when a local sheriff’s office made signs, carrying messages, no trick or treat at this address and placed them in the registrants yards. So they literally went around to the I don’t remember how many people it was, like, a 100 people or something. And they went out there and they went bunk, bunk, bunk, and then jabbed the sign in the easement

[41:00] Larry: in front of the people’s houses. Yes. And that that was the sheriff that said, I’m gonna take this all the way to supreme court.

[41:07] Andy: That’s what he said. All and everyone’s like, thanks for keeping us safe, sheriff long on Facebook. That’s what they were saying. And as I said earlier, that was Narcel’s case decided,

[41:16] Larry: years ago.

[41:18] Andy: Yeah. I was more than four, Larry. So what happens next?

[41:22] Larry: Well, as I mentioned in the previous segment, the petition for reconsideration and or on blank review. And if that fails, the state can file a petition for cert with the United States Supreme Court. And if the court grants cert? Well, if they were to grant cert, then we will have a decision that is binding nationally on this issue regardless of which way they might rule.

[41:47] Andy: Now so if we, like, let’s just say, like, we stop the clock and this stays where it is. We have two circuits. We have the eleventh down there in Georgia, and we have this one, eighth in Missouri, saying that you can’t do it.

[41:58] Larry: Doesn’t that kinda tell all of the other ones that they shouldn’t do this? It is very powerful. If if I’m in the business, if I’m in the left coast business of doing this, I’m gonna be churning out these cases as fast as I can find these because now I’ve got two decisions from the circuits. I’m gonna try to make a little bit of money and also try to get this crazy nonsensical restriction lifted. And it’s one additional chip of the, in the armor of this registration scheme. Does it end registration? No. But it built This is one of those systems. Just a bullshit inconvenience. It builds momentum. This is dumb. That that we can we can win cases. And everybody thought that we couldn’t win cases. We can win cases. We can win cases in conservative courts. We just have to litigate slightly differently. But, well, the, the Michigan case was decided by a conservative panel in the sixth circuit. You can win cases. I’m just not optimistic of what, what happened to the Supreme court, but if they file cert and it’s granted, we’re gonna be stuck with whatever they decide.

[43:02] Andy: Yeah.

[43:03] Larry: Should they is like, I mean, should we, should we try to push this there? Is it is it in our interest to do it at all? Well, we we don’t have to read it recently. We won. So it’ll be No. I’m I’m with you, but it’ll be the state push. Getting it there. Do we do we get any representation there at that, or is it just them granting certain hearing? Okay. We get to speak or whatever? But but if I’m if I’m, Adele Nicholas, I’m gonna tell them when the state files a cert petition, I’m gonna respond there’s no need for cert. I don’t wanna have to take a chance on the Supreme Court. That’s exactly what they did in Michigan, and that’s exactly what they will do in this case. We’re gonna argue that there’s nothing to see here because you’re running a big risk that they might undo this. And then all of a sudden, two circuits that have proved favorably have been overturned.

[43:45] Andy: I hear you. I gotcha. I understand. Somebody’s complaining, like, haven’t you covered this before? It’s like, yes. But this is the actual decision, not just the case. So Yes. This is Joey. This is the Pipe down. This is the actual decision that counts if

[44:00] Larry: it stands. The trial court was a decision. Yes. But this is the decision that matters because the state is running out of options at this point. They can do a couple of things, but the the funnel is getting narrow and narrow. When you start litigation when you think of a funnel, you’ve got a big wide mouth at the top. You have a lot of options. They’re running out of options.

[44:21] Andy: I gotcha.

[44:22] Larry: Well, alrighty then. Anything that you wanna say before we go? Well, I’m on a snark mood tonight. Those of you who leave messages to have, someone call you with a phone number, Let me give you a little hint. Answer your damn phone when I call you. It’s true. I do not send text messages in advance to make appointments. And I do not leave voice messages because I don’t know who’s gonna be listening to the messages. I don’t know what inconvenience it might cause for you. So if you leave a phone number and you get a a ringing phone, pick it up. If it’s not somebody you wanna talk to, hit the end button. But I’ve there there was a guy left a message weeks ago about, a registration question related to Georgia. And I’ve called him, I think, three times, and I get this goofy voice message. It doesn’t really say anything. Then there’s a little bit of chatter in the background. It sounds like a like an elephant falling off a cliff, and then it’s like and I’m I’m embellishing that. But there’s nothing there that makes you wanna leave a message. So but I don’t I have to I have to call you when I have time. I have a busy day, and I don’t make appointments. I call when an opportunity presents itself. And if you wanna talk to me, pick up your damn phone.

[45:36] Andy: I gotcha. Paul? Larry has spoken. If anybody’s watching, the the, Mandalorian,

[45:43] Larry: Larry has spoken. Well, I I typically Head over to I typically try to call everybody that will request a phone call, but it’s so frustrating because you can’t get anybody anymore. I understand. Well, that’s because we get all the bullshit calls of all the scammers. I get it just as many to answer their phone. I get just as many as you do, and I handle them quite effectively.

[46:00] Andy: I handle them quite effectively too and I don’t answer my phone. So Well, head over to registrymatters.co. Email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Old fashioned voice mail, (747) 227-4477. And thank you to the dozen or so people that were in chat tonight listening live. That is, given to you as a privilege at patreon.com/registrymatters. Also head over to fypeducation.org/shop, and you can find all of our fantabulous merch. And I don’t have anything else. I wish everybody a happy New Year to you too, Larry, and I hope you calm down and step off that soapbox and take some blood pressure medicine, calm down or something.

[46:43] Larry: Well, there are many listeners here next episode. Now we will be having to take off the following week, not this next week, but the following week because of strategic planning. We can function that I have to do once a year. So the the week week after next, we won’t be recording unless we do it at a different time, and I don’t think I’m gonna be up to it. So Sure. That’ll be the seventeenth. So cool. Alright. Alright. Perfect.

[47:04] Andy: Well, take care, my friend, and take care, everybody. And we will see you soon. See you next week. Bye bye night.

[47:10] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Travel is supposed to be simple: buy a ticket, pack a bag, board a plane, make memories. But if you’re on the sex offense registry (PFR – Person Forced to Register), the reality can be brutally different. You can do the “homework,” save for the dream trip, walk off a long flight into a foreign airport…and be turned around at the border, missing Christmas with your child on the way back home.

This article unpacks why that happens, even to people whose cases are old, whose lives look completely ordinary, and who have traveled before without trouble. We’ll walk through how US rules interact with foreign immigration policies, what the passport identifier really does, why online “travel lists” are so unreliable, and how to think realistically about risk, money, and emotions when planning international travel as a PFR.

You won’t get guarantees here—because there aren’t any. What you will get is a framework: how the systems work, what you can control, what you can’t, and how to turn a blind gamble into an informed—if still uncomfortable—risk.

How a “Normal Life” Collides with Border Reality

Many PFRs start with a simple belief:

“My case is old, I’ve got a stable life, I’ve traveled before, my level is low. I should be fine.”

Then they get denied entry.

From the traveler’s perspective, the story is, “I’m a dad, I have a job, my offense was a decade ago, my family needs this vacation.” From the border officer’s perspective, it looks very different:

• You’re a flagged traveler in a system.
• You are identified first as a PFR, not as a parent or professional.
• Decisions are driven by rules, codes, and databases, not your personal growth.

Time passed, rehabilitation, and stable circumstances matter to humans. But modern border control is increasingly computer-driven. When your passport is scanned, an alert may already be waiting. The officer often isn’t weighing your life story; they’re executing what the system tells them.

Three Main Systems That Can Block You

When a PFR is denied entry, it’s rarely one thing that went wrong. It’s typically the collision of at least three layers:

1. US-side notification rules
2. Destination country immigration laws and policies
3. On-the-ground officer discretion and local practices

Let’s break these down.

1. US Notification: International Megan’s Law and the 21-Day Rule

Under International Megan’s Law (IML), PFRs in the US generally must:

• Give advance notice (usually at least 21 days) of international travel
• Provide that notice to their registering agency
• Disclose where they’re going and where they’ll be staying

Key nuances:

• This requirement is federal, but implementation is state-specific.
• Who you tell
• What form you fill out
• How they handle last‑minute travel
• Some states or local agencies will not accept certain notice forms. In those places, you literally may not be able to comply in the intended way.
• Failing to provide required notice doesn’t legally prevent you from leaving the US—but it can:
• Create federal criminal exposure
• Trigger arrest and prosecution for failure to give notice
• Make your government’s information about you incomplete or inaccurate, which can complicate things later

Important distinction: the US, in practice, does not physically stop you from leaving just because you’re a PFR. There is no rule saying, “you can’t board a plane.” The risk arises in what happens after you leave—when foreign officials act on the information sent by the US.

2. Foreign Immigration Rules: Sovereign, Changing, and Often Opaque

Once you land, you are under another country’s sovereign control. Their rules might:

• Explicitly ban certain categories (e.g., all felonies, certain sexual offenses)
• Silently exclude through unwritten but consistent practice
• Change suddenly due to political pressure, media stories, or diplomatic retaliation

Examples from the conversation:

• Some countries have outright bans for broad categories like all felonies.
• Others are inconsistent: one officer admits you, another officer (same airport, same facts) refuses you.
• Policy shifts can be retaliatory: when the US becomes more hostile to foreigners, some countries respond by tightening their own rules against US travelers, including PFRs.

Even if you’ve visited a country before, past success ≠ future permission. A quiet policy memo, a new directive, or a single news story can flip a country from permissive to hostile with no public announcement.

3. Officer Discretion and Local Practice

Finally, there’s what happens at the counter:

• Officers might have little or no discretion once a “do not admit” code pops up.
• Or they may technically have discretion but no training or conflicting instructions.
• Border decisions are often opaque—you don’t see the full rule set they’re using.

Result: you cannot assume that your personal narrative—years offense‑free, family travel, stable job—will get any real consideration. Often,

• The decision is functionally made before you arrive.
• Once the system flags you, the officer is just executing a pre‑decided outcome.

Why “Level” and “Old Case” Usually Don’t Matter Abroad

In the US, people often cling to their risk level (Level 1, Level 2, etc.) as a sign of safety:

“I’m low level, non‑violent, it’s been more than ten years. That must count for something.”

For foreign immigration systems, it typically doesn’t.

• Risk levels are mostly an American, state‑level idea.
• When US authorities send a notification abroad, the message is usually simple:
  

  “This person is on the registry and traveling to your country.”

• It generally does not say, “low risk, Level 1, minimal concern.”

From the destination’s perspective, you are:

• “Registered PFR” – full stop
• Not “good guy, old case, low risk, devoted parent”

So the foreign official often receives the worst, most stripped‑down version of your story: you’re registered, you’re coming, that’s it.

The Passport Identifier: What It Is and What It Does

For PFRs whose offense involved a minor, federal law requires a unique identifier in the passport.

What it looks like:

• Not a giant red stamp on the cover
• A printed statement inside, roughly:
  

  “The bearer was convicted of an offense against a minor and is a covered person under [statute].”

Key points:

• These markings are applied to currently registered individuals.
• If you are off the registry, the government typically does not go back and try to mark your passport.
• If your case did not involve a minor, you usually don’t get this notation—though you may still be a PFR, still subject to notification rules.

Does the mark guarantee denial?

• No—but it can trigger it.
• Some nations see the statement and simply say, “Nope.”
• Others lean more on US notifications or their own database checks than the passport text.

The identifier never helps you. At best, it’s neutral; at worst, it’s the immediate reason the officer closes the gate.

The Trap of Online “Travel Matrices” and Old Success Stories

There’s intense interest in “travel matrices” or crowdsourced lists:

“Green countries: safe. Red countries: bad. Yellow countries: maybe.”

They can be useful starting points, but they’re not trustworthy forecasts.

Reasons:

1. Policies change silently and often.
2. Retaliation and politics can shift attitudes toward US travelers in general and PFRs in particular.
3. Experiences are lagging indicators – they describe what happened then, not what will happen now.
4. Individual facts differ – the commenter may have:
5. No passport identifier
6. An offense not involving a minor
7. A different registry status
8. Flown through a different port of entry

So when someone online says, “I went to Country X no problem; you’re fine,” they may have left out the key differences between their profile and yours—or they may simply have gotten lucky with the right officer on the right day.

Schengen/Shenzhen: “Safer,” But Not Safe

The Schengen area (often mispronounced “Shenzhen”) is a group of European countries with shared border rules. Many PFRs report better outcomes entering one Schengen country and then moving within the zone.

But:

• Some Schengen countries are stricter than others.
• Rules for all travelers are evolving: new entry systems, more data sharing.
• What felt “safer” a few years ago may feel much less predictable now.

“Schengen is safer” really means:

“Some PFRs have had fewer problems there—so far.”

It is absolutely not a guarantee.

What You Can Actually Control: A Planning Checklist

You can’t eliminate risk, but you can move from blind gamble to informed gamble.

If you’re a PFR considering international travel, here’s a general checklist to walk through:

1. Clarify Your Registry Status

• Are you still required to register?
• If yes, assume you’re in the US notification pipeline and will be flagged.
• If no (fully off the registry under state law), your risk is significantly lower, though not zero.

2. Understand Whether Your Offense Involved a Minor

• If yes:
• Expect the passport identifier requirement.
• Expect that some countries will treat that as an automatic disqualifier.
• If no:
• You may still be in notification systems.
• Your passport likely won’t carry the special statement, but you are not “invisible.”

3. Comply With the 21-Day Notice (Where Possible)

• Learn exactly how your state implements International Megan’s Law:
• Which agency must receive the notice
• What forms to use
• How they handle last‑minute travel
• If your state won’t accept the required information, you’re stuck in a legal gray zone, but you cannot just invent your own process and assume it’s valid.
• If you skip notice out of defiance (“You can’t tell me what to do”), you are:
• Creating serious criminal risk
• Potentially compounding travel problems later

4. Research the Destination—Realistically

Don’t just read one success story from four years ago and declare victory. Instead:

• Look for recent reports from travelers, especially PFRs.
• Pay attention to patterns, not single anecdotes.
• Distinguish between:
• Countries with clear bans (e.g., broad felony exclusions)
• Countries with mixed experiences (some admitted, some refused)
• Countries where data is sparse or outdated

Your goal: reduce surprises, not manufacture certainty.

5. Build in the Cost of Failure

This is the part most people resist, but it’s crucial.

Ask yourself:

• If I get denied at the border, what happens to:
• My job?
• My family and their expectations?
• My finances?
• Can I afford:
• Last‑minute ticket changes or a new one‑way flight home at today’s fare?
• Extra nights stuck in limbo at or near an airport if flights are full?

And emotionally:

• Am I prepared for the possibility of missing the event—Christmas, a wedding, a milestone birthday—and still being okay in the long run?

“Build in the cost of failure” means treating denial as a real outcome, not a remote impossibility.

After a Denial: What Now?

Being turned around at a foreign airport is devastating. You’re tired, humiliated, and possibly heading home alone while your family continues without you—or gives up the trip entirely.

If this happens:

1. Stay safe and grounded.

2. Missing a holiday or milestone is painful, but it’s not the end of your relationship.

3. Document everything.

4. Times, locations, what you were told, any paperwork given.

5. This can help later if you consult a professional or try again.

6. Review your own process without self‑attack.

7. Did you provide notice as required?
8. Did you research the country’s policies using current information?

9. Were there obvious red flags you overlooked?

10. Adjust expectations for the future.

11. Maybe you change destinations to more permissive locations.
12. Maybe you decide certain trips simply aren’t worth the level of risk.

Travel insurance, by the way, is unlikely to help if you’re denied entry purely because of your status; that’s typically not a covered event—but policies vary, and you’d need to verify specifics yourself.

Why Even Lawyers Can’t Give Guarantees

People often say, “My lawyer said it’s fine.” Usually, what this actually means is:

“My lawyer said there’s no US law stopping me from boarding a plane.”

That’s true. But:

• US lawyers can explain US obligations with some confidence.
• They generally cannot guarantee what a foreign immigration officer will do.
• Decisions in Peru, Sweden, Mexico, or anywhere else are:
• Discretionary
• Opaque
• Often subject to internal rules and data you’ll never see

Even lawyers inside those countries may be unable to predict with certainty what will happen on a given day with a given officer.

Actionable Takeaways for PFRs Considering Travel

To bring this together, here are a few practical next steps:

1. Know where you stand.
   Confirm your current registry requirements, whether your offense involved a minor, and whether your passport is or will be marked.

2. Respect the 21-day rule.
   Learn exactly how your state expects notice to be given and follow those procedures as closely as possible.

3. Research wisely and recently.
   Use travel matrices and online reports as input, not gospel. Prioritize patterns, date‑stamps, and official sources where available.

4. Plan for denial as a real scenario.
   Financially and emotionally, assume that “no” at the border is possible and build it into your planning.

5. Hold your expectations loosely.
   Take your responsibilities seriously—notice, research, documentation—but understand that even perfect preparation cannot guarantee a “yes.”

Conclusion: From Blind Hope to Informed Risk

International travel as a PFR exists in a strange space: it’s legally possible to leave the US, yet practically uncertain whether you’ll be allowed to enter where you’re going. Systems, not stories, drive outcomes. Computer flags, notification networks, policy shifts, and officer discretion all sit between you and that long‑imagined family trip.

You cannot logic your way into certainty, and no lawyer, list, or podcast can hand you a magic green light. But you can transform the experience from a blind leap into an informed gamble: know your obligations, understand the machinery on both sides of the border, prepare for both success and failure, and protect your finances and emotional well‑being along the way.

You deserve honest information, not false comfort. With that, you’re in the best possible position to decide whether any given trip is worth the risk.

For many people in the criminal justice system, prison is not the end of the sentence—it’s just the beginning. Supervised probation can stretch on for years or even decades, quietly controlling a person’s life long after they’ve left a cell behind. In this story, told through correspondence and commentary on the Registry Matters podcast, we meet Eugene, an 82‑year‑old man in Virginia who has spent years trying to be released from supervised probation.

His case raises hard questions: How binding is a plea agreement? Why is early termination of probation so difficult, even for model supervisees? What happens when poor legal advice, mental health issues, and a complex system collide? And why do reforms that shorten probation often exclude the very people already suffering under long sentences?

In this article, we’ll walk through Eugene’s situation, unpack the legal and political forces at play, and explore what his case reveals about plea bargains, probation policy, and the difficulty of getting out from under state supervision.

An 82-Year-Old Still on the Hook

Eugene’s history, as described in the discussion, is both detailed and striking:

• He was sentenced to 10 years of incarceration and 20 years of supervised probation.
• He’s now 82 years old.
• He earned maximum good time in prison with no infractions.
• He’s completed 10 years and 4 months of supervised probation, again without any infractions.
• He completed mandated treatment while incarcerated and after release, plus voluntary treatment.
• He underwent three risk assessments, all positive.
• Multiple probation officers have recommended his early discharge, and at least one wrote letters to the court supporting his release.

On paper, he looks like the textbook candidate for early termination.

Yet when his petition for release from supervised probation came before a judge, it was denied. The judge was a former prosecutor. The district attorney appeared to oppose his release. And the court even instructed his probation officer not to send additional letters on his behalf.

Eugene’s story is not unusual. It shows how inertia, prosecutorial culture, and risk-averse judicial attitudes can overpower logic, data, and rehabilitation.

The Power and Trap of Plea Agreements

A central issue in Eugene’s case is his plea agreement.

He explains that he accepted a plea deal in 2006 without fully understanding:

• The restrictions of probation (he thought it only meant “don’t commit another serious crime”).
• The detailed charges and even who all the victims were.
• The full content of the indictment, which he says he didn’t see until two years into incarceration.

He now feels that, had he known how burdensome probation would be, he would not have taken the plea. He also argues that if “good time” is a reward for early release from prison, it should logically lead to earlier release from supervised probation as well.

The commentary acknowledges a harsh reality:

• A plea agreement is a binding contract.
• When defendants plead guilty, the law assumes that many possible past errors (like an illegal search or procedural problems) have been “corrected” through the negotiation.
• By pleading, defendants often lose the ability to later challenge many aspects of the case that might have been contested at trial.

The host points out that while Eugene’s logic about good time is understandable—if you can earn early release from prison, why not from probation?—the law does not usually work that way. Good time credits are typically authorized and limited by statute, and they apply to incarceration, not community supervision, unless the law explicitly says otherwise.

In other words, the system treats his plea agreement as a contract that locks in his exposure to 20 years of probation, regardless of his later performance, unless a judge chooses to exercise discretion to reduce it. In Eugene’s case, the judge simply refused.

What If He Had Gone to Trial?

Eugene speculates that, had he gone to trial, there would be no signed contract, and thus—by the judge’s reasoning—perhaps he would not have been required to serve the entire sentence.

The response to this is sobering:

• If he had gone to trial and been convicted on all charges, including those added later, he might not be out of prison at all.
• Some of the additional charges, which he claims were false and driven by an “angry mother” and new testimony, carried heavy exposure.
• A trial loss could easily have meant spending the rest of his life in prison.

So while he now feels trapped by the plea, he did likely receive a tangible benefit at the time: reduced sentencing exposure and earlier release from prison. That benefit does not, by itself, give him leverage to escape the long tail of probation written into that agreement.

This is the quiet trap of plea bargains: they can save you from the worst immediate outcome while binding you to decades of control you don’t fully grasp when you sign.

Preliminary Hearings, Waivers, and “Never Lost a Case” Lawyers

Eugene also raises procedural complaints:

• Seven new charges were added later, which he says were false.
• The prosecutor allegedly “denied” a new preliminary hearing.
• His original lawyer took a flat fee of $25,000, pressured him to accept the plea, and did not provide him copies of the indictments.

The podcast commentary clarifies an important point: prosecutors can’t unilaterally deny a preliminary hearing. Typically, a preliminary hearing is a right, but defense attorneys often waive it.

Why would they do that?

• Sometimes, because they’re negotiating a favorable deal and don’t want to antagonize the state.
• Sometimes, because they don’t want to put in the work to litigate a mini‑trial.

The host is blunt: in many cases, once a lawyer has collected a large fee, they may have little incentive to fight every stage aggressively, especially if pressure to “resolve” the case is high.

The phrase “never lost a case” also comes under heavy scrutiny. It can be technically true if:

• A lawyer never actually tries cases in front of a jury.
• They resolve everything via pleas.

The advice: if an attorney boasts they’ve never lost a case, follow up with concrete questions:

1. How many cases have you actually tried in the last few years?
2. How many were serious felonies, especially those similar to mine?

Without that detail, “never lost” may mean “never fought.”

When Probation Reform Isn’t Retroactive

One of the most painful aspects of Eugene’s situation is that the Virginia General Assembly later passed a law that limits supervised probation to five years, unless the person needs further treatment.

This sounds like exactly the reform that could help him—except for one catch:

The law was not made retroactive.

Eugene asks whether it would help to:

• Seek clemency from the new Virginia governor.
• Ask the General Assembly to extend the caps on probation and make them retroactive.

Clemency: The Politics of Mercy

The hosts are skeptical about clemency, but not entirely dismissive.

They note that:

• Governors who are young or have political ambitions (Congress, Senate, presidency) are often extremely cautious about clemency.
• Past governors have been attacked politically for pardons or commutations that later became campaign issues.
• A governor with no further ambitions, or one at the end of a career, might be more willing to grant relief.

Overall, though, clemency is framed as a long shot, especially in cases involving serious offenses and someone labeled a PFR (Person Forced to Register).

Retroactive Legislation: A Heavy Lift

As for getting the legislature to make the five-year cap retroactive, that’s described as technically possible but very difficult:

• Retroactivity would likely trigger a wave of people becoming eligible for early discharge.
• That, in turn, could reduce probation caseloads, prompting legislators to question budgets and staffing.
• Agencies do not like to shrink. Fewer clients mean fewer jobs, less funding, and smaller bureaucratic “fiefdoms.”

So while it’s a worthwhile goal in principle, achieving it would require:

• Significant organizing and advocacy.
• Multiple years of effort.
• Overcoming institutional and political resistance.

It might still be worth trying—especially for organizations and advocates working for broad reform—but it’s not a quick fix for an individual like Eugene.

Why Judges Resist Ending Supervision Early

One stark reality that emerges from this conversation: many judges are simply reluctant to end supervision early, even for ideal candidates.

In Eugene’s case:

• His probation officer testified that he had done everything right and recommended discharge.
• Multiple letters were sent on his behalf.
• The judge waited, considered, and then denied relief.

A few forces drive this resistance:

1. Risk Aversion: If a judge terminates probation and anything goes wrong, they take political and public blame. If they deny relief, nothing bad attaches to them.
2. Prosecutorial Background: Judges who previously served as prosecutors often maintain a “tough-on-crime” lens, especially on sex-related cases.
3. Cultural Bias: People labeled as PFRs are treated as uniquely risky, despite positive risk assessments and long periods of compliance.

The net result is a system where doing everything right doesn’t guarantee freedom from supervision. For many, it only guarantees that you won’t be violated—but not that you’ll ever get off paper early.

Lessons for Anyone Facing Charges or Long Probation

Eugene’s story is painful, but it contains critical lessons:

• Understand your plea. A plea deal is not just about “how much prison time.” It’s about total sentence, including probation, registration, and collateral consequences.
• Ask hard questions of your lawyer. Especially when they boast about “never losing.” Demand specifics, trial experience, and strategy.
• Do not waive rights casually. Preliminary hearings and other early procedures can be invaluable opportunities to test the state’s case.
• Know that pleas close doors. Once you sign, courts and appellate systems will often treat many earlier problems as resolved.
• Reform wins may not help you. Laws that limit probation or reduce sentences frequently apply only prospectively, not retroactively.

None of this undoes the harm for someone already trapped, but it can help others avoid repeating the same pattern.

Conclusion: A System That Doesn’t Like Letting Go

Eugene did what the system asked: he served his prison time, earned good time, followed every rule, completed treatment, and accumulated years of perfect supervision. His own probation officers support his release. Yet he remains on supervised probation deep into his 80s.

His experience exposes a core truth about American community supervision and plea bargaining:

• Plea agreements lock people into long tails of control they rarely understand.
• Probation can function as an extended, often indefinite punishment with very high bars for relief.
• Reforms are frequently forward-looking only, leaving those currently suffering under older rules behind.
• Political fear and institutional self-interest make early termination and clemency the exception, not the norm.

For individuals and advocates, stories like Eugene’s are both warning and motivation. They urge better decision-making at the front end—before signing a plea—and stronger, more organized advocacy to push for truly retroactive and meaningful reform.

Actionable Takeaways

1. If you or someone you know faces charges, treat the plea decision as life-defining, not a formality. Demand full explanation of every consequence.
2. When hiring a lawyer, interrogate their experience, especially with trials and with your specific type of case, rather than accepting marketing phrases.
3. Support advocacy for retroactive probation reform, especially for long, decades-long supervision terms, so that people like Eugene are not left behind when laws finally change.

When someone finally completes their time on the sex offense registry (PFR registry), it can feel like a second chance at life. After years or even decades of reporting, restrictions, stigma, and anxiety, they are told, “You’re done. You no longer have to register.” Naturally, many people start to dream bigger: moving closer to family, taking a better job in another state, or simply getting a fresh start somewhere new.

Then comes the hard truth: another state can still require you to register again—sometimes for life—based on that same old conviction.

This article unpacks why that happens, how it works, and what people impacted by the registry need to understand before moving. We’ll explore the legal concept behind it, how enforcement actually plays out in real life, and what precautions might reduce risk. While this isn’t legal advice, it will help you see the landscape more clearly, ask better questions, and make more informed choices.

The Scenario: Off the Registry in One State, But Moving to Another

Imagine this situation, drawn from the discussion in the transcript:

• A person has a conviction for a CP-type offense.
• They’ve completed a 15-year registration requirement in their home state.
• They are not on probation or parole.
• They are no longer required to register and are no longer legally considered a registrant there.
• They want to permanently move to another state.

Now the key twist:

• In their original state, that conviction meant 15 years on the registry.
• In the new state, the same conviction triggers a lifetime registration requirement.

The question: Can the new state make them register there for life, even though they’re done in the old state?

The answer discussed in the episode is blunt: Yes.

Why the New State Can Still Make You Register

The main reason comes down to how courts and lawmakers label the registry: as a civil regulatory scheme, not a punishment.

Because the registry is legally defined as civil (regulation) rather than criminal (punishment):

• A new state is generally free to apply its own registration laws to anyone who lives, works, or studies there.
• It does not matter that your original state said 15 years was enough.
• It does not matter that you have no current supervision status.
• It does not even matter that you were formally removed from the registry somewhere else.

From the new state’s perspective, they’re not “re-punishing” you. They’re applying a public-safety regulation that, in their view, applies to anyone with a certain kind of past conviction who enters their jurisdiction.

Courts have repeatedly upheld this logic, often saying that registration is like licensing or zoning rules: sometimes inconvenient, sometimes harsh, but not, in the legal sense, “punishment.” Whether you agree with that characterization or not, it’s the framework that allows states to say, in essence: “Our rules apply here.”

How It Plays Out in Real Life: From ‘No Problem’ to ‘Surprise, You Must Register’

The transcript makes an important point: just because the law allows a state to make you register, doesn’t mean they immediately will in every case.

There are two sides to this:

1. It Might Never Come Up

If you move, keep a low profile, and don’t interact much with the system, you might:

• Live 20, 30, 40, even 50 years without anyone flagging you.
• Never be pulled into the registration system again.

From a practical standpoint, that can happen. Law enforcement is busy; data systems are imperfect; not every prior registrant gets swept back in.

2. Or It Might Come Up Very Suddenly

On the other hand, a number of quite ordinary events can expose your past:

• A bored officer runs your license plate during a stop, parking check, or random scan.
• Your name gets run through NCIC (a national database) during any police contact.
• A past victim or their family tracks your movements and reports you to authorities in your new state.

Some jurisdictions now use automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that scan huge numbers of plates in real time. There are ongoing debates—and advocacy—from groups like the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) about how long that data should be stored and how it can be used.

Official policies may say:

• Plates are not to be used for fishing expeditions.
• Data should be purged after a set period (e.g., 30 days).

But then there’s the practical reality: who is actually auditing compliance? Who is going into local systems to verify that old datasets are really being deleted? There’s a gap between policy on paper and behavior on the ground.

So while you might never become a blip on anyone’s radar, you also might be discovered unexpectedly—during a traffic stop, a routine sweep, or by a tip.

The ‘Worst Thing’ That Often Happens

From the perspective of the podcast discussion, the most common worst-case scenario is:

• Authorities encounter you.
• They see your past offense.
• They see that under their law, you’re a covered person.
• They tell you, often on the spot: “You must register.”

If you’ve long since been removed from registration in your prior state, that can be emotionally devastating—but legally, the system will often treat it as routine.

Real-World Examples: Alabama, Colorado, and the ‘Safe Side’ That Backfired

The conversation includes an example from Alabama:

• A man moved there from another state (Colorado was mentioned as a contrast later).
• He was apparently off the registry in his home state.
• His brother became an attorney specifically to help him.
• Trying to be careful, the brother advised: “Just go see law enforcement and make sure you’re okay.”

So the man did what many people think is the right, responsible thing—he went to ask.

Then it went sideways:

• Law enforcement told him, essentially, “By the way, you must register. If you leave or fail to comply, we’ll lock you up.”
• A constitutional challenge followed.
• He won one narrow issue: Alabama had required two separate travel permits when leaving—one from the county sheriff and one from local police. The dual-permit requirement was struck down.
• But the overall registration obligation remained.

The big takeaway: his attempt to be extra safe led directly to him being locked into a new registration regime that might not have been triggered so quickly—or at all—if he had remained quiet.

In contrast, the hosts note: if he had stayed in Colorado, he likely wouldn’t be registering at all today, unless he committed a new offense.

This doesn’t mean people should hide or break the law. It does show how dangerous and complex it can be to:

• Assume that asking for clarity will protect you.
• Assume that one state’s rules carry over cleanly to another.

The Role of Technology: License Plate Scanners and Surveillance

The discussion also highlights how modern technology changes the risk landscape:

• Police vehicles and stationary cameras scan plates automatically.
• Data is often fed into systems for analytics and pattern recognition.
• If those systems flag that multiple scanned plates belong to current or former registrants, it raises the question: what happens next?

Even if policies limit what officers are supposed to do with this data, the temptation and capability to:

• Identify
• Track
• Cross-check national databases

is already here. That reality makes it more likely that a person with a prior registry history will eventually be noticed—especially after a move.

Should You Move If You’re Off the Registry? Risk vs. Freedom

So what does all this mean for someone who has completed registration and wants to move?

A few hard truths come out of the conversation:

1. Legally, yes, a new state can usually impose its own registration requirement, even if you’re done elsewhere.
2. Practically, you might live for decades without being flagged—but you might also be discovered quickly.
3. Modern surveillance tools (plate readers, database integrations) increase the odds of eventual detection.
4. In some states, simply asking for clarity can be the trigger that puts you back on law enforcement’s radar.

This puts many people in a painful bind:

• Staying put may mean less risk but fewer opportunities.
• Moving may offer a better life but carries significant legal and emotional uncertainty.

The podcast’s legal expert even says the person would be “best served not to move.” That doesn’t mean they can’t move; it means that from a risk-management perspective, staying where you’re already clear of the registry is usually safer.

Actionable Takeaways for People Impacted by the Registry

While every case is unique and laws change, here are some general, practical takeaways based on the discussion:

1. Research the Law in Any State You’re Considering

Before you move:

• Look up that state’s registry statute and how it treats your type of offense.
• Check whether they have lifetime requirements for your category.
• See if there are look-back or relief provisions for people who were previously removed elsewhere.

Better yet, consult with an attorney in that state who understands registration law.

2. Understand That ‘Civil Regulatory’ Still Feels Like Punishment

Even though the registry is legally described as civil, its impact is very real:

• Housing limitations
• Employment barriers
• Travel restrictions
• Constant threat of technical violations

Knowing in advance that another state can pull you back into this world is crucial for informed decision-making.

3. Be Cautious With Voluntary Contact

The Alabama example shows that walking into a sheriff’s office “just to verify” can:

• Create an official record.
• Prompt an immediate registration order.
• Put you at risk of arrest if you don’t comply.

Again, this is not advice to lie or conceal. It is a reminder that every interaction with law enforcement has consequences—and should ideally be taken with legal counsel, not alone.

4. Factor in Technology and Routine Contact

Even if you:

• Drive under the speed limit,
• Avoid trouble,
• Live quietly,

your license plate, name, or other data may still be routinely scanned. If that data is linked—correctly or incorrectly—to past registry status, you can quickly find yourself asked very pointed questions.

5. When in Doubt, Get Specialized Legal Help

Registry law is notoriously complex and varies dramatically by state. General criminal-defense experience isn’t always enough. If you’re considering a move:

• Seek a lawyer familiar with that state’s registration and travel rules.
• Ask specifically about interstate moves and how they’ve played out in previous cases.

Conclusion: Freedom to Move, Bound by Fifty Sets of Rules

Finishing your time on the registry is a major milestone—one that should mean more freedom and less fear. But the reality in the United States is that every move across a border comes with a new set of rules, new risks, and, for people with prior sex offense convictions, the very real chance of being pulled back onto a registry you thought you’d finally left behind.

The core lesson from the discussion is uncomfortable but essential: another state can treat your old conviction differently and require lifetime registration, even if your original state has completely released you. Technology, routine law-enforcement practices, and human error or curiosity all raise the odds that this issue can surface months or years after you relocate.

That doesn’t mean you must never move. It does mean that any decision to move should be made with your eyes open, grounded in research, and ideally guided by someone who understands the law where you’re going.

Actionable Next Steps

1. Audit your status: Confirm, in writing if possible, that you are fully off the registry in your current state.
2. Investigate destination states: Before moving, research their registry rules for your specific offense and time-off requirements.
3. Consult local counsel: Talk to an attorney in the destination state about risks, enforcement patterns, and possible alternatives.

For those impacted by the registry, these steps won’t remove all the uncertainty. But they can turn a blind leap into a calculated decision—and that difference matters when so much of your future is at stake.

In courtrooms, we like to imagine that every voice is heard, every story is considered, and every plea for fairness gets a real chance. But what happens when the person asking for relief is 82 years old, struggling with memory, and trying to navigate a system that values efficiency over humanity? This is the heart of Eugene’s experience: a man in Virginia, sentenced to ten years in prison and twenty years of probation, now years into that supervision, simply trying to ask the court for a second look.

Eugene believes many of the charges that extended his ordeal were false, or at least mishandled. He has already served ten years on probation and is seeking relief in light of a change in Virginia law that now caps probation at five years. But because that law came after his sentencing, it doesn’t automatically help him. So he turned to the judge for mercy and reconsideration, carefully writing out speeches to explain his situation—only to be told, directly or indirectly, that he couldn’t fully deliver them.

This article unpacks Eugene’s story and uses it to explore a broader reality: how courts treat people seeking relief from long probation terms, why some judges resist long personal statements, and what good advocacy should look like—especially for elderly, impaired, or otherwise vulnerable defendants. We’ll walk through what happened, what should have happened, and what lessons others in similar situations can take from this.

A Man, a Sentence, and a Changing Law

Eugene lives in Virginia. His sentence: ten years of incarceration and twenty years of probation. Since then, Virginia has changed its law to allow a maximum of five years of probation.

There’s a catch: the law was enacted after his sentencing. That means the new rule doesn’t automatically reduce his probation term. Courts often treat such changes as prospective—they apply going forward, not backward. So while newer defendants may benefit, older sentences like Eugene’s remain as originally imposed unless the court chooses to act.

From Eugene’s perspective, this feels deeply unfair. He has already served a decade of probation. He reports that this probation has been “mostly for false charges” and that additional charges were added after his preliminary hearing without his attorney properly challenging them.

Whether or not every one of those claims would stand up under close legal scrutiny, the underlying theme is unmistakable: he feels misrepresented, mishandled, and trapped by a system that has evolved, but not in time for him.

Two Attempts to Be Heard—and Two Disappointments

Eugene made at least two formal attempts to seek relief from supervised probation.

The 2018 Hearing

In 2018, Eugene prepared a speech to read to the judge. This was his chance to tell his story in his own words—his background, his health, his conduct on supervision, and his reasons for believing he deserved relief.

He was denied. The court did not grant him relief from supervised probation.

We don’t have a complete transcript, but we do know that his effort to present a carefully prepared narrative did not alter the judge’s decision.

The 2025 Hearing

Years later, he tried again. This time, he wrote an even more “powerful” three‑page speech. But his own lawyer told him that the different judge assigned to this hearing would not allow such a statement to be read.

Instead of a structured, prepared narrative, the hearing became a question‑and‑answer session. That format may sound efficient, but it can be a serious problem for someone who:

• Is 82 years old
• Describes themselves as “senile”
• Has difficulty memorizing and recalling detailed information

Eugene says that many important details were never mentioned. His lawyer skipped questions and changed the order, which threw off his preparation. He needed to read his answers, but he wasn’t allowed to. He believes he did “okay” in court but clearly felt that the system prevented him from presenting the full picture.

His central question is simple:

Is it common for a judge to not allow a three‑page speech to be read?

Is Blocking a Three‑Page Statement “Normal” in Court?

From a legal‑practice perspective, the answer is nuanced.

An experienced attorney explained that in his own jurisdiction, it’s not common for a judge to outright refuse such a statement—especially at a traditional sentencing hearing, where defendants are usually allowed to make a full allocution (a formal statement to the court).

But Eugene’s proceeding wasn’t a first‑time sentencing. It was a post‑sentencing, relief‑seeking hearing—a request to modify or end supervised probation. Courts often treat these hearings differently: they prefer them to be brief, focused, and limited to certain legal or factual issues.

So, is the judge’s preference for something shorter understandable? Yes.

Is that the end of the story? No.

Because law is not just about efficiency. It’s also about fairness, especially when a person’s liberty and dignity are on the line.

What Good Advocacy Should Have Looked Like

Even if a judge initially frowns at the idea of someone reading three full pages, a strong advocate doesn’t simply accept that. A competent defense lawyer, especially for an 82‑year‑old client with memory issues, should:

1. Explain the Client’s Needs Clearly
   The lawyer could have said something like:

“Your Honor, my client is 82 years old and has significant memory difficulties. He cannot reliably testify from memory. He has prepared a written statement that he needs to read in order to fully present his position. We’re asking the court to permit him to read it into the record.”

1. Tie the Request to Fairness and the Record
   Judges care about the record—what is preserved for potential appeals or future motions. The lawyer could have emphasized:

“This statement is important for a complete record of why he’s seeking relief. If the court denies the request, it may limit our ability to show what issues were raised.”

1. Seek a Reasonable Compromise
   Even if the judge didn’t want three full pages, the lawyer might have asked:
2. To allow at least a shortened version
3. To file the full written statement into the record as an exhibit, even if not read aloud
4. To let the client refer to notes while answering questions

The attorney commentator in the transcript was blunt: this likely should have been permitted if properly requested. He doubted the lawyer pushed hard or clearly enough.

Age, Memory, and the Right to Be Heard

Eugene repeatedly emphasized his age and cognitive struggles: “I am 82 and senile.” That’s not just a side detail; it’s a crucial factor.

Courts are supposed to make reasonable accommodations for individuals who are elderly, cognitively impaired, or otherwise limited in their ability to present information. While not every court will phrase it as a disability issue, the underlying principle is simple: you don’t treat an 82‑year‑old with memory problems the same as a 25‑year‑old with sharp recall and robust health.

Allowing him to:

• Read a statement,
• Use written answers,
• Or lean on prepared notes

…is not special treatment. It’s common sense.

The attorney pointed out that, if he were the judge, he would likely have said something like:

“I’d prefer you not to read, but given your age and needs, the court will indulge you.”

That’s what judicial discretion with a human face looks like.

The Lawyer’s Role: Courage in Front of the Judge

The discussion also highlighted a broader lesson about lawyering: sometimes the attorney must have the courage to tell the judge “no.” Not disrespectfully—but firmly.

The attorney used the analogy of summary judgment in civil cases. There are times when a judge might signal, directly or indirectly, that they’d like to wrap things up quickly with a summary judgment ruling. But if the case is fact‑heavy and needs a trial, a good lawyer has to say:

“Judge, I’m very sorry, but this case cannot be resolved on summary judgment. There are too many facts that need development. We need a trial.”

Similarly, in Eugene’s case, the lawyer needed backbone:

“Judge, my client cannot present his case without this written statement. He is 82, he cannot recall all the details on the spot, and this goes to the heart of his request for relief.”

A judge might grumble—but most will ultimately allow it, or at least allow some form of it. Advocacy requires polite insistence, not passive deference.

What This Means for Others on Long Probation

Eugene’s story is specific, but the pattern is broader. Many people on long‑term supervision—particularly those with complex histories, advanced age, or cognitive limitations—face similar barriers when trying to shorten or end their probation.

Here are some practical lessons for others in similar situations:

1. Prepare a Written Statement Anyway

Even if you’re told a judge “won’t like it,” write it:

• It helps organize your thoughts.
• It can be filed as a written submission or exhibit.
• It serves as a record of what you tried to present.

2. Ask Your Lawyer to Make a Clear, On‑Record Request

Don’t assume your lawyer pushed as hard as possible. Ask them to explicitly:

• Request permission for you to read your statement.
• Explain your age, health, and memory issues.
• Ask that the statement be accepted into the record, even if not fully read.

3. Emphasize Facts, Not Just Feelings

Judges respond to:

• Concrete conduct on probation (compliance, employment, treatment, community ties)
• Health issues and age
• Changes in law or policy

Your narrative should include your humanity, but it must also present facts that justify relief.

4. Consider Support from Family or Advocates

Sometimes written letters from family, treatment providers, or community members can support your request for early termination of probation. They can help tell the parts of your story you might forget under pressure.

Conclusion: Procedure vs. Humanity

Eugene’s question—“Is it common for a judge to not allow a three‑page speech to be read?”—opens a window into a larger tension. Courts must manage time and procedure. But they also hold immense power over real lives, especially the lives of people whose age and frailty make the system’s rigidity feel even harsher.

It may be procedurally unsurprising that a judge didn’t welcome a three‑page speech in a post‑sentencing hearing. But it is substantively troubling if the result was that an elderly man, struggling with memory, could not fully present his case for relief.

The law is not just rules and timelines. It’s also advocacy—and advocacy depends on attorneys willing to clearly ask for what fairness requires, even when they suspect the judge might “frown on it.”

Actionable Takeaways

1. Insist on being fully heard. If you’re on long‑term probation, prepare a written statement and ask your lawyer to get it into the record.

2. Make your needs explicit. Age, health, and memory issues matter. Tell your lawyer—and ask them to tell the court.

3. Expect courage from counsel. A good lawyer doesn’t just predict what a judge wants; they respectfully push for what you need.

The sex offense registry is usually presented as a rigid, unforgiving system: if you’re on it, you’re on it for life, and that’s that. But what happens in states where judges have discretion in deciding who must register? If a judge can choose to put you on the registry, does it logically follow that they should also be able to choose to take you off?

This question came from a listener of the Registry Matters podcast, based on an article in the AZ Mirror about Arizona’s registration laws. The listener noticed that a judge emphasized “conviction” and protecting the “children” (or as humorously phrased in the show, “chirrens”)—and wondered what that means for people whose registration requirement wasn’t automatic, but imposed at the judge’s discretion.

In this article, we’ll unpack that logic, explain how discretionary registration works, and explore whether it creates a pathway for people to petition their way off the registry. We’ll also address the hard truth about litigation: why even a strong legal theory runs into the brick wall of cost, time, and access to lawyers.

By the end, you’ll understand:

• How Arizona’s discretionary registration scheme operates
• Why the “if they can put me on, why can’t they take me off?” argument is logically strong
• What kind of legal mechanism might be used to test this idea
• The practical barriers that make such challenges rare

Discretionary Registration: When It’s Not Just About the Conviction

In many states, the requirement to register as a person forced to register (PFR) flows directly from the statute: if you’re convicted of a listed offense, registration is automatic. There is no hearing, no individualized judgment, no weighing of circumstances. The offense is on the list; therefore you are on the registry.

Arizona, however, is different in a key way. Like a number of other states, Arizona allows registration to be imposed not only based on certain enumerated offenses, but also based on an independent determination that a crime was sexually motivated.

This means:

• The underlying conviction might not be a “sex offense” by name.
• The court can look at the facts and decide the conduct was sexual in nature.
• Based on that determination, the court can order registration.

On the Registry Matters episode, this was contrasted with another state where “it has to be on the list” to be registrable. There, nothing beyond the statutory list counts. In Arizona, the judge’s added finding about sexual motivation opens a discretionary door.

That discretionary element is exactly what caught the listener’s attention.

The Listener’s Core Question: Does Discretion Cut Both Ways?

The listener essentially asked:

If the requirement to register is based on conviction and not discretion, fine. But if the judge had discretion to impose registration because the offense was sexual in nature, shouldn’t people in that situation be able to petition to remove the registration requirement?

Reframed more bluntly:

• If the law allows a judge to choose to put you on the registry,
• Why can’t that same judge choose to take you off later, especially if the offense wasn’t a categorically listed sexual offense or didn’t involve children?

On a purely logical level, the podcast’s legal analyst agreed: the listener’s logic is “fairly solid” and “sound.” The idea is simple and intuitive:

“If I can hire you, I can unhire you.”

Applied here:

If the judge can put you on the registry, the judge should be able to un-put you.

This is not just rhetorical flair; it reflects a deep legal intuition about symmetry in the use of judicial discretion.

Why the Logic Makes Sense Legally

Let’s break down why that reasoning resonates:

1. Statutory Grant of Discretion
   If the legislature says, in effect: “For offenses that are sexual in nature, the court may order registration,” it has conferred a discretionary power on the judge. That power is not mechanical; it depends on a judgment call.

2. Discretion Implies Individualized Decision-Making
   When a judge has discretion, they’re supposed to weigh circumstances, facts, risk, and other considerations. That is fundamentally different from automatic, list-based registration.

3. If the State Justifies Registration by Individual Assessment…
   …then it is not a big logical stretch to say the court should be able to reassess later. If an individualized decision was legitimate to impose the burden, why wouldn’t an individualized re-decision be legitimate to remove it, especially after time has passed and circumstances have changed?

4. Consistency With Equitable Principles
   Courts routinely modify orders they imposed using discretion: probation conditions, injunctions, parenting plans, supervised release. The notion that some discretionary orders can be revisited is deeply baked into how courts function.

So as a theory, the argument that judges should have reciprocal discretion to remove people from the registry who were placed there by discretionary decision is far from frivolous. It has real legal teeth.

The Harsh Reality: Sound Logic Isn’t Enough

Despite agreeing that the logic is solid, the podcast also emphasized a sobering point: “Obviously, it doesn’t work that way in practice.”

There are several reasons why:

1. The Statute May Not Expressly Allow Removal

Even if the statute allows the judge to impose registration at the outset, it may be silent on whether the judge can later remove that requirement.

In many areas of law, courts are cautious about reading in powers that the legislature didn’t clearly grant. A judge might say:

• “The law says I can put you on the registry under certain circumstances.”
• “But it doesn’t say I can take you off, so my hands are tied unless the legislature changes the statute.”

Without explicit statutory authority, some judges will refuse to act, even if they personally think it’s fair or logical.

2. Nobody Has Tested It Yet

The podcast noted something crucial: “I don’t know that anybody’s ever tested this.”

That means:

• There may be no appellate cases addressing whether judges retain removal discretion in this context.
• There’s no binding precedent saying “yes, they can” or “no, they can’t.”

Until someone brings a carefully crafted case, this question sits in the gray zone of untested legal theory.

3. Litigation Is Prohibitively Expensive

Even where a legal theory seems sound, bringing it to court takes resources:

• A willing attorney
• Time to research, draft, file, and argue
• Possible appeals

Listeners often hope to find lawyers who will take these kinds of cases pro bono or “because it’s the right thing to do.” The show pushed back firmly on that mindset: we have to move past the expectation that major constitutional or statutory challenges will be done for free.

Important nuances:

• This particular challenge might not require extensive “factual development.” There may be no need for expensive expert witnesses or voluminous discovery; the key question is legal, not factual.
• But even so, lawyer time is not free, and most firms cannot absorb multi-year impact litigation for nothing.

4. Organizations Have Limited Capacity

Even advocacy groups that focus on registry reform often:

• Operate on shoestring budgets
• Are already committed to other litigation
• Must carefully choose only a few strategic cases

The podcast candidly questioned whether any organizations in Arizona currently have the financial capacity to back this kind of test case.

How Might This Be Brought to Court?

If someone did want to pursue this theory, the analyst suggested a possible procedural vehicle: a petition for declaratory judgment.

What Is a Declaratory Judgment?

A declaratory judgment is a court order that declares the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, contract, or legal situation without necessarily ordering specific action yet.

In this context, a petition might ask the court to declare:

• Whether a judge who had discretion to impose registration still has discretion to remove it
• Whether a person in that situation is entitled to seek such relief

The idea would be to:

1. Present the statutory text that grants discretion to impose registration when a crime is found “sexual in nature.”
2. Argue that this same discretionary framework, read in light of fairness and judicial practice, should permit removal.
3. Ask the court to formally state whether that power exists.

As the analyst put it, you could “fly it at the pole and see what happens.” That is, raise the flag and find out if the courts will salute—or shoot it down.

What About People Whose Offenses Were Not Against Children?

The listener also asked specifically about people who:

• Were not convicted of a PFR-type offense.
• Did not have an offense involving children (“chirrens”).
• Had registration imposed via judicial discretion.

The judge’s public justification—protecting children—seems especially tenuous when:

• No minor was involved
• The offense was not on the standard “sex offense” list

For such individuals, the logic of “you exercised discretion to put me here despite no child victim, now exercise discretion to take me off” is even more compelling on a moral and policy level.

But again, without a tested legal pathway and with high litigation barriers, that logic alone doesn’t change their status.

The Big Barrier: Resources, Not Ideas

The conversation eventually circled back to the same obstacle: resources.

People impacted by the registry often have:

• Limited income due to employment barriers
• Ongoing supervision or compliance costs
• Little access to civil rights attorneys

So when an idea like this surfaces—solid, logical, and potentially powerful—it often dies at the starting line because no one can afford to carry it into court.

The show urged listeners to adjust expectations:

• Stop assuming major changes will come from free legal work.
• Recognize that if you want to see these theories tested, it will likely require organized funding—either personally, through community efforts, or via advocacy groups.

Conclusion: A Worthwhile Case Waiting for a Champion

The Arizona listener’s insight shines a light on an underexplored corner of registry law. When the state allows judges to impose registration based on a discretionary finding that a crime was sexually motivated, it opens a fundamental question:

Does that same discretion allow judges to later un-do that registration, especially when the offense wasn’t a listed sex crime or involving children?

Logically, ethically, and even structurally, the answer feels like it should be yes. A court’s ability to revisit discretionary decisions fits with broader judicial practice. A petition for declaratory judgment could be a clean vehicle for testing it, without the heavy factual burdens of other impact cases.

But ideas don’t change law on their own. Until someone with the necessary resources brings this question to court, it will remain an intriguing, untested theory.

Actionable Takeaways

1. If you’re in Arizona with discretionary registration, consult a knowledgeable attorney about whether a declaratory judgment petition is plausible in your case.
2. Advocacy groups should consider this as a strategic test issue, because a favorable ruling could help many similarly situated people.
3. Support reform litigation financially where you can, instead of assuming life-changing legal work will happen for free.

The law often changes not because the best argument exists, but because someone finally has the means to present it. This might be one of those arguments waiting for its day in court.

For millions of people on the sex offense registry—often called PFRs (persons forced to register)—stigma doesn’t end with a completed sentence. It shows up in job applications, background checks, housing denials, public shaming, and a constant fear of being exposed and rejected. The conversation you’ve just read from the Registry Matters podcast dives into two intertwined questions: How do people on the registry fight back against this abusive system, and how should they navigate real-world situations like employment and disclosure?

In this article, we’ll unpack the ideas raised: the ethics and practicality of boycotts, the complicated comparison to historic civil rights struggles, the way society seems to need a group to hate, and the very practical question of whether and how to disclose registry status to employers. Along the way, we’ll explore why the registry operates as punishment in everything but name, how fear and liability shape corporate behavior, and what smarter legal and advocacy strategies might actually move the needle.

By the end, you’ll better understand not only the emotional weight carried by those on the registry, but also the real-world constraints and opportunities for change.

The Registry as Ongoing Punishment, Not “Collateral” Consequence

The listener’s letter begins from a place of raw truth: the registry inflicts suffering, humiliation, and lasting damage on individuals and their families. It’s described as a “painfully destructive system,” even “Nazi-like.” While the rhetoric is strong, the core point is clear: whatever courts may claim about the registry being “civil” or “regulatory,” the lived experience is punishment.

People on the registry:

• Lose jobs or never get hired
• Face social ostracism and harassment
• Are constantly subject to background checks that resurrect old convictions
• Feel like their families are being punished alongside them

Legally, many aspects of the registry are framed as “collateral consequences” of a conviction, in the same category as losing the right to own a firearm. But for employers, landlords, neighbors, and the public, the registry is functionally indistinguishable from ongoing punishment. As the hosts emphasize, very few people emotionally or practically separate “being on the registry” from “active, dangerous criminal.”

That disconnect between legal theory and social reality is at the core of the struggle.

Can Boycotts Work for People on the Registry?

The listener suggests a classic form of resistance: boycotts. Referencing Rosa Parks and Mexican American farmworkers in California, the writer argues that unjust systems have often been dismantled through organized economic pressure: “Boycotts have worked because they squeeze pocketbooks. We need action. Pick a product and announce a boycott.”

The logic is appealing:

• Economic pressure has a long history in civil rights movements.
• Boycotts can unify people around a simple, visible tactic.
• Businesses may respond faster to financial pain than to moral arguments.

However, the host responds with a sobering reality check:

1. Limited Reach – The publication and show in question only reaches thousands, not tens or hundreds of thousands. A boycott’s power depends on scale; without enough participants, the impact is negligible.
2. Public Sympathy Gap – Rosa Parks didn’t choose her skin color. Many Americans, even in the 1950s, recognized the moral wrong of segregation. By contrast, the host argues, the general public largely believes that people on the registry “chose” their situation through their actions.
3. Moral Narrative vs. Public Perception – It’s hard to elicit the same level of empathy for a legally condemned group, even if the laws and punishments are excessive or irrational.

The examples of modern boycotts—Target, Chick-fil-A—also show that boycotts can backfire. A company under attack may gain more support from people who like their stand, or who resent what they perceive as “cancel culture.”

Key takeaway: Boycotts are not automatically transferable tactics. They require numbers, public sympathy, and a clear, broadly shared moral narrative. People on the registry currently lack all three at scale.

Are Registry Reforms a Civil Rights Struggle?

Comparisons to Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement naturally come up whenever someone is fighting an unjust system. The host doesn’t deny the injustice of the registry; in fact, he calls it humiliating, unconstitutional, and punitive. But he also highlights a major perception gap:

• Race is immutable. Rosa Parks could not choose her skin color.
• Registry status is perceived as chosen. Even if the legal system is flawed or the conviction decades old, most people view it as the result of voluntary acts.

This difference matters because sympathy often hinges on perceived innocence or lack of agency. Many Americans instinctively sympathize with someone punished for something they couldn’t control. They don’t extend that same empathy to someone with a felony record, especially a sex offense, even when the offense was minor, old, or heavily distorted by media narratives.

Still, some allies do emerge from outside the directly impacted community. The hosts mention:

• Emily Horowitz, a researcher and advocate with four daughters and no direct family connection to the registry, who became involved after seeing how bad policy harms real people.
• Public defenders who, through experience, recognize that the registry is “some bullshit” and join reform efforts.

These examples show that, over time, people can be moved by evidence, policy failures, and direct contact. But there is a long way to go before registry reform becomes a mainstream civil rights issue.

Why Society Seems to Need Someone to Hate

One of the most revealing moments in the dialogue is the comparison to soap operas. People watch fictional chaos and dysfunction to feel better about their own lives—“at least mine’s not that bad.”

The hosts suggest that in real life, people do something similar with stigmatized groups:

• Registry-listed individuals become a convenient “other” to despise.
• Hating them allows the public to feel morally superior and emotionally safe.
• The reality that many of these individuals made a mistake, served their time, and can be safely reintegrated rarely gets airtime.

The host refers to this pattern as part of the “human condition.” It’s not unique to any one country; most nations seem to maintain some group that is socially acceptable to ostracize. Today, PFRs are one of the easiest targets: politically powerless, demonized in media, and largely voiceless.

This dynamic makes boycotts harder and legal challenges more complex—but it also clarifies the scope of the cultural work ahead. Reform isn’t just about statutes and court rulings; it’s about reshaping public narratives of blame, fear, and redemption.

The Employment Trap: Background Checks and Disclosure

A second listener letter moves from big-picture strategy to everyday survival: how should someone on the registry handle job applications and background checks?

The story is familiar:

• The writer initially works through a temp agency, which runs a background check and places them without issue.
• Six months later, trying to get hired directly by the main corporation, a second background check is run.
• This time, the corporation notices the person’s registry status and terminates them.

The listener asks a focused question: since a criminal background check is “supposed” to concern the felony itself, not later consequences, should they be disclosing their registry status at all? Especially when the felony itself is old, but the registry entry is current?

How Temp Agencies and Employers See Risk

The conversation explains why the temp agency and the main employer behaved differently:

• Temp agency incentives – They get paid for placements. They supply “warm bodies” to fill roles and often have more flexibility; the employer can “test drive” a worker without long-term commitment.
• Direct employer incentives – When converting a temp to a permanent hire, the company does its own background check. It doesn’t trust the temp agency’s screening and is more sensitive to long-term risk and liability.

For employers, someone on the registry raises red flags:

• Fear of public backlash if the status becomes known
• Fear of lawsuits if something goes wrong later
• Pressure from insurance carriers warning about liability if “these people” are on the payroll

Even if the underlying offense is old and the person has been stable for years, the registry label itself is treated as a risk marker.

What Should You Disclose?

The host’s practical advice is clear and conservative:

Disclose no more than what the application specifically asks.

If an application says:

• “Have you been convicted of a felony in the last 7 (or 10) years?”

…and your conviction is older than that, the honest answer is no, and that’s all you provide.

Volunteering extra information like:

“Well, my conviction was 23 years ago, but I’m still on the registry…”

…only invites unnecessary scrutiny and likely rejection. From an HR perspective, this creates “baggage”: potential PR problems, fear of boycotts, internal discomfort, and perceived liability. The employer may think:

• “If anything happens, I’ll be accused of knowingly hiring a registrant.”
• “I don’t want angry calls or protests if someone discovers this.”

The hosts are blunt: giving employers more reasons to say no is rarely to your advantage.

How Liability Fear Drives Decisions

Even when the law technically doesn’t make employers liable for the independent actions of an employee, fear of being sued shapes behavior.

The host draws on his experience in property management:

• When tenants with criminal histories commit crimes on the property, plaintiff’s attorneys immediately ask:
• Did you run a background check?
• Did you know they had a criminal history?
• Did you rent to them anyway?
• Even if the landlord or employer ultimately wins the case, they pay a heavy price in time, stress, and legal fees.

This dynamic applies to employees on the registry as well:

• Employers imagine being blamed for “allowing” someone with a visible red flag (the registry) into their organization.
• To avoid the process of litigation, they simply avoid hiring or quickly fire anyone who triggers that fear.

Again, this is why being on the registry—even as a supposedly “civil” consequence—functions as a serious barrier to employment.

Why Smarter Litigation Matters

The host takes a “blast at the attorneys” for how registry cases are often litigated. The typical pattern:

• Lawyers file a complaint with circumstantial stories – “I didn’t get the job because of the registry.”
• They rely on motions for summary judgment, asking courts to infer the registry’s harms from limited evidence.
• They often lack direct evidence: they haven’t deposed HR people, subpoenaed hiring records, or built a robust factual record demonstrating systematic discrimination.

What would stronger litigation look like?

• Building a large war chest to fund serious, long-term cases
• Calling HR professionals, corporate managers, and insurers to testify under oath
• Collecting written policies, emails, and documentation showing people are fired or never hired solely because of registry status
• Demonstrating concrete harms: lost wages, terminations, housing denials, and emotional distress directly tied to registry listings

With this kind of record, courts would be under greater pressure to acknowledge that the registry is punitive in effect, even if not in formal legal classification.

Without it, the fight remains a series of underfunded, weakly supported challenges that courts can dismiss as speculative.

Actionable Takeaways and Next Steps

Here are a few practical and strategic steps that emerge from the discussion:

1. Use Boycotts Strategically, Not Symbolically
   Before launching a boycott, assess your reach, allies, and narrative. Without numbers and public sympathy, a boycott risks being a symbolic gesture that changes little and may even backfire. Focus first on building a broader coalition and media presence.

2. Disclose Only What’s Asked on Applications
   When applying for jobs, answer application questions honestly but narrowly. If asked about convictions within a time window, answer within that window. Do not volunteer registry status unless explicitly required. Extra disclosure often harms more than it helps.

3. Document Employment and Housing Discrimination
   If you’re rejected or terminated after your registry status is discovered, document everything: emails, letters, phone notes, dates, and people involved. These records can help build the stronger factual cases needed for future litigation.

4. Support Evidence-Based Legal Challenges
   Advocacy groups need funding and participation to run robust cases. Where possible, contribute time, money, or data to organizations that are litigating registry issues in a serious, evidence-heavy way.

5. Humanize, Educate, and Tell Real Stories
   Public opinion shifts slowly through exposure to real people and real data. Allies like Emily Horowitz and honest public defenders show that minds can be changed. Sharing accurate research, personal stories of redemption, and evidence of overreach helps chip away at the myth that everyone on the registry is irredeemably dangerous.

Conclusion: Fighting an Unfair System in a Fearful World

The registry is widely experienced as ongoing punishment, even when the law insists it’s just a “collateral consequence.” It blocks jobs, fuels humiliation, and invites constant social judgment. Boycotts and dramatic civil rights analogies may feel emotionally satisfying, but they collide with tough realities: limited reach, weak public sympathy, and the deeply entrenched belief that people on the registry brought it on themselves.

Yet the conversation also points toward a path forward. Strategic thinking about disclosure, methodical evidence-gathering, better-funded and better-built lawsuits, and slowly expanding circles of allies can make meaningful change. In a world that seems to need a group to hate, resisting that role—and showing the public that redemption is both possible and safe—is a long, difficult struggle.

It won’t be solved by a single boycott or a single case. But each honest conversation, each documented injustice, and each fair-minded ally help build the foundation for a system that treats people as more than the worst thing they’ve ever done.

[00:00] Intro: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, and we take no direction from anyone else. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible, and always remember FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios, East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 362 of registry matters on this Christmas Eve Eve Eve Eve. I don’t know how many I have to put in there. Christmas Eve and some extras. Right? How are you tonight? Doing awesome. It’s a balmy 60 degrees here today. 60? Oh my god. We had oh my god. It was cold last week. My god. It was cold. Bad cold. Like, hey, it’s gonna hit double digits. Woo hoo. Very cold. Yeah. It’s been in the sixties the last couple of days. So, we’re not we’re not burning any any energy here. So I bet guess the electric and gas company are not happy with us. Probably not. And then super patron Mike sends me a message. He’s like, you know, it’s gonna be 80 on Christmas day. And I’m like, you know what? If you wanna trade places, he’s like, you wanna come to Florida? I didn’t look, we weren’t talking about Florida. We were just talking about weather. That’s all. He wanted to go pull all kind of registry Florida shenanigans on me. I’m like, no. No. No. No. You can keep your registry.

[01:21] Larry: You know?

[01:22] Andy: I think I’d like to be on the Florida registry. Oh, that would be amazing. Well, you probably you wouldn’t be on the registry. You’d be on their website. Right?

[01:30] Larry: Correct. I think I’d like that.

[01:34] Andy: Remember to show your support by hitting like and subscribe. Hit that button thing and do a five star rating in your favorite podcast app. It makes us a difference for everybody here and, maybe some new people will show up and listen. Really, the thing that’s been helping us out the most lately is the the, Reddit posts that have been going out. And then, of course, with all of the patrons that are here listening tonight, they, they are here because, well, they are patrons, and we love them because they are patrons. We love everybody even though they’re not patrons, but we love the patrons more. Do we love the patrons more, Larry? Of course, we do. That that buys my bourbon. Bourbon. Fantastic. So, tell me, what are we doing tonight?

[02:12] Larry: Well, we have several questions from the audience, both, written from inside behind the walls and from from the free world. And we have a segment that, seems to always be popular on international travel. And if time permits, we can take a few questions from the, live audience. There’s dozens and dozens of people here on this Christmas weekend. They keep going up, by the way. There are more people here than when we started. So and then we have a letter that you’re gonna read that just came in today, and we’re gonna pontificate about that letter.

[02:48] Andy: I need you to explain to who it’s addressed to. We’ll get there in a moment.

[02:55] Larry: So okay.

[02:57] Andy: Alright. Well, then here’s this letter. It’s it’s addressed to who’s mister Esparo?

[03:02] Larry: Well, it’s addressed to the nonprofit, a tax exempt foundation which is Vivanti Esparo. And that’s the publisher of the newsletter that Narsil puts out. And, I guess that since it says the publishers Vivanti Esparo, they decided to address the letter to mister Esparrow.

[03:26] Andy: I’m guessing he thinks the person’s first name is Vivante, which is a name I’ve never like, who has the name Vivante? I mean, you could have the name Esparrow, I suppose, at the end, but good grief. Who has the first name of Vivante? My name is Vivante Espero.

[03:42] Larry: Is that how that would go? Yeah. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that name.

[03:46] Andy: Alright. So, dear mister Espero, I believe most people subjected to registration recognizes how it is inflicting suffer inflicting inflicting suffering and humiliation, and it is a painfully destructive system for us and our families. Rosa Parks now be knew being forced to sit in the back of the bus was morally wrong. Mexican and American workers excuse me. Mexican American workers in California stood up to unfair labor practices. Over and over again, we have seen unjust actions eliminated through action. Boycotts have worked because they squeeze pocketbooks. We need action. Pick a product and announce a boycott. Start with that conference canceling business. Remember Parks? She started with just one person. Your publication can reach out to so many that are suffering under these Nazi like registration. We are millions. Help us organize, take action, and stop this abuse. Every month, this cruel abuse continues and, add another business.

[04:50] Larry: Alrighty, there’s a lot in there to unpack, but There is. I would start by saying that, the publication he’s referring to reaches a very small number of people. It’s in the thousands, not even the tens of thousands. So the reach of that is very small. Therefore, a boycott would probably be very muted, if even negligible. But we gotta be careful that we’re comparing Rosa Parks with people on the PFR list. Everything he said is correct. It is punishment. It is humiliating. It is unconstitutional, in my view. And courts upheld it to be unconstitutional. But Rosa didn’t have a lot of choice about her pigmentation of her skin. Everybody would argue that people who were on the PFR registry had a choice about what they did that put them in that position. That’s a big distinguishing factor. And, it’s hard to imagine that you can elicit the same sympathy from the general public about skin pigmentation. There was a good percentage of Americans, even in the nineteen fifties, that thought that was wrong. I don’t think that percentage of anywhere close of the people who think the registry is wrong. I may be incorrect. There may be millions that think it’s wrong, but I’ve just not encountered them. Have you?

[06:17] Andy: Not by any stretch. But it’s it is interesting though, Larry, that you do end up finding people that aren’t directly impacted. A person an example that I’d like to bring up is Emily Horowitz because she has four daughters and she has no direct like, it’s none of her kids that are had done anything. She just comes to it through seeing policy or people that she interacts with that have, that has prompted her to do all of her research. But there are all kinds of district attorneys or excuse me, not district attorneys, probably not them, public defenders that have this is some bullshit, and they will then come to our side of thinking and present for, for our conferences and so forth. There are people, but I agree. It’s not like as you use the expression, the ovarian lottery, winning the ovarian lottery. I don’t even wanna, like, try and judge whether someone won or lost based on their skin color, but because that’s just kind of a garbage way to put it. But, yeah, you don’t pick. Last time I checked, there was no hey, which option would you take?

[07:18] Larry: Well, that’s interesting. I think I would choose either option that I have or probably a a better option. But I doubt I would choose Somalia. I doubt I would choose Russia. I doubt I would choose Afghanistan or a lot of places. So, but most people don’t get that choice. And I don’t think that we’re going to be able to win this boycott. Boycotts have been known to be successful and they’ve been known to backfire. And

[07:44] Andy: The most reason was this target.

[07:47] Larry: Yes. And a few years ago, the Chick fil A boycott blew up in their face. Yep.

[07:53] Andy: Alright. It is pretty garbage though, the way that people are being treated. And it it’s as if it’s as if, Larry, we need someone to hate to, feel better about ourselves. It’s like you watch soap operas so that you realize that you’re like, wow, their lives are really shitty. At least mine’s not that bad, except for you’re watching a scripted television show. So in this case, you get to hate on these people that made a mistake and can be redeemed and have second chances without the whole place go burning down. But for some reason, we can’t let this one go. But we have to have some group of people to hate. Indeed. And I think every nation does that. I believe so. I think that that would be what you call the human condition. Agreed. Alright. Well, then this one is from Moses. Like that Moses? Yes. That Moses. Oh, sweet. Okay. Now I was terminated from my last job as a direct result of the registry. The temp agency who ran the initial background check never had any concerns. But upon trying to get hired six months later to the main corporation, a secondary background check disclosed my status on the registry. I have been having difficulties with applying for jobs. I have been trying to be, to be fairly transparent stipulating my felony, and a few places seem to be appreciative that I have disclosed those issues and claimed as long as nothing becomes apparent from the background check versus what I disclose, the that pass should be in the past. That is where there are that is why there are no surprises. My question, because my thought process is that a criminal background check is supposed to be concerning felonies and not necessarily the consequences. Am I wrong, or, and should I disclose my registry status despite that being a consequence of the actual felony conviction? That is why I’m getting confused about the best practice for employment disclosure. So are are we just he’s quote unquote just on the registry at this point and his felony is far enough back that, you know, passes five, seven, ten years or whatever someone’s thinking. He only has a registry situation now?

[10:00] Larry: That is my understanding of this letter of this email. And and, his logic is, flawless Sure. Mostly flawless. He’s, talking about a collateral consequence, like loss of your rights to own and possess a firearm. That’s one of the collateral consequences. But very few employers say, oh, well, you can’t own a gun. Therefore, I won’t hire you. Have you ever heard that happen unless that was a security issue? Not heard of that one. No. Okay. So, so his logic seems to be solid. The problem he has let’s go back to the first part of the letter. The tip agencies, as I understand it, they get paid by making a placement.

[10:45] Andy: Yeah. Well, and they may if they continue your employment, they get paid, you know, like they’ll charge the company $20 an hour. You get paid 10. Yes. They get paid. So they have a vested interest in placing a person.

[10:59] Larry: Mhmm. So, they have the greatest amount of latitude because the company needs a warm body, employer needs a warm body, and they have warm bodies to place in positions, and that gives the company an opportunity to test drive this individual. But before the company pronounces a marriage that’s going to go on in perpetuity, they do their own background check. They don’t trust what the temp agency has done. And therefore, I’m not surprised that this happens to him. Yeah. But then, then you get the need to get to the question about what he should disclose. He should disclose, in my opinion, no more than what the application requests. If it requests only have you, have you, do you have a felony conviction in the last seven years, the last ten years, or whatever the question is, there would be no reason in the world that anybody would say, I did have conviction. It was more than the time you asked for, but I’m still on the registry. Because very few people separate the registry from active punishment. To to the average employer, they think that being on the registry is a part of your punishment. Yep. Yep. Yep. I agree with that. Completely agree with that.

[12:14] Andy: So So what should he do? Should he like like like you just said, if he doesn’t ask about that, then he shouldn’t disclose that?

[12:21] Larry: Well, that would be my position, but I haven’t done HR work for a long, long time. And it may not be the best practice today, but I can’t see giving people a reason to disqualify you if they haven’t asked. In my mind, if you say, well, the the question says seven years, and the answer is no. I haven’t. But let me tell you about it. Twenty three years ago, let me tell you what I did. I was 19, and I was dating a 17 year old girl, And we did all this stuff. And I bought the registry for that. You’re on the what? I’m on the registry. Well, well, wait a minute. You said it was twenty three years ago and you were 19. She was 70. Yeah. But I got to register for the rest of my life. You’ve just muddied the water. If I’m HR, I’m gonna say I don’t want all this baggage around here. Right. You’re on the you’re on the registry. I’m gonna have, threatening phone calls, threatening with boycotts. Thank you for letting me know, but no thanks. So I can’t see how that’s beneficial. What may be an HR person would say otherwise?

[13:20] Andy: But Can you Can you Most of the from from what I understand, a background check they’re going to pull is they’re going to pull your criminal history, and they will then adhere to that seven year rule. Okay. So that conviction is older than that. But then it says you’re on the registry and that’s just an additional thing. That’s like clicking a checkbox as an extra.

[13:41] Larry: Well, it does, but it it comes about because they perceive all sorts of problems, even if they do understand the difference that the registry is a collateral consequence. They’re worried about public image. They’re worried about potential liability. Their insurance carriers have told them if you have these people routed, they offend. Yeah. You’ve got big problems. So, you’re opening up a whole lot of problems by being on the registry. And this gives me a chance to take one more blast at the attorneys. If if we would actually litigate with a large war chest of money and actually bring in HR people and actually put them on the stand and actually get them to admit that they don’t hire people simply because they’re on the register or they fire people in addition to not hiring them because they find out they’re on the registry, we might be able to win a case. But we keep doing a motion for summary judgment. And we want the court to infer that the registry does all these horrible things, and all we have is just circumstantial facts that have been stipulated by a complaining by a complainant in the, in the when they filed a complaint, they have someone say that I didn’t get a job because of the registry, but they have no solid proof that they didn’t get a job or they got fired from a job. And if we keep doing that, we’re gonna keep losing.

[15:02] Andy: Now, I don’t think I’ve ever shared this with you even after all the years that we’ve been talking. When I first got out and, like, you know, I first started going to where my employer is since I, you know, I was working remotely the whole time. But I was sitting in the in the car with the owner going to wherever we were going, like, whether it was the Christmas party or whatever. And, I asked if there were any issues at all with me being on location with a registry conviction, blah blah blah. And he’s like, I talked to the attorney and he’s like, as far as my liability, and this is him saying it to me, as far as my liability for what you did and if you did something again, I am not liable for that. You would be punished if you did something again.

[15:44] Larry: Well, I I agree with that, but having done property management for seventeen years, that just didn’t pan out that way because when people have, when you’re running a multifamily community, for example, and you take people in and they break the law, the first thing that the plaintiff’s attorney asks is, did you do a background check? Yes. Did you know that they had a criminal history? Yes. And you read it to them despite their criminal history? Yes. And you knew they were a burglary? Yes. They burglarized 17 of your apartments now since they’ve been in here the last two years. Yes. And and you didn’t foresee this coming. And also, in addition to 17 burglaries, they also had a record for for, an assault Right. On one of the people they burglarized. And it gets very ugly because even if you win the case, you’ve spent a lot of distracted time dealing with interrogatories, a discovery request. And and it’s just we don’t want that.

[16:45] Andy: Understand. Alright. In the interest of time, we’re gonna, like, keep rapid firing these things out. Okay? Alright. Alright. Well, this is, question number two. It says, hi, Andy and Larry. Hope you all are doing well. I have a question on the article in the AZ Mirror, which I’m gonna assume is Arizona. I read the article and then listened to your podcast. And one thing that sticks out to me is the judge’s statement about conviction and the need to protect the chirrens. You know what a chirren is, Larry? I’ve heard the term. Alright. What does this mean for those who were not convicted of a PFR type offense and those whose offense was not against the Chirons and or where the judge had discretion on applying registration? It seems that if the requirement to register is solely based on conviction and not discretion, then those whose requirement to register was at the discretion of the court should be able to petition to be removed from the registry. In Arizona, registration can be applied if the offense was sexual in nature. Now I may be looking for looking, I may be crazy for looking at it this way, and I’m sure Larry will not hold back. And by the way, we miss you chance. Long time listener.

[17:56] Larry: Alrighty. Well, his logic is fairly solid.

[18:02] Andy: Okay.

[18:05] Larry: But the what he’s saying makes sense. I can follow it. But there’s problem number one. Arizona, like so many states, allows registration to be imposed because of, independent determination that the crime was sexually motivated. In our state, it has to be on the list. Nothing beyond the list is registrable. It has to be, on the list or an equivalent from another jurisdiction that would match one that’s on our list. But since they have that law, his logic that they should be able to petition to be removed, Because what he’s saying, if the judge can discreetly put you on, why can’t you go back and ask the judge to discreetly remove you from the registry? Sure. I see I see no flaw in that logic. Okay. I’ve obviously, it doesn’t work that way in practice. I don’t think I don’t know that anybody’s ever tested this. I think this one might make a worthwhile case, but here’s what’s gonna happen. He’s gonna start calling attorneys and he’s gonna find some ask somebody, will they do it pro bono? Will they do it on the hope that it might win? And will they do it because it’s the right thing to do? And we’ve got to get over that way of thinking, folks. We’ve got to get over that. Litigation against the state trying to get them to do things is prohibitively expensive, and very few firms can do that pro bono. And this one would not require a lot of factual development. So you wouldn’t need, you wouldn’t need tens of thousands of dollars for experts on this, because this is just basically saying, hey, if the legislature said you’ve got discretion to put me on, but I didn’t commit a sexual offense, why don’t you have discretion to take me off? I think this would fit within the contours of the petition for declaratory judgment and fly it fly it at the pole and see what happens.

[19:51] Andy: But we won’t know until we try. And, I don’t know if he has the resources, and I don’t know if any of the organizations in Arizona have the resources financially to help. I heard an expression from, like, an employer forever goes, like, if I’m able to hire you, I’m also able to unhire you. That almost sounds like it applies here. If the judge is able to put you on the registry, he should be able to unput you on the registry.

[20:13] Larry: I have no problem with that. I think it’s sound logic.

[20:18] Andy: Moving over to question number three, and do you wanna like, what are we so this is from Eugene, and we’re gonna we’re gonna cover one part of his overall question and then we’re gonna cover it as a, like, a deep dive here in a minute, but but that’ll be another part. So, like, two parts, part a and part b from Eugene.

[20:36] Larry: Cool? That’s correct. You’re gonna read this part and I’m gonna deal with one part of the question, and then we’re gonna go into a deeper dive because he said more after this came in. Very good. Alright. Well, he lives

[20:47] Andy: in Virginia. They changed the law to allow a max of five years of probation, but it was enacted after my sentencing. I was sentenced to ten years incarceration and twenty years of probation. I have served served ten years of probation, mostly for false charges. Several charges were added following the preliminary hearing, but my lawyer did not reveal the false charges. In 2018 and again this month, November 2025 okay. In 2018, I read a speech to the judge but was denied relief from supervised probation. I wrote a powerful speech last month, but my lawyer insisted that the different judge would not allow me to read a three page speech. It ended up being a question and answer hearing, but many important details were not mentioned. My lawyer even skipped many questions and asked them in a different order than I was ready for. I needed to read the answers because I am 82 and senile. It’s one of your people, Larry. I was unable to memorize the answers. I did okay in court. He asked questions with short answers. Is it common for a judge to not allow a three page speech to be read?

[21:59] Larry: I have not practiced in Virginia, but it’s not common here. But in the context of this type of hearing, you know, he’s in a different setting. It’s not like a sentencing hitting hearing. He’s trying to get relief from supervised probation. So it might be that they’re trying to keep that more compact, but in the interest of fairness, if I’m a court, I’m gonna say, I prefer you not to read, but I’m looking at an 82 year old. I’m gonna say, if, if you really need to read that, the court will indulge, then you can read that. So the lawyer may have been trying to tell him that the judge was going to frown on what he was wanting to do. But if the lawyer had said, your honor, my client really needs to read this into the record. It should have been permitted. I’m doubting the lawyer said that, but that’s what it’s one of those things where I tell you when the, when you have, when the case is not one that should be summary judgment, you have to have the courage to look at the judge and say, judge, I’m really sorry. This case is not gonna be resolved. The I have no intention of filing for summary judgment because there’s so many facts that need development that we’re gonna have to go to trial unless your honor can lead on the lead on the state and get them to stipulate to facts that they won’t stipulate to. But otherwise, we’re looking at factual development here. That’s the same thing this judge would have had to, this lawyer would have to done as judge. My client’s 82 year old year years old. This is an important thing because he’s trying to get the court to consider all the points. He can’t remember them. He can’t recite them from from from memory. And therefore, if the court would just please would like to read this, the judge would have likely said yes. And what is an 82 year old gonna do, Larry? Well, I don’t know. We’ll find out more later, won’t we?

[23:42] Andy: Alright. Question number four. This is like, the twelve days of Christmas here with all these, different segments here. Good evening, gentlemen. I appreciate your work work helping others. I have a question and was hoping to get your opinions. An RSO completes their fifteen year registration requirements in the state they live in for a CP type offense, not on any type of probation or parole. They are no longer an RSO nor required to provide any information to the state regarding the offense. The person now wants to permanently move to a different state. If the new state you are moving are, if you the new state you are moving to considers the same past offense, which has a fifteen year requirement in the original state, a lifetime requirement, can the new state require registering in that state for life? Yes. See? You don’t need me. That’s right. Civil regulatory scheme. They can do what the f they want because it’s a civil regulatory scheme. It’s not punishment. Tada.

[24:42] Larry: Well, I I like this question because it’s coming up so frequently. It has come up and it’s continues to come up so frequently. And the answer is, yes. You could be required to register again. In reality, if youre not breaking the law, you might live another twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years without it ever being a problem for you. But on the other hand, you may be stopped at a place where a cop has boredom and runs your license plate number and gets a name and then does a, runs your name through the NCIC and sees you were formally registered and then decides that you’re you’re something that might be problematic. And, they might run a whole bunch of stuff and they might decide to to, confront you and they might discover you. Or you may have a victim that’s continued to track your movements and may know where you are and they may report you to that state. So you could get in trouble right away. Man. But if you but if you’ve been dutifully removed from registration, the worst thing that’s gonna happen is when they encounter you and they find that you have this offense and you are covered by their law, they’re gonna tell you to register.

[25:50] Andy: That’s the worst thing. You painted, though. That’s why that’s why you have the doom and gloom poster up there. Man.

[25:57] Larry: But it might not ever happen, but it could happen.

[26:00] Andy: And that’s why, Larry, I don’t drive but about five miles an hour over the speed limit because I don’t want any interaction with law enforcement.

[26:09] Larry: Well, you can do that. But, again, with a modern technology, they’re scanning license plates all the time. It’s true. And those scanners, I don’t I’m not tech savvy enough to know what they do with them when they scan them or they run through a system for analytics or they held in a system in case something happens that they need to refer back to it later. If they’re running them in real time through analytics and they see that 12 of the license plates they read in the last hour are to people who are or have been on the registry, what do they do next? They

[26:43] Andy: are not supposed to be used they are not supposed to be used from the EFF that I that I hear. Like, they are not supposed to be used for anything like that, and they’re supposed to make, get rid of them after thirty days, but who’s gonna go audit them and see if they did it?

[26:58] Larry: So but but, yes, he he would be best served not to move. But if he does move, that’s a personal choice. Do you wanna knock on the door like somebody did in Alabama multiple times?

[27:13] Andy: Same thing with a guy in North Carolina. Are you sure I don’t have to write like, can you double, triple, quadruple check, please? I I really feel that I need to, like, just make sure.

[27:25] Larry: Yeah. Well, he made sure alright.

[27:27] Andy: All the way to the point that he had to. The Alabama guy got locked up. Right?

[27:32] Larry: No. But he’s, still fighting as far as I know because his brother, being an attorney, told him just to go on the safe side and go see this law enforcement. And they said, by the way, you have to register. If you leave, we’re going to lock you up. And, Eddie’s been fighting constitutional challenge and he largely lost. He won one point about the dual travel permits. They had to get a travel permit and report, I think, to two different agencies. If they had a county sheriff and if they had a local city police, they had to get a travel permit for both. When they were just traveling, not being on supervision but just traveling and they struck the the dual permit. But you still have to get a travel permit if you’re leaving Alabama.

[28:11] Andy: Right. And and just for clarity, do you remember this if if I’m not mistaken, that’s the guy do you remember how his brother like, his brother’s an attorney. Right? Yes. Do you know when his brother became an attorney?

[28:26] Larry: No. I don’t. But I’m assuming it’s a long time ago. No. His brother became an attorney to help his brother.

[28:32] Andy: Oh, is that right? I believe. I could have the story and the people mixed up, at least in in this case. There was a person who got jammed up, and his brother became a lawyer for that purpose. I thought it was this guy.

[28:45] Larry: Yeah. Maybe. But he’s, he’s not been successful. Last time I heard, the the, trial court was not generous and the eleventh circuit was not generous. And, he’s still registering as far as I know. If he’d kept his self in Colorado, he’d not be registered this very day unless he committed another offense.

[29:05] Andy: Certainly. Certainly. Alright. Well, then let’s circle back to Eugene.

[29:10] 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 snort 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.

[29:59] Andy: The thing that we read a couple moments ago. And now, so you wanna talk about this petition for release from supervised probation, by Eugene in Virginia.

[30:09] Larry: Correct. And that is a resumption of what we were talking about earlier. We just did one point, now we’re going deeper. Alright. So Eugene wrote,

[30:18] Andy: I had a hearing when I tried to be removed from supervised probation. I was originally sentenced to ten years of incarceration and twenty years of supervised probation. I am 820 I’m sorry. Sorry. Eight 82 years old and earn maximum good time while incarcerated with no infractions. I have also served ten years and four months of supervised probation without an infraction. I received 12 of mandated treatment while incarcerated and twenty six more following incarceration. I received voluntary treatment before and after incarceration along with three risk asset assessments, which were all positive. My first probation officer told me that after serving half of my twenty years, similar story to me, she would take action to have me released from probation. Recent probation officers sent letters to the court in 2021 and 2025, with strong reasons for my release. The court has instructed my probation officer to not send any more letters. I summoned my pro I summoned my probation officer. Oh, yes. It’s, the court summoning. I I was like, you come over here. Sorry. I summoned my probation officer to the hearing, and she told the court that I had done everything right and recommended my discharge. This sounds like an ideal candidate to have, probation terminated. It does, but it, it hasn’t happened. So what did the court decide then?

[31:41] Larry: So well, I have the decision and I plan to go even deeper after the holidays, but we don’t have enough time to get into the full decision tonight. But for this episode, I will read what Eugene said. He stated, The judge thought about it for a few days and then denied my relief. The judge was a prosecutor before becoming a judge. There are two judges working in this court, and I got the ex prosecutor one. Also, the district attorney showed up to oppose my release. The judge treated my plea agreement as a binding contract. Well, it is. But but that’s not that doesn’t end that discussion. We’ll get it more of that later, but it is a binding contract. So just be clear on that, Eugene. That plea agreement is a binding contract.

[32:24] Andy: Alright. So it’s very common for people to be terminated earlier. I’m one of those people. Now this is bizarre. So Eugene stated in 2006, I did not know that being on quote unquote probation carried any restrictions. Welcome to PFR land for real. I thought that it only meant that I must not commit another serious crime. Had I known, I would not have been so quick to accept that plea deal. He also stated if the plea agreement signed by me is so strict, I should have not been given good time and released from incarceration early. If good time is a reward for early release from prison, why not also release from supervised probation? That makes a lot of sense. Right? Like, why would you go be a good person in prison if it’s not gonna benefit you later? Well, it did. It got him out of prison early.

[33:12] Larry: So but so the but let me sharpen that down just a little bit more. Good time, it’s usually a result of statutory language. So the statutory language, I’ve never seen a prosecutor come back and say, now, judge, you can’t, the state, you can’t give this person good time because it’s in the statute. But by the judge’s logic, not to argue too much with Eugene, his logic is somewhat, solid. If you if you can’t get good time on probation, why would you be able to get, good time,

[33:48] Andy: in prison? So there’s some logic. Seems reasonable. He’s got like one day a month or something in the Fed? Oh, he’s not in the Fed.

[33:56] Larry: But, but but the judge simply did not want to end the supervision early. But in the Fed, she did, like, fifty four days a year. Okay.

[34:04] Andy: So then Eugene stated, had I, gone to trial instead of a plea deal, there would be no signed contract? Thus, per the judge’s reasoning, I would not be required to serve the entire sentence. There’s certainly a contract you sign when you get convicted.

[34:21] Larry: Well, no. You don’t sign it’s not the same contract. You you’ll That’s true. When you when the jury returns a verdict, you’re pronounced guilty. And then the next stage is setting the PSR if they’re gonna do one decide what the sentence is going to be. But all holes are off. And that’s what Eugene doesn’t understand. That is possibly a true statement. However, if he had gotten convicted on all of those charges, particularly the ones that were dismissed, which he says there was some evidence, The jury may have may have found sufficient evidence. He might not be out of prison today. He might be there True. In incarceration and and facing death in prison. So he did get some benefit from the plea agreement.

[35:00] Andy: Alright. And then Eugene stated, I plead guilty to charges without knowing details of my alleged crimes nor who the victims were. I thought that they were the crimes and victims stated on the arrest warrant. During the preliminary hearing, the victims and witnesses, all children, gave testimony. It was accurate and thorough. Two months later, seven new charges were added by the same victims or witnesses. The prosecutor denied a new preliminary hearing. These seven charges were all false. Most certainly, the angry mother had children give false testimony. I did not see a copy of the indictment until after two years of incarceration. I did not know of these false charges until 2018 when I applied for removal from probation then. I’m still digging through my pre incarceration legal papers trying to find evidence which would show that I should have known about the seven charges. What about this?

[35:52] Larry: Well, I was gonna be flipping and say it doesn’t matter, but, won’t be quite as, it won’t be quite as flippant because he says something that I want to zero in on. He said that the prosecutor denies a new preliminary hearing. In my years of unauthorized practice of law, the prosecutor can’t deny a preliminary hearing. That’s a matter of something you have by right. But let me tell you what actually happened in all likelihood. In all likelihood, his defense attorney who had cashed in the big fat check didn’t wanna do a preliminary hearing, so his defense attorney waived the preliminary hearing. And defense attorneys do this all the time.

[36:28] Andy: All the time. Because once they catch your $40,000, like, well, I don’t have to do any anymore. I got your $40.

[36:34] Larry: So well, waiving preliminary hearings is a big deal for me. I don’t like waiving preliminary hearings because I get an opportunity to look at the credibility of your witnesses, how well they testify under pressure. And I get to force you to put on a mini case. You’ve got to at least establish probable cause. And if this case is not working, there are strategic reasons why you might waive a preliminary hearing. If you’re having serious plea negotiations, it looks like you’re going to get a sweetheart deal. You might wanna waive it. But if this case is not headed towards a sweetheart deal, I want you to put on a mini trial. I gotta see what you’ve got because I can tell my client what they need to do. But in this scenario, since he pled guilty, it doesn’t matter because the law assumes when you sign a plea agreement, that all the things that went wrong, that the violations that occurred have been corrected by the considerations you were extended. Because technically it’s a negotiation. And you tell the prosecutor, hey, I’ve got two of these counts. I think I’m gonna be able to bump in can just at the get go because you just don’t have a case. The basic elements of what are required for you to prove are just not there by reading your complaint. They’re just not there. And, but when you when you do a negotiated outcome, everything that you’ve negotiated assumes that you were getting consideration for anything that happened wrong, an illegal search. Now, all that stuff is being corrected by the plea agreement.

[38:01] Andy: He then said, my original lawyer did not give copies of the indictments to me. His fee was a flat fee of $25,000 and that’s in 2006. He pressured me into accepting a plea deal. Without a trial, he earned $25,000 for less than eight hours of work. It is difficult to understand why I gave my complete trust and confidence to my 2,006 lawyer who claimed to have never lost a case, being trauma traumatized and taking Zoloft medication. I was taken advantage of.

[38:32] Larry: Well, I’m familiar with that term never lost a case. So let me tell you, that can be a true statement. If you never have tried a case, it’s very difficult to lose one. So you wouldn’t call, like, taking plea deals of people being convict accepting responsibility that way, you wouldn’t call that losing? I guess not. No. No. That doesn’t go as a loss because that’s theoretically a satisfactory outcome for all parties. So that’s booked as a win. I see. So when when a lawyer tells you they’ve never lost a case, listen very carefully. The next question is, how many cases have you tried in the last three years? Sure. Because you want the person to be be fresh. And then when they say 27, don’t don’t narrow it down until they say 27 cases. And then say, how many of those cases were for serious felonies, including sexual offenses? Because they might have tried 27 misdemeanor cases. Yeah. They might have tried a bunch of parking tickets. Yeah. Well, you don’t try those usually, but but you gotta you gotta ask the the the question. And they say they’ve never lost a case. I I had I knew a deputy, public defender in in Boulder. He was proud of telling people he’d never lost a case. And I said, the only problem is you never done a trial either.

[39:42] Andy: So And and by far and large, Larry, the general population has no freaking idea what the follow-up questions are to I’ve never lost a case. They have no freaking idea.

[39:52] Larry: Well, that’s why you come to Registry Matters.

[39:55] Andy: Absolutely. Alright. So then he stated, the Virginia oh, wait. I’m sorry. I skipped a no. I didn’t. Okay. The general the the Virginia General Assembly passed a law which limits supervised probation to five years unless the offender needs further treatment. However, the law was enacted after my sentencing and was not made retroactive. Would it do any good to seek clemency from the new Virginia governor?

[40:24] Larry: Now I could go along with that one for once, Larry, because no one is giving you clemency. Now Now, would it do any good to ask the general assembly to pass legislation to limit probation to ten years and be made retro? They must have what? Go ahead. Sorry. Let’s do the first let’s do the first gov the the governor now, that laugh track could be a little bit over the top because if this governor is 860 years old and this is the pinnacle of his or her career, and I don’t know who the new governor is, but if that person has no political ambitions to be a United States Representative, a United States senator, or a president, they might grant clemency. Isn’t that the election that just happened a month ago? Yes. But I don’t know who the person is. I don’t follow Virginia elections. Oh, okay. Well, it’s a woman, and she’s, like, 50 or something like that. Okay. But but, there would be a scenario where you might could get clemency. But if the person has they’ve seen enough, attacks on the governor of Texas. You remember, Michael Dukakis? You remember the governor of Arkansas that handed out, clemency? What was his name? The one that was a a Fox News commentator?

[41:31] Andy: I have no idea who that is.

[41:34] Larry: You do. He ran for president.

[41:36] Andy: Oh, you mean that one? He ran wait. He ran and didn’t win or he ran and won. He did. I don’t know if one person from governor from Arkansas. Yeah. But but he ran he was a Republican governor. He was very generous with his, with his, clemency,

[41:49] Larry: but he came back to haunt him. Okay. Well, the studio audience can look up the governor of Arkansas before the current governor. But but, yes, this is a dangerous thing to start being generous with clemency if you have political ambitions. So, yes, it it would be possible that you could ask the governor. But if that governor is young and has political ambitions, it ain’t gonna happen. And, I mean, you know, it’s a different position, but look what they did to Ketanji Brown Jackson. Yes.

[42:15] Andy: So would it do any good to ask the general assembly to pass legislation to limit probation to ten years and be made retro? They must have passed the five year limit for some reason. Wouldn’t that reason apply in my case?

[42:27] Larry: That would be a worthwhile endeavor to pursue if you’ve got lots of energy. He might be a highly energetic 82 year old, but it’s gonna require a lot of work to get them to make it retroactive because the state is gonna have objections to doing that. It’ll turn loose a tidal wave of people, and it will have a detrimental, impact on budgets. Folks, you gotta understand, agencies do not want to shrink in size. And if you all of a sudden take the probation case load and you reduce it by one third, there’ll be lawmakers who’ll say, well, gee. Why can’t we save a little bit of money? We just cut the case load by a third. And all of a sudden you’re looking at reducing reduction of staff and there’s nobody who wants to see their their fiefdom shrunk. So it’s just a difficult thing to do. But amazingly, we we like retroactivity on stuff like this. We don’t like retroactive application of most laws, but now we’re we’re in seeking we’re in search of retroactivity.

[43:29] Andy: Now if I’m not mistake if I’m reading this right, Larry, so he has ten years of, probation and they changed it to five, but they didn’t make it retro. By the time he would get this pushed through, those five years are up. Well, he had twenty years, but he’s got ten to go. Yes. Ten to go. I don’t like, by the time he would get that passed, I don’t think that it would it would take that long for them to make that tiny little one little character difference in the law.

[43:55] Larry: It would take a lot of effort. It would take several years. It would I mean, it would be worth it would be worth trying, but it would be hard to imagine it would be easy. My experience tells me that this would be a tough one.

[44:11] Andy: Alright. Well, then our final segment as we blister through this thing, we’re gonna talk about some international travel. So I got a scenario for you to imagine, Larry. You’re sitting in an airport in another country, and you’ve just been denied entry, and they’re telling you to go back to The US. Go back to where you came from on the next flight. And you thought you’d done, quote, unquote, enough homework. This sucks.

[44:35] Larry: Yep. That’s a pretty common story, unfortunately. By the way, it was Mike Huckabee.

[44:40] Andy: Oh. Oh. Okay. Well, we like, with the daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

[44:45] Larry: I’m not sure what the relationship, but they are related. But but, yes, he’s the governor handed out handed out, sentence computations, and so did, former governor of Mississippi, Haley Barber.

[44:54] Andy: Okay. No. I just because she was the she was the, press secretary, wasn’t she? And then became when that ended, she became the governor?

[45:03] Larry: Yes. But, there was Asa Hutchinson after after Huckabee. But Huckabee’s presidential campaign suffered because of him being too lax with with sentence commutation and pardons.

[45:14] Andy: Gotcha. Alright. Well, so let’s start right there because I think a lot of PFRs are thinking, my case is old. I’ve got a stable life. My family is with me. I’ve traveled before. I should be just fine. Right, Brian? And then they get slammed. Why does that happen? What are they missing?

[45:33] Larry: Well, they’re missing, three different multiple different systems, at least three. All of which can say no for different reasons. U. S. Notification rules. Now, The U. S. Notification rules will not prohibit you from traveling. You can travel anywhere you want to. As far as I know, The U. S. Has never told a person they can’t travel. Now, we did have, for clarity, we did have one person who failed to give the twenty one day notice, and they didn’t arrest him for traveling. They arrested him for failure to travel without the notice. But, but so The US side is not going to stop you from traveling. But the destination countries immigration and entrance rules might. So you gotta think about that. Remember, The US doesn’t have open borders and other nations have mimicked The United States. So and also whatever informal or internal practices the border agents follow on the ground. Even if your life circumstances look great, time has passed, you got a job. The officer is, the officer may may look at it differently. And, so this person is a PFR. We don’t want him in our country. So so you you just you got too many things. It’s too many moving parts. It it scares me. I don’t have any desire to travel, but I don’t know that I would get in, many other countries.

[46:50] Andy: So, from the officer’s point of view, it’s not this is a dad with an infinite Christmas. It’s, this is a flag traveler.

[46:58] Larry: That’s correct. And the officer may have very little discretion or they might have discretion, but no training. Or they might have it in consistent conflicting instructions. So you can’t assume that your personal story ever gets considered, because it may not.

[47:15] Andy: So let’s let’s dig into that a little deeper though, because people say, look, I’m more than ten years off my case. I’ve traveled before to other countries. My level is low, level one or level two. Surely, that counts for something, doesn’t it?

[47:32] Larry: Well, not much. First, the level stuff is completely misunderstood by most, and even in The United States. Yeah. No doubt. It’s it’s it’s large an American state level concept. When The US sends notification to another country, it generally does not say this person is a level one, no risk. It basically says the person is on the registry and is traveling to your country.

[47:56] Andy: So so they get the worst possible version of your story just registered, period, without any nuance, background, anything?

[48:04] Larry: As far as I know. And then it’s up to that country’s law or policy. Some countries have outright bans for certain categories of offenses, like all felonies, and others have written no written law, but a de facto practice of turning PFRs around. And some are inconsistent. One officer says yes, but another officer says no.

[48:25] Andy: Alright. So I wanna walk through the most common points of confusion I hear because that is where people get burned. So let’s start with, do I have to tell my local police I am traveling? A lot of people still don’t know the answer.

[48:40] Larry: For international travel in The US, the answer is generally yes. Federal law, called International Megan’s Law, requires PFRs to give advance notice of international travel to their registering agency at least twenty one days in advance. Let me emphasize registering agency. But then there’s another caveat. The advance notice cannot be provided in those states where they do not accept the information. And then there’s people out there on the Left Coast that tell you, you file it yourself. And those people, I think, are wrong. The form is not designed for you to file yourself. Not to say they won’t take it if you can figure out where to file it. But it is contingent upon your state notifying within the apparatus and the bureaucracy that they’ve established if your state won’t take it, you really can’t provide it.

[49:34] Andy: And so that’s regardless of your state or your level or anything like that, you just gotta go do the thing?

[49:40] Larry: Correct. Now the the implementation details are somewhat state specific. Who you tell, what form you fill out, and how they handle last minute travel. But the federal expectation is that notice about where you’re going and where you’ll be staying, that that notice will be provided twenty one days in advance.

[49:58] Andy: Now, look, I suppose you, suppose suppose you don’t do that. You say, I’m I’m not doing that. You can’t tell me what to do. Then what? Well,

[50:09] Larry: if you just flat out refuse to, provide the notice. Is that what you’re asking? Yeah. Well, you’re running at a big risk of getting prosecuted, but at the minimum, your your own government’s not gonna send accurate information to the designation. And worse yet, you’re likely committing a a federal offense, particularly if your state requires it. And I’m not giving a legal advice here, but failing to give notice when it’s specifically required can create both criminal exposure and definitely travel problems.

[50:40] Andy: So people will say, I just bought my ticket last week. I don’t have twenty one days. They’re in a risky zone.

[50:46] Larry: Very risky in my opinion.

[50:48] Andy: Alright. Well, then, how about the second big one? The passport mark or identifier. People ask, do I have the mark? Does that matter? Does that guarantee I’ll be denied? How do you how have you heard that this works out?

[51:04] Larry: Well, under, current federal law, if your offense involved a minor, your passport must contain a unique identifier. Itis not a giant red stamp on the front page, but itis inside and itis printed a statement along the lines of The bearer was convicted of an offense against a minor and is a covered person under and it puts the statute number. I think weive shown one on the screen through the years. But apparently these markings are only applied to the passports of those who are currently registered. And thatis been the practice from the Federal Government since the inception of this because itis just not awkward. It’s not feasible to figure out anyone who’s ever been convicted of a sexual offense and attract those people when they’re no longer being monitored. So, if you are no longer being monitored, no longer being registered, if you deliberately exempted yourself and you’re non compliant, that won’t help you. But if you’re no longer being monitored, you’re not likely to get a marked passport even if you have an offense against the minor.

[52:06] Andy: So, if if your case did not involve a minor, this is just reiterating what you said, you usually don’t get that notation.

[52:12] Larry: That is correct. But you could still be a PFR, still be on the registry, but your passport won’t carry that specific language, but you still have the other baggage of having, you know, the twenty one day advance notice.

[52:24] Andy: Now, if you just have that little mark on your passport, does that get you booted from whatever country you go to?

[52:31] Larry: It can. Some countries see that, and say nope. Others don’t care as much about the wording in the passport and rely more on the notification to get from The US or their own background check checks. But the identifier certainly does not help you, and it absolutely could and does trigger denials.

[52:49] Andy: So you’ve got, notification system saying PFR incoming, You’ve got the passport statement in some cases, and then you’ve got whatever database the receiving com country uses. Let’s talk about the expectation people have. Hey. I saw a four year old comment online. Some guy said he went to country x with no problem. So I’m good. Right? Why is it such a trap?

[53:13] Larry: Well, because policies change as they did in The Philippines, and they constantly change without warning. And sometimes they change because of what your government is doing here in The United States. When you become hostile No. When you become hostile to people from other parts of the world, you shouldn’t be surprised that other countries turn it around on you. But a country that quietly allows PFRs four years ago might have had one bad news story, one internal memo, and they’re turning people away. Also, people’s facts are different. Maybe the the commentator had no passport identifier, or their offense didn’t involve a minor, or they weren’t in the same database.

[53:52] Andy: But they don’t mention those details. Sure. Or they just got lucky and you hit the right officer on the right day. Right? That is correct. Just like when you go with TSA security, sometimes you make it through, sometimes you don’t. Right. So there’s this hunger in the community for a quote unquote travel matrix. A big spreadsheet of green and red countries like Shenzhen is good, UK is bad, Mexico, maybe. How reliable do you think those lists are?

[54:24] Larry: They’re useful as a starting point, but they’re not authoritative. They’re crowdsourced experiences, and experiences are lagging indicators. They tell you what has happened in the past, not what will happen tomorrow. You can use them to gauge relative risk, but people report more success. And how do you pronounce that? Shenzhen?

[54:42] Andy: Shenzhen.

[54:44] Larry: Shenzhen. Countries like Canada, for example, but it’s not a guarantee. And a a former PFR that’s off the registry came by my office just last week. And he said because I was giving him grief about being a right winger. And I said, yo, part of this is coming from your country. And he admitted he said in his research because he’s going to travel to the Schengen region. And he said, I saw it right on their website that they’re still doing this in retaliation to America. And I said, well, but Americans don’t see that. Americans think that they have the right to come and go and that they have the right to tell everybody else to get the hell out and don’t come.

[55:20] Andy: American exceptionalism at its best. Let’s let’s linger on that relative risk idea for a moment because someone listening might think, well, if there’s no guarantee, why even bother doing research? Is that a realistic goal?

[55:36] Larry: Well, a realistic goal is to improve your odds and reduce surprises. And, but there is no guarantee. I don’t think you you want to understand The US side, the notice rule, passport issues, get a sense of the destination’s general approach, and accept that you, even with, perfect prep, you might still be denied. Just as people are denied from coming in our country that show up here. You’re trying to move from completely blind to an informed gamble, not from gamble to, you know, to certainty. We can’t get you to certainty.

[56:10] Andy: Yeah. I’ve, I’ve been very hesitant to travel even though I’m off the registry, and you feel your opinion, just as my friend Larry, think that I wouldn’t have any problem except for a place like Canada that just outright bans everybody with a felony. So, like, don’t even try to even though I, like, live not far away, I, like, I just can’t go there. Alright. Well, then, emotionally, that’s where this really hurts because the story we’re starting from is, I’m missing Christmas with my nine month old because I gambled without realizing it. Let’s talk about the emotional trap. People think my life looks so normal now. I must be off the radar. Is that actually ever true?

[56:50] Larry: Well, sometimes, the PFR has been removed from the registry and they live in a state where they’re no longer required and they do have, a normal life, their travel risk probably is significantly lower. But if you’re still a PRFR still registering, then you’re not off the radar. You’re very much on in the system and on their radar. And the fact that you’re the the devoted parent of a ten year ten and that ten years have passed, that matters to humans but not to computer systems. I’m glad that, that that this is, is letting those that computers don’t give them a lot of discretion.

[57:26] Andy: No. They they are they follow numbers, man. If you have this, it equals that. It’s the end of that conversation. So what do you say to the listener who thinks, I wanna take my family to another country. How do I not end up detained at the border and shipped back? We can’t give specific legal advice, but walk through just like a general planning checklist. If you were you, Larry, if you were trying to go to France or The Caribbean or whatever, what would you do?

[57:53] Larry: Well, like, like we mentioned above, are you still required to register? If yes, assume that you’re in the notification pipeline. Does your if your particular if your offense involves a minor. And if yes, expect the passport identifier issue. Know the twenty one day rule. Know that if your state will accept it or not. Figure out how your local agency wants that notice in person and accommodate that. And most of all, do research on your destination. Look at travel reports, not just old ones. Pay attention to patterns. Not just one success story. Remember that if it worked once, it may not work for you. Backup planning. You know, you’ve got to have a backup plan. Accept the possibility of denial. Think about if I get turned away, what does that mean to my job, to my family, my finances?

[58:43] Andy: Let me, interrupt on that point because people don’t like hearing build in the cost of failure. That’s a really amazing, actually, expression right there. But that’s kind of what you’re saying. Right?

[58:54] Larry: It is. You need to be emotionally and financially prepared for the worst case that you might get turned down at the border. And you need to have, ticket money. Gotta fly home.

[59:07] Andy: Does the does the destination country pay for your trip back home if you if they won’t let you stay? I don’t think so. I gotta think that’s a big fat no. I’m I’m assuming, Larry, that you could change your already established return ticket to leave more sooner. I’m assuming you can, but that depends on their availability too. If they got booked flights all the way through, then you’re just gonna sit there. You’d be like the guy terminal where he lived in the terminal for his entire life.

[59:31] Larry: But you’re also gonna be paying an astronomical price compared to what you paid because if you have to buy a ticket as as today, right now, they’re telling you get out, you’re gonna get the current fare, not the three month advance purchase.

[59:43] Andy: Sure. And this is this is, this is leaning practical, not doom and gloom. You’re not saying don’t try. You’re saying don’t build a once in a lifetime memory around something that could collapse at the immigration desk.

[59:58] Larry: Precisely. That’s what I’m saying.

[60:01] Andy: If we can, talk about these Shenzhen countries because it comes up a lot. Oh, Shenzhen is safer. What does that even mean?

[60:10] Larry: Well, according to this script, Schengen is a group of European countries with shared border rules. Historically, some PFRs have reported better outcomes arriving at one country and then moving freely within the zone. But some Schengen countries are stricter than others. Rules for all travelers have been evolving, new entry systems, more data sharing, and again, your mileage may vary as an individual. So, Shingen is safer. It’s it’s shorthand for some people have fewer problems there, but it’s not guaranteed.

[60:43] Andy: And I wanna highlight one thing that came up in, in in the conversation is that even lawyers often can’t give a confident prediction. Why is that? Because they don’t know. Okay. I mean, you you would end up you would have to talk to their attorneys, not our attorneys. Right? It’s not because

[61:07] Larry: form foreign immigration decisions are inherently discretionary and opaque. You’re dealing with another country’s sovereign decisions and processes that aren’t written down in a way that you can reliably access. Officers can override and misapply their own rules. A lawyer can explain US notification obligations with some certainty, but they can rarely guarantee you what a Peruvian or Swedish or Mexican officer will do on a particular day.

[61:32] Andy: So when someone says, my lawyer said it’s fine. What they usually mean is, my lawyer said there’s no US rule that says I can’t board a plane. That is correct. And I will guarantee that there’s no rule. You can travel anytime you want. We don’t build we don’t lock people into this country. You can go any anywhere you want to. People say that all the time, but I can’t travel. Bull crap. You can travel. You might not get there, but you can leave. Yes. We don’t try to keep you in. You wanna go, please do. Now, let’s touch on one more subtle point. People here denied entry and they assume that they did something wrong in the moment, like they answered the questions wrong. How much of this is about what you say at the border versus what’s already been decided in some system before you even arrived?

[62:16] Larry: I would think that the decision is functionally made before you arrive. Once you scan your passport, an alert they pop up. That’s my guess. The officer might have a code essentially says do not admit and they’re just executing. That can possibly be edge cases where answers might matter, but usually the systems have you flagged in a certain way. And your ability to to talk your way through it is probably gonna be very slim.

[62:42] Andy: And, so honesty is still important, but it’s not a magic key? Precisely. Alright. And then to close this out with something practical, for the person who just got turned back or who was terrified they might. You miss a big holiday. You’re alone on a long flight home. You feel like you messed everything up. Should they be thinking about when they land?

[63:05] Larry: Well, a few basic things. Stay safe and grounded. Missing a holiday or milestone is painful for sure, but it’s not the end of your relationship with your family. Document what happened, times, places, what you were told. That can help you understand the pattern later or consult with a professional if you choose. Review your own process. Did you get proper notice? Did you research the destination? This isnit about beating yourself up. Itis about learning. And you may need to adjust your expectations for next time. Maybe just shift destinations that have a track record of being more permissive or reconsider whether those trips are worth the risk. Hey. Let me ask you this question. Would travel insurance protect you here? I I don’t know. I don’t think it would, but I don’t know that. If you if you take the trip and they don’t let you in, I don’t see how the travel I don’t see how that would be covered by insurance.

[63:56] Andy: Maybe, Brian, do you know? And then for everyone else thinking about travel, don’t stake all your emotional chips on a trip that depends on a border agent saying, yes.

[64:07] Larry: Correct. Plan research, comply with your obligations, and hold hold the outcome a little loosely.

[64:15] Andy: And I think that about does it for that section. Right? This is not legal advice. That’s the end of it. Yeah. So alright. See, I told you it wasn’t gonna be three hours long. It was only two hours. See? Close. Alright. Well, anything else you wanna talk about other than wish everyone a happy happy happy happy happy Christmas?

[64:37] Larry: I indeed, and and thank everyone. I don’t know how to do it more humbly than say that even though our audience is not as large as I’d like, we have some very loyal people that are very generous and gracious with us. And Some of them are here tonight? It means so much to think that what we do means the world to people. You know, I talked to one of our patrons last week that just signed up, and I said, I I just can’t believe that people are as generous as they are. Now we just gotta figure out how to have more of them. But thank you and happy holidays to everyone. And I will send out a personal thank you for the fudge. The guy who’s, like, the all time winner of Patreon,

[65:21] Andy: he sends us fudge every year, which just never ask never asks for anything. Ever, ever, ever. It’s amazing. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of our patrons. Thank you so very much, and I hope you have a happy, wonderful holiday. I’m not a Christmassy person, but it’s a holiday time. So be with your friends, be with your family, and enjoy some time off and some good food and snuggles because it should be cold. It’s supposed to be cold. Sorry about that super patron, Mike. It’s gonna be 80 degrees where you are. That’s not very snuggly weather at all. Indeed. Alright. Alright. Well, head over to registrymatters.co to find show notes and registrymatterscast@gmail.com if you wanna send an email message. Also, when you’re typing something, don’t do double spaces anymore. Just one. One is sufficient. Send a voice mail message at (747) 227-4477. And as we already discussed, please be so very generous and kind and head over to, patreon.com/registrymatters and sign up for as little as a buck a month and you get all the perks of being a patron. And without anything else, have a great night, Larry, and I will talk to you very soon. Good night, everybody. Good night.

[66:32] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Arizona’s registry for people required to register for sexual offenses has been in the legal crosshairs for years. In a recent decision, a federal judge rejected a constitutional challenge brought by a man convicted in 2016, upholding the state’s authority to track online identifiers, enforce address reporting rules, and require lifetime registration. The case is a reminder of how difficult these challenges can be, even as laws expand and enforcement evolves.

This article breaks down what the judge actually decided, why the reasoning matters, and what may happen on appeal. We’ll also explore the wider context: how Arizona’s laws have changed recently, the political dynamics around who defends state statutes in court, and what practical steps people on the registry should consider. Whether you’re an advocate, attorney, policymaker, or someone directly affected, you’ll come away with a clear understanding of the stakes, the arguments, and the road ahead.

The Case at a Glance
– The plaintiff: A man convicted in 2016 of sexual misconduct with a minor brought a federal lawsuit challenging several aspects of Arizona’s registry regime. He was granted anonymity in the case and is referred to as “Doe.”
– The claims: Doe argued that Arizona’s requirements to report online identifiers (such as usernames), to repeatedly register his residence when moving between counties, and to remain on the registry for life violated his constitutional rights, including free speech, due process, and the Eighth Amendment.
– The defense: Arizona’s Attorney General did not defend the law in this instance, prompting the Republican leaders of the state legislature to intervene and take up the defense of the statutes.
– The ruling: The court rejected Doe’s claims, finding that the state’s interests and statutory structure justified the online identifier rules; that the residency reporting issue didn’t require a vagueness ruling due to the parties’ agreement on the statute’s meaning; and that lifetime registration flows from the fact of conviction without a need for an individualized hearing on duration.

Online Identifier Reporting and the First Amendment
Doe’s argument
Doe challenged Arizona’s requirement that registrants disclose their online identifiers to law enforcement. He asserted that this chills speech, risks exposing his identity, and burdens his ability to participate in online discourse safely and anonymously.

The judge’s reasoning
The court rejected these claims. Key points:
– No public disclosure: Arizona’s law does not permit the public posting of online identifiers collected by law enforcement. The judge emphasized that personal information tied to online identities is not publicly available under the statute.
– Content-neutral reporting: The court saw the requirement as a content-neutral reporting rule that monitors where individuals speak, not what they say. In other words, the law does not restrict posting or expression—it mandates disclosure to law enforcement.
– Linking threshold: The judge noted that linking a specific online identifier to a person requires a lawful request and the submission of the registrant’s fingerprints to the sheriff’s office, creating a procedural barrier to casual outing or harassment.

Added context
Across the country, courts have split on how far states can go in regulating online activity by people on registries. Some states have seen overly broad internet-related requirements struck down for violating the First Amendment, while others have seen narrower, non-public reporting rules upheld. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that social media is a modern public square in First Amendment terms, and it struck down blanket bans on social media access in a different context. But requirements to report identifiers—especially when they aren’t made public—have fared better in some courts.

Policy and practical considerations
– Chilling effect concerns persist even when identifiers aren’t public. People worry that their anonymity could be pierced or misused, especially given the stigma and safety risks associated with registry status.
– The fingerprint-based “linking” requirement may sound protective, but in practice, it’s not always clear how often, why, and by whom such requests are made—or whether secondary information pathways could indirectly expose identities.

Residency Reporting: When Is a Move a “Move”?
Doe’s argument
Arizona requires registrants to report address changes promptly, including when moving between counties. Doe owns homes in two counties. He argued that the law’s language is too vague and forces him to re-register every time he switches residences, even briefly, under threat of legal consequences.

What happened in court
A notable twist emerged: the legislative leaders who intervened to defend the law agreed in their filings that “moving” under the statute referred to a permanent change of residence. They argued the law should not require re-registration for people with more than one home who move temporarily between them.

The judge concluded that, given this understanding shared by the parties, a formal vagueness ruling was unnecessary. In essence, the court accepted the interpretation that “moving” means something more than shifting between established residences for short periods.

Implications
– Compliance burden: Even with this interpretation, the reality for people on the registry is complicated. Travel and multiple residences create frequent reporting obligations in many jurisdictions, and misunderstanding the rules can lead to serious consequences.
– Practical advice: People with more than one residence should seek written guidance from local law enforcement and consult counsel to ensure their reporting aligns with the statute as interpreted. Retain records of communications and travel in case of a dispute.

Lifetime Registration, Due Process, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Doe’s argument
Classified as a Level 1 registrant (the lowest of Arizona’s three tiers), Doe argued that lifetime registration for all registrants—without regard to risk or tier—violates due process and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He sought the opportunity to challenge the lifetime requirement based on his classification and risk profile.

The court’s response
The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that:
– Triggered by conviction: Arizona’s lifetime registration requirement is triggered by the fact of conviction. Because the obligation flows from a judicially established conviction, the court saw no constitutional requirement for a separate, individualized hearing on duration.
– Additional process not required: The judge concluded that any added hearing to contest lifetime registration would be superfluous, given that the legal obligation arises directly from the conviction and statutory scheme.

Added context
At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has treated registries as civil regulatory schemes rather than punishment in key decisions. That distinction has often made Eighth Amendment arguments an uphill climb. While some courts and scholars continue to debate the line between regulation and punishment—especially as consequences and public dissemination expand—most registry duration challenges face long odds unless a statute provides a built-in review mechanism.

Policy questions that won’t go away
– Uniform lifetime rules vs individualized assessments: Critics argue that one-size-fits-all lifetime registration ignores evidence-based risk and undermines reintegration. Proponents counter that bright-line rules simplify enforcement and prioritize public safety.
– Due process evolution: Even if existing precedent disfavors these claims, evolving legislative models in some jurisdictions include pathway-to-removal mechanisms, signaling a policy trend toward periodic review.

Who Defended the Law—and Why That Matters
In this case, Arizona’s Attorney General did not defend the law. That opened the door for the state’s legislative leaders to intervene and take up the defense themselves. Beyond the immediate legal impact, this dynamic underscores a broader reality: when an executive branch declines to defend a statute, other state actors can step in to ensure the law gets a full defense in court.

This can influence litigation posture and public messaging. Here, legislative leaders also used the ruling as a platform to emphasize their stated commitments to victim protection and public safety—while criticizing the Attorney General’s decision not to defend.

Arizona’s 2024 Expansion: Why This Ruling Reaches Further
The lawsuit did not arise in a vacuum. In 2024, Arizona expanded the scope of its registry laws:
– More Level 1 registrants were made eligible for public posting on the state’s website.
– A new reporting rule requires registrants with children to disclose their child’s name and school.

These expansions raise significant privacy and safety concerns. Requiring the disclosure of children’s identities and schools is particularly sensitive, not only for the registrant but for minors who bear no responsibility for a parent’s past offense. According to reporting on the case, additional legal challenges are underway that target these newer provisions. The present decision, while significant, is one part of a continuing legal landscape that is shifting in fits and starts.

Likely Appeal and What to Watch in the Ninth Circuit
An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a logical next step. Here’s what to watch:
– First Amendment analysis: Expect close scrutiny of whether online identifier reporting is truly content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and sufficiently protective against misuse—especially given modern realities of doxxing and harassment.
– Vagueness and residency: The Ninth Circuit may revisit whether the trial court should have squarely addressed vagueness rather than accepting an interpretive agreement. Appellate courts sometimes prefer clear statutory constructions when liberty interests are at stake.
– Due process and punishment: While precedent favors the state on the civil-regulatory framing, litigants may push for individualized review arguments, especially if they can show disproportionate burdens or a lack of any off-ramp.
– Broader context: Any Ninth Circuit decision would sit alongside prior circuit case law on internet-related restrictions and reporting duties, which have seen both limits and allowances depending on breadth, notice, and public disclosure.

Practical Takeaways for Arizona Registrants and Advocates
Nothing in this article is legal advice, but these general steps can help minimize risk and prepare for potential changes:
– Document everything: Keep organized records of your online identifiers, reporting dates, confirmations from law enforcement, and any guidance you receive. If you have multiple residences, maintain clear calendars, receipts, and travel logs.
– Seek written clarity: If you believe the residency rules don’t clearly apply to your situation, request written clarification from the relevant agency or sheriff’s office. Ambiguity is better handled proactively than defensively.
– Monitor developments: If the case is appealed, standards or interpretations may shift. Subscribe to updates from reputable legal advocacy groups and consult counsel if you think a change could affect your obligations.
– Think safety and privacy: Even if identifiers aren’t public, take precautions online. Use strong security practices and consider how your usernames might inadvertently reveal identity.

Broader Policy Questions for Lawmakers and the Public
– Measuring outcomes: Policymakers should ask whether each layer of registry oversight meaningfully improves safety, and at what cost to reintegration, family stability, and civil liberties.
– Targeted vs sweeping rules: Narrowly tailored laws that focus on clear risks tend to fare better in court and in practice. Overbroad statutes can invite litigation, compliance confusion, and unintended harm.
– Collateral impact on families: Requirements that implicate children’s privacy and school safety merit heightened scrutiny and guardrails. Policies should avoid penalizing or endangering minors who have done nothing wrong.
– Pathways to review: Consider periodic review mechanisms that allow courts or agencies to assess ongoing risk and adjust registration terms accordingly. Some jurisdictions have found that structured review increases fairness without compromising public safety.

Conclusion
Arizona’s latest ruling underscores a hard truth: constitutional challenges to registry schemes remain steep uphill climbs—especially where statutes are framed as civil, non-punitive measures, and where reporting is non-public and characterized as content-neutral. Still, the legal story in Arizona is unfinished. With expanded posting rules and child-related reporting requirements drawing additional challenges, and the likelihood of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the contours of what Arizona can require—and how—are far from settled.

For now, registrants should prioritize meticulous compliance and documentation. Advocates and policymakers should keep pressing for clarity, proportionality, and evidence-based reforms. As courts continue to navigate the balance between public safety and constitutional rights, the details will matter: how terms are defined, what is published, what is private, and whether the law builds in opportunities for review as lives and risks change.

Actionable takeaways
– If you’re on the registry in Arizona, request written guidance about residency reporting if you maintain multiple homes, and keep thorough records of your movements and filings.
– Counsel representing registrants should preserve First Amendment and vagueness arguments for appeal, while developing factual records about chilling effects and practical burdens.
– Policymakers should evaluate whether recent expansions—especially child-related reporting—include sufficient privacy safeguards and whether narrowly tailored alternatives could achieve safety goals with less collateral harm.

Added context note: This article synthesizes and expands upon the discussion and reporting surrounding the Arizona decision. Where broader legal context is provided, it is presented to help readers situate the ruling within national trends and is not a statement of the court’s holdings in this specific case.

For nearly four decades, federal sentencing has swung between strict uniformity and judicial discretion. If you’ve followed federal criminal justice—especially in cases involving sex offenses—you know the stakes of those swings are enormous. With the 2025 amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines now in effect, one of the most consequential changes involves supervised release: how it’s imposed, how long it lasts, and when it can end early. For people convicted of federal sex offenses (often also subject to sex offense registration), the shift is dramatic. The long-standing presumption of lifetime supervision is gone. In its place is a requirement for individualized judgments, both at sentencing and when considering early termination.

This article explains how we got here, what changed on November 1, 2025, and how those changes affect people currently on supervision as well as those awaiting sentencing. It also clarifies what is—and isn’t—retroactive, outlines the new factors judges are encouraged to weigh when deciding whether to terminate supervised release early, and flags pending legislation that could lock these changes into federal law.

Note: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are on federal supervised release or facing federal sentencing, consult an attorney about your specific situation.

How We Got Here: A 40-Year Arc of Reform and Reaction
The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) fundamentally reshaped federal sentencing. Before the SRA, federal judges had broad discretion within statutory ranges, and the U.S. Parole Commission decided when someone could be released during that indeterminate sentence. The SRA abolished federal parole for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, and replaced it with supervised release—court-imposed supervision that begins after a person completes their prison term.

At the same time, Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan agency within the judicial branch. Its job: write sentencing guidelines that would promote “certainty and fairness” by reducing disparities. Early on, the guidelines narrowed judicial discretion and, combined with mandatory minimums passed by Congress, ushered in an era of structured, often harsher sentencing.

In 2005, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker. The Court held that treating the Guidelines as mandatory—especially when judges increased sentences based on facts not found by a jury—violated the Sixth Amendment. The fix was to make the Guidelines advisory. Judges must still consider them, but they are not bound to follow them.

What the Sentencing Commission Does—and How It Changes Policy
The Sentencing Commission researches sentencing outcomes, collects and analyzes data, trains practitioners, and updates the Guidelines through an annual amendment cycle. The process is public: the Commission sets priorities, drafts proposed amendments, solicits comments, holds hearings, votes, and submits amendments to Congress by May 1. Congress then has 180 days to reject them; if not rejected, they take effect November 1. Since 1987, the Commission has sent more than 800 amendments to Congress; only two have been rejected.

The Commission’s 2025 priorities included “improving community supervision”—a focus that led directly to this year’s major changes.

Before 2025: The Presumption of Lifetime Supervised Release for Sex Offenses
Under the 2024 Guidelines, U.S.S.G. §5D1.2 contained a policy statement recommending that if the instant offense of conviction was a sex offense, the court should impose the statutory maximum term of supervised release. In practice, that meant lifetime supervision in most federal sex offense cases.

For people convicted of federal sex offenses—from possession of illegal images to hands-on offenses—the default recommendation was life on supervised release. That translates to:

• Lifetime conditions (e.g., monthly reporting, monitoring of devices, searches, polygraphs)
• Lifetime exposure to violations (and potential prison time) for any alleged noncompliance
• Growing, unsustainable probation caseloads with fewer people ever “terminating” supervision

Data collected by the Commission showed the scope of the issue: courts imposed supervised release in 82.5% of all cases, often as a reflex rather than an individualized need-based judgment. This fueled concerns about fairness and resource strain.

What Changed on November 1, 2025
The 2025 amendments made three pivotal changes relevant to supervised release in federal cases, including sex offenses.

1) No more blanket presumption of lifetime supervision for sex offenses
– The Commission removed the policy statement recommending the statutory maximum term for sex offenses.
– Judges must now make an individualized assessment of whether supervised release is needed and, if so, how long it should last.

2) Greater judicial discretion on length (minimums removed, maximums remain)
– The revised §5D1.2 removes the minimum terms that previously attached to felony and misdemeanor classes.
– Judges are directed to set a term that fits the individual, subject to any statutory maximum (and any statutory minimum if applicable under law).
– Judges must state their reasons on the record for imposing a given term of supervised release.

3) Clearer pathway to early termination of supervised release
– A new section, §5D1.4 (Modification, Early Termination, and Extension of Supervised Release), gives courts guidance on when and how to end supervision early.
– Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), courts have long had authority to terminate supervised release after one year. But the statute offered little guidance. The new Guideline explains factors the court may consider when deciding whether early termination is warranted.

Important limits:
– The removal of the lifetime presumption is not retroactive. People who already received lifetime terms won’t be resentenced because of the amendment alone.
– That said, the new early-termination guidance matters for anyone currently on supervised release and seeking to end it sooner.

The New Early Termination Framework: What Judges May Consider
U.S.S.G. §5D1.4(b) (2025) encourages courts to conduct an individualized assessment after a person completes at least one year of supervision. Following consultation with the government and probation, a court may terminate supervision if the person’s conduct and the interests of justice warrant it.

Application Note 1(B) lists non-mandatory factors courts may wish to consider:
– Violation history during supervision
– Ability to self-manage lawfully without supervision
– Substantial compliance with conditions
– Engagement in prosocial activities
– Risk reduction or maintenance at a low risk level
– Whether termination would jeopardize public safety

Why this matters: Until now, many early-termination motions were denied without a clear roadmap. In the 12 months ending December 2024, only 29% of supervised release closures were early terminations. The new guidance nudges courts toward structured, individualized consideration rather than default denials.

Who Is Affected—and Who Isn’t
– Applies to federal cases only. The amendments do not change state sentencing or supervision rules. Some conduct can be prosecuted in state or federal court; the same fact pattern can be charged either way depending on prosecutorial choice and federal jurisdiction.
– Applies to people sentenced on or after November 1, 2025. They will benefit most from the individualized approach at the initial sentencing stage.
– People already on supervision can benefit from the new early termination guidance. While your original term stands, courts now have clearer criteria to consider ending it early after at least one year.

Potential Ripple Effects (What to Expect Next)
Because the presumption of lifetime supervision is gone, courts and probation offices will need time to adjust. Here are three plausible near-term dynamics, based on practitioner insight from the field:

• A spike in early-termination motions. Many will test the waters early. Caution: in districts where judges prefer to see how peers rule first, early filers may face initial denials, and you generally can file only once a year.
• Uneven outcomes tied to violation history. People on longer supervision terms are more likely to have accumulated minor violations over the years. Since violation history is one factor judges may consider, those violations could weigh against early termination—even if a person is now low risk and stable. This is one reason it matters that the factors are advisory (“may consider”), not mandatory.
• Probation triage. These reforms are partly resource-driven. Some districts may proactively review caseloads and support early termination for people assessed as low risk, law-abiding, and stable, in order to reallocate resources to higher-need cases.

Pending Legislation: The SAFER Supervision Act
Two bills introduced on October 31, 2025—H.R. 5883 and S. 3077, collectively titled the SAFER Supervision Act—aim to codify the Commission’s new approach into federal law. They mirror the recent Guideline changes and reportedly enjoy conservative support tied to limited-government principles. If enacted, they would further stabilize and standardize the individualized model for supervised release going forward. Watch these bills closely.

Practical Implications for Defense, Probation, and the Courts
– For people awaiting sentencing in federal sex offense cases: You’re no longer fighting a policy presumption of lifetime supervision. The judge must tailor the term and explain why. Defense counsel should present a clear plan and mitigation supporting the shortest term consistent with statutory limits.
– For people already on supervised release: The path to early termination is clearer. Success will likely turn on documented conduct, stability, risk reduction, and public safety considerations. Your probation officer’s input will matter.

Frequently Asked Questions
Does this help with state cases?
– No. The Sentencing Guidelines are federal. State systems have their own rules.

I’m already serving a lifetime term. Can I get resentenced under the new rule?
– No. The change isn’t retroactive. But you can seek early termination after one year of supervision, and judges now have clearer guidance for considering it.

What if I’ve had technical violations?
– Violation history is one factor judges may consider. It’s not automatically disqualifying, but you and your counsel should be ready to contextualize past issues and show current stability, compliance, and risk reduction.

What should my motion include?
– While each court is different, the new factors suggest focusing on: clean recent compliance, stable housing and employment, treatment completion, community ties, prosocial activities, risk assessments showing reduction/low risk, letters of support, and any evidence that continued supervision adds little public safety value.

Actionable Takeaways
– If you’re awaiting federal sentencing: Work with counsel to build an individualized plan for supervised release that fits your circumstances. Present concrete supports (housing, employment, treatment, monitoring plans) and argue for the shortest term consistent with law.
– If you’re on federal supervised release now: Talk to an attorney about timing and strategy for early termination. Gather records of compliance, risk reduction, stable employment, treatment, and community involvement. Ask your probation officer about their district’s approach and whether they would support a motion.
– If you had past violations: Don’t assume you’re disqualified. Address the violations head-on, show how your circumstances have changed, and document sustained stability and prosocial behavior.

Conclusion
The 2025 Sentencing Guideline amendments mark a meaningful shift away from the one-size-fits-all model that kept many people—especially those convicted of sex offenses—under lifetime federal supervision by default. Judges must now individualize both whether to impose supervised release and how long it should last. And for those already on supervision, a new Guideline section provides a better roadmap for early termination after one year.

These changes won’t retroactively rewrite past sentences, but they can change futures—both at sentencing and through early termination. As courts, probation offices, and practitioners adapt, we may see more targeted use of supervision and a fairer, more sustainable system.

Keep an eye on the SAFER Supervision Act. If it passes, it will further cement this change in federal law. In the meantime, if these issues affect you or your family, consult an attorney, understand your district’s practices, and start building the strongest record you can for individualized justice.

[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.

Prisons are meant to be places of rehabilitation and justice—a system designed to correct and reform. However, when prison oversight fails, and human rights are neglected, they can become places of unimaginable suffering. Such appears to be the case for Lamont Meeley, a 52-year-old incarcerated individual, who died from dehydration under harrowing circumstances at the Western Correctional Institution in Maryland in July 2023. His death wasn’t just a tragedy; it was the result of alleged systemic negligence and cruelty. This story serves as a stark reminder of the ethical obligations our correctional systems must uphold and the devastating consequences of failing to meet them.

In this blog, we’ll examine the unfolding circumstances of Meeley’s death, its implications, and broader lessons we can learn about accountability within correctional institutions. By exploring the details, we aim to shed light on the systemic issues evident in this case and consider how we, as a society, can better ensure the dignity, safety, and humanity of those behind bars.

The Final Days of Lamont Meeley

The story of Meeley’s death is both tragic and infuriating. According to court filings and eyewitness accounts, Meeley spent the last week of his life in an isolation cell—cut off from basic necessities like water, toiletries, and proper medical attention. Despite his apparent distress, Meeley’s condition was ignored by prison officials who failed to take action that could have saved his life.

On the day of his death, officers at the Western Correctional Institution observed Meeley “dazed” and “unresponsive.” Yet, the sergeant on duty made no effort to seek medical help, even though administering an IV might have restored his hydration and stabilized his condition, according to legal filings.

Hours later, Meeley was found dead in his isolation cell. While the medical examiner reported his cause of death as dehydration, it is clear that this tragedy didn’t unfold overnight. Dehydration is not an immediate condition but a progressive one, reflecting a prolonged period of neglect. The circumstances surrounding Meeley’s death weren’t just disheartening; they were preventable.

The Cruel Reality of Neglect

If dehydration wasn’t traumatic enough, other details of Meeley’s final days paint a grim picture of life in that isolation cell. According to accounts by a fellow prisoner, Danny Hoskins, Meeley was taunted by correctional officers. His pleas for water reportedly met with laughter, and he endured conditions devoid of soap, toilet paper, deodorant, and other basic hygiene items.

Moreover, Hoskins—a primary eyewitness to the events leading up to Meeley’s death—recalled seeing officers turn off the water supply to Meeley’s cell. In his letter to Maryland’s governor, Hoskins recounted officers asking Meeley mockingly, “Are you thirsty?” as his agony stretched on. Hoskins also alleged that when he filed complaints about Meeley’s condition, he was subjected to retaliation, including physical abuse and harassment.

This cruelty raises critical questions. How did multiple officials witness Meeley’s suffering without stepping in? What mechanisms existed—or failed—to hold these officers accountable? The inhumanity described here isn’t accidental; neglect at this scale points to systemic dysfunction.

Systemic Failures and Institutional Accountability

When systems of oversight fail within prisons, vulnerable individuals—and by extension, society—suffer. Meeley’s autopsy labeled his death an accident, a conclusion that has drawn scrutiny. His death wasn’t the result of a singular oversight but a cascade of systemic failures: the lack of regular welfare checks, the disabling of water access, and the apparent culture of impunity that allowed officers to ignore his suffering.

Prison systems, like law enforcement agencies, often rely on internal oversight, which limits true accountability. While an agency’s priority should be the health and safety of those in its care, it’s clear these values were not prioritized in Meeley’s case.

This isn’t an isolated incident, either. Across the U.S., reports of abuse and neglect routinely surface from correctional facilities. The very structure of oversight in these systems allows misconduct to go unchecked until tragedies like Meeley’s force public attention. Without independent oversight, transparency, and accountability, a toxic culture persists, ultimately endangering lives.

Meeley’s Death in the Broader Context of Prison Mismanagement

Meeley’s death did not occur in a vacuum. Instead, it reflects the broader issues of negligence, abuses of power, and racial disparities within the U.S. prison system. The letter written by Hoskins, alleging a pattern of beatings and mistreatment specifically targeting Black inmates, adds another layer of concern, particularly regarding systemic racism in corrections.

Hoskins, who identified himself as a white inmate, stated, “For years, the Western Correctional Institution has gotten away with murder, beatings, and pepper spraying of Black inmates over and over again.” It’s a chilling accusation that should compel serious scrutiny of not only this one correctional facility but also the corrections systems nationwide.

The Family’s Fight for Justice

While Meeley’s death could have been yet another statistic in a system notorious for its opacity, his family is working to ensure his story does not fade away. Attorney Carrie Hansel, who represents Meeley’s family, claims that the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services actively stonewalled public records requests, making it difficult to uncover the truth. Hansel’s lawsuit seeks accountability for Meeley’s death, alleging that top officials were aware of what transpired but engaged in a deliberate cover-up.

In response, the department issued a familiar refrain, asserting its commitment to the health and safety of inmates while withholding comment on active litigation. The contrast between this polished statement and the grim realities of Meeley’s death underscores the gap between official rhetoric and individual experiences within correctional settings.

How Do We Move Forward?

Meeley’s death poses stark questions—not just about one prison but about the nature of incarceration itself. How do prison officials ensure accountability and transparency in correctional facilities? What structural changes are needed to safeguard the rights of inmates? Here are a few actionable steps that can pave the way toward meaningful reform:

1. Independent Oversight

2. Establish independent bodies to oversee correctional facilities, conduct investigations, and provide unimpeded access to records.

3. Better Mental Health Care

4. Meeley suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, highlighting how prisons often fail individuals with mental health needs. A more robust mental health approach is essential to prevent similar tragedies.

5. Mandatory Transparency

6. Public agencies like correctional departments must comply with record requests promptly. Delays in transparency exacerbate distrust and inhibit families from seeking justice.

7. Training and Accountability for Staff

8. Thorough training programs emphasizing ethics, compassion, and professionalism can help reduce abuses of power. Officers must also face real accountability through disciplinary measures and legal consequences.

Conclusion

The tragic death of Lamont Meeley is a sobering reminder of the brutality that can shadow the lives of incarcerated individuals. At its core, this story is about more than one man’s death. It’s about a system plagued by neglect, cruelty, and intentional opacity. It’s about the obligation of society to ensure that even those behind bars are treated with humanity and dignity. And it’s about whether we choose to uphold justice and fairness even for the most vulnerable.

Change, in this case, begins with awareness. By sharing Meeley’s story, we can keep his life and the lessons of his tragedy alive and demand accountability from a system that continues to fail individuals like him.

The death penalty is one of the most contentious and ethically complex issues in the American justice system. With debates ranging from wrongful convictions to methods of execution, the question remains: can justice be served while respecting human dignity? Recent developments in Alabama point to growing controversy over nitrogen hypoxia—a method described as experimental, torturous, and profoundly inhumane by critics. By examining the case of Anthony Boyd and the methods employed by states like Alabama, we uncover the narrative of what justice truly means in the modern era and ask whether it aligns with the ideals of humanity and fairness.

The Rise of Nitrogen Hypoxia as a “Solution”

As the manufacturing of lethal injection drugs became a global pariah—blocked by pharmaceutical companies and countries alike—U.S. states searched for alternatives. Enter nitrogen hypoxia, an untested and largely experimental form of execution. With Alabama at the forefront, this method replaces the oxygen in the air one breathes with pure nitrogen, causing suffocation. What proponents call a humane and cost-effective solution, critics describe as a horrifying experiment on human lives.

The Case of Anthony Boyd: A Fight Against Prolonged Suffering

In September 2023, Alabama carried out the execution of Anthony Boyd using nitrogen hypoxia, despite his request for death by firing squad—a method he considered quicker and less torturous. Boyd was convicted for the 1995 murder of Gregory Huguley, a heinous crime involving burning the victim alive over a small debt. Yet, even the darkest crimes do not soften the ethical questions surrounding Boyd’s method of execution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, painted a visceral picture of Boyd’s final moments. As nitrogen filled Boyd’s lungs, his body convulsed, gasping for the oxygen it desperately needed. For up to four minutes, Boyd remained conscious, experiencing psychological and physical torment. Justice Sotomayor likened it to the slow suffocation of drowning without water—raising profound constitutional concerns and rekindling debates over “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Execution Methods: Humanity vs. Justice

The controversy surrounding Boyd’s execution highlights a moral and legal conundrum. Advocates for nitrogen hypoxia argue that it is a cost-effective and “clean” method, involving minimal resources compared to firing squads or lethal injections. However, this narrative conceals the glaring lack of research and humane consideration behind these practices.

From Gary Gilmore’s 1977 execution by firing squad in Utah—a method he personally requested—to repeated botched lethal injections, the U.S. has grappled with implementing the death penalty without inducing excessive suffering. But the shift to nitrogen hypoxia shows a troubling evolution, where public policy prioritizes efficiency over ethics.

A Question of Ethics and Constitutionality

Nitrogen hypoxia might align with state budgets or the practical challenges of sourcing lethal injection drugs, but does it align with the U.S. Constitution? Justice Sotomayor’s dissent points to a significant gap in accountability. Prolonged torture, even in pursuit of state justice, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Furthermore, Alabama’s track record with executions is deeply concerning. Nitrogen hypoxia’s introduction followed multiple botched lethal injection cases in the state. Witnesses have described convulsions and agony during such procedures—including in the infamous execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith. These incidents beg the question: are these states learning from their mistakes or barreling forward recklessly?

What Does This Say About Us?

The expanding use of nitrogen hypoxia raises a broader question about the society we want to be. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argued that the dignity of the nation—who we are and who we aspire to be—is undermined when we experiment with human suffering under the guise of justice.

For those who support the death penalty, there’s a moral imperative to ensure that executions are humane. For opponents, these developments further solidify their stance—that state-sanctioned death, in any form, compromises the nation’s moral fabric.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Reevaluate Execution Practices: States considering nitrogen hypoxia or other experimental methods must invest in transparent research, oversight, and ethical considerations.
2. Understand Constitutional Protections: The Eighth Amendment offers vital protections, but it requires vigilance from citizens and legal experts to ensure they’re enforced.
3. Engage in Dialogue: Whether one supports or opposes capital punishment, open discussions about its implications, costs, and methods are essential for shaping a just society.

Conclusion

The execution of Anthony Boyd by nitrogen hypoxia is more than an isolated incident—it signals a critical turning point in America’s approach to capital punishment. As states like Alabama embrace experimental techniques, they challenge the ethical boundaries of justice and humanity. Whether justice systems will adapt to uphold the dignity of all—victims, society, and even those convicted—remains to be seen. At its core, this debate highlights what kind of nation we strive to be: one that seeks justice without jeopardizing its soul.

This structure balances information, analysis, and an invitation for readers to reflect and act. It also adheres to professional tone standards while providing accessibility and nuance for a general audience.

In the 30 years since Pennsylvania enacted its first conviction registry under Megan’s Law, much has changed in how we live, connect, and use technology. Yet, for the tens of thousands of individuals impacted by these laws, life seems frozen in time—bound by policies built on the mindset of 1995.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL) held a groundbreaking event at the state capitol to spark critical conversation about the need for modernization. The rally, which commemorated three decades since the original law was passed, brought together advocates, lawmakers, and community members to highlight how far we have come—and the urgent need to address the harm outdated policies continue to cause.

In this article, we explore the origins of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania, the expansive growth of the registry, the human impact of outdated legislation, and what needs to change. More importantly, we explore how PARSOL and similar organizations are championing reform while navigating the challenging stigma surrounding this issue.

Megan’s Law: A Backstory With Deep Impact

Thirty years ago, on a culturally transformative day in 1995, then-Governor Tom Ridge signed Pennsylvania’s version of Megan’s Law into effect. At the time, floppy disks dominated our technology, AOL dial-up was the pinnacle of the Internet, and ER was the “it” show on television. The event’s organizers used these relics—Windows 95 CDs, nostalgic movie posters, and floppy drives—to emphasize just how much life has moved forward since 1995…except in the realm of conviction registries.

Today, nearly 25,000 Pennsylvanians remain on the registry, a public database that initially served as a system intended to inform communities and reduce recidivism for sexual offenses. At its inception, the registry required individuals to check in periodically with law enforcement, and information was available only by physically visiting a police station.

Fast forward to today: with the proliferation of the Internet and smartphones, registry databases are now instantly accessible. With a few taps on a screen, anyone can pull up the names, photos, and addresses of registered individuals. But has the ease of access provided tangible public safety benefits, or is the registry merely holding people accountable to outdated assumptions about risk?

Experts and advocates suggest the latter. Thirty years of research has made it clear that the one-size-fits-all approach underlying Megan’s Law is ineffective and that our registries are not rooted in modern realities or evidence-based methodology.

The Case for Modernizing the Registry

When we talk about modernization, what does that truly mean? For those directly impacted by registry laws, it includes shifting away from the punitive, lifelong punishment model toward systems that are risk-based, nuanced, and rooted in rehabilitative practices.

According to John Dawe, Managing Director at PARSOL, modernization would mean recognizing that registrants can—and do—change. Current laws tend to disregard decades of research on reoffense rates and desistance (the process of stopping harmful behaviors). Studies have shown that individuals on sex offense registries actually present the second-lowest rates of recidivism. Yet, despite this data, laws remain firmly anchored in public fear, perpetuating misconceptions that registrants are likely to reoffend.

PARSOL is leading the charge to push Pennsylvania forward with proposals that:

• Transition the registry into a risk-based system rather than one based on fixed categories of crimes.
• Simplify the registry framework, which currently includes eight tiers and creates confusion among registrants, attorneys, and law enforcement alike.
• Allow pathways for individuals to demonstrate growth and petition for removal after a defined period of time, with guidelines for treatment and good behavior.
• Provide specific accommodations for elderly or incapacitated individuals, including those in nursing homes or long-term care facilities.

Advocates understand that this fight is as much about politics as policy—and the solutions are hardly one-size-fits-all. Context matters when passing reforms; what works in Pennsylvania may not mirror what works in Florida or Indiana, states with vastly different political landscapes and resources.

Challenges to Reform: Education, Misconceptions, and Fear

Changing policy starts with changing perception. Advocates like John recognize that fear has been the predominant driver behind the expansion of registries. Politicians are hesitant to champion legislation perceived as “soft on crime,” especially when their opposition can easily misconstrue efforts to modernize as endangering public safety.

“To successfully advocate for change, education is key,” Dawe explains. “Most people, including lawmakers, just don’t realize how many people are impacted by the registry or what it truly costs—both financially for taxpayers and emotionally for registrants and their families.” Public awareness efforts are essential in combating common misconceptions, such as:

• High recidivism rates: Contrary to public belief, individuals with sexual offense convictions have one of the lowest rates of reoffense.
• Uniform harm prevention: By treating all registrants the same, laws fail to focus on high-risk individuals and, in doing so, misallocate public safety resources.
• Perpetual danger: Research like Dr. Karl Hanson’s on desistance thresholds proves that, over time, with appropriate supervision and treatment, individuals are less likely to cause harm.

One compelling story from the Harrisburg event illustrates how education opens unlikely doors. While one state representative delivered a speech during the rally, another legislator walking by stopped, listened, and joined the event on the steps of the capitol. This spontaneous moment of mutual understanding underscores the potential to reach skeptics when given accurate information.

The Path Forward: Building Relationships and Strategic Advocacy

PARSOL’s progress isn’t coincidental; it’s the result of years of behind-the-scenes relationship building. John emphasizes the importance of working directly with lawmakers who serve on pivotal committees, such as Pennsylvania’s House Judiciary Committee, to create a channel for productive dialogue and legislative introductions.

Advocacy efforts also extend beyond lawmakers. By engaging stakeholders like treatment providers, law enforcement, and even attorneys, PARSOL helps create a multi-dimensional strategy. In one notable case, Pennsylvania’s Deputy Attorney General delivered a keynote speech for a PARSOL event, emphasizing the importance of fairness in the legal system.

The long-term vision? To encourage people—lawmakers, advocates, and the public—to see registrants as neighbors, not monsters. As John reminds us, when real people share real stories, it’s easier to humanize the conversation. This is work that requires time, patience, and compassion.

Actionable Steps Toward Registry Reform

For advocates and newly-impacted individuals alike, the road to reform can feel overwhelming. But there are practical ways to contribute to the movement:

1. Get involved: Reach out to local organizations like PARSOL or national groups like NARSOL to find resources, attend events, or connect with like-minded advocates.
2. Educate yourself and others: Use evidence-backed studies to combat myths about registries when discussing the issue with friends, family, or lawmakers.
3. Speak up: Whether through storytelling workshops, op-eds, or community forums, sharing personal experiences can be transformative.
4. Build relationships: Advocacy isn’t a solo journey. Partner with other civil rights groups, law enforcement, and community leaders.

Conclusion: A Movement for Change

Thirty years after its original enactment, Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law remains a relic of a bygone era, impacting tens of thousands of lives through outdated assumptions and practices. But organizations like PARSOL are proving that change is possible.

As we continue to modernize legislation and shift public perceptions, it’s not just laws that evolve—it’s the lives of registrants, their families, and their communities. And in that, we find hope for justice that serves everyone better.

[00:00] Intro: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are those of the hosts. If you have problems with these thoughts, f y p.

[00:14] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode this time, Larry, I said it on, in the show the other night. This episode is three fifty seven. I was confused at the conference. This is episode, three fifty seven of Registry Matters. Larry, it has been so long since we have spoken. How are you?

[00:35] Larry: Well, it was just yesterday, but I’m doing awesome.

[00:40] Andy: Well, I I guess I mean, in the context of recording a podcast because I think we skipped the week before the conference, and then you weren’t at the conference. So it’s been, like, forever since we’ve done this. I don’t know if I remember how to press all the buttons the right way.

[00:52] Larry: Yeah. It was. I got to take two weeks off because of various things, and I was so happy for a vacation. When can we have the next two weeks off?

[01:03] Andy: John says no. Let let’s just go right ahead for it. What are we doing tonight?

[01:10] Larry: Well, sad news. It’s just gloom and doom for this episode. I don’t know what happened to our attorney partner, Chance. I was not able to raise him this week. Oh. Uh-oh. Yep. I’m hoping he didn’t croak. But we have a special guest from Pennsylvania, John, which we’ll be getting to him early on in the episode. He’ll be walking us through some recent develops and their advocacy there in PA. And we have a new segment that’s been invented for this episode, and we plan to continue it if the audience likes what we’re doing. And we have two articles I’d like to cover, from recent news that are tangentially related. And I received an angry email stating that I promised to explain why president Obama did not veto IML. So if time permits, I will try my best to answer that question again. Why didn’t he veto it? People just keep writing about that, man.

[02:15] Andy: Well, let us, dive right in with, John. So welcome, John. How are you tonight?

[02:24] John: I am doing fine, Andy. Much better than when we last saw each other when I was dying of COVID.

[02:32] Andy: You were not doing well. You I couldn’t hear you with the mask, and you were you were you were in bad shape. I’m glad. Are you feeling better? Are you all well now?

[02:41] John: I, woke up this morning for the first time without a coughing fit, so I think that’s probably in the right direction.

[02:47] Andy: Well, that’s awesome. Well, here’s the proper introduction. So you are John Dawe, and you are the managing director at the Pennsylvania Association for Rational PFR laws. I I don’t like using sexual offense, but PFR laws, where he uses his personal experience as a person who is both a survivor and per perpetrator of sexual harm to help others with similar life consequences to live healthy and productive lives through recovery coaching. He has a master’s in nonprofit administration, which I heard earlier is similar to an NBA excuse me, an MBA, not NBA, not basketball, but it’s for, nonprofits. You are a certified nonprofit professional with additional graduate certificates in leadership, governance, and fundraising. And and NARSAL recently recognized mister Dawe as its twenty twenty five advocate of the year at its annual conference in Atlanta. So welcome again, sir. How are you? Alright. Yeah. In Atlanta, that conference that Larry didn’t go to. That’s the one. He skipped out just so that he, snubbed you from getting the award. I I

[03:49] John: I think we need we shoulda had a cardboard cutout or something of him, and he could’ve he could’ve been behind the FYP table. We just coulda had little signs that people held up next to him, like doom and gloom. Or

[04:05] Andy: That that would have worked quite well. Alright. Well, so you guys in Parcel had a fairly significant event on Tuesday. Is that correct? What happened?

[04:16] John: We did. Here’s the whole backstory. About thirty years ago, and now I guess ten days. So

[04:26] Andy: so thirty years Not to be specific. Ten days ago. Not to be specific.

[04:30] John: Pennsylvania’s then governor, later Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, signed into law Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law, which established the first conviction registry here in Pennsylvania. So this past Tuesday, Parcel held an information day and media event, at the Pennsylvania State Capitol, just steps from the governor’s Office, to, quote, commemorate, unquote, this. Our staff and volunteers showed up with Windows 95 CDs, a floppy disk drive and posters for, Apollo 13, the TV show ER, Alanis Morissette’s debut album. Fantastic. All of these all of these things from thirty years ago, thirty years ago being 1995. And I think we very effectively showed that pretty much everything in in our lives has changed since 1995. You think about, just the Windows 95 thing and and the floppy disks. I mean, 25% of Americans had home Internet access, and a much smaller portion of those had high speed Internet access. And now we have, devices in our pockets, I mean, the podcast listeners can’t see that I’m holding up my phone, but, that are hundreds of times more powerful than the computers we had back then. But the registry laws remain rooted in the 1995 zeitgeist in the culture of that era.

[06:17] Andy: Good choice of words. Yeah. That would actually be you’re you’re pretty tech tech inclined. So what was the Internet like in ’95? I don’t know. I had AOL dial up. Yeah. I had dial up too. I was, I was in the army and and, actually, I was in Korea in 1995. So I didn’t have a lot of Internet access when I was in Korea. Like like you said, though, so the thirty years and a few days ago, it’s been since, Megan’s law took effect in Pennsylvania. And it’s the same as it is in so many states. The registry was built for another error. And, for a lot of folks that are forced to register, it feels like time has simply frozen for the law. And I honestly, I would say that it’s gotten significantly worse in places like, Florida. And so I want you to dive in here, John. Has anything truly changed in your view for people on these registries over those years, or is everything pretty much stuck as it was in 1995?

[07:12] John: Absolutely right, Andy. It’s it’s gotten worse. I mean, in 1995, because there was not a robust Internet, there wasn’t a there if you I mean, there was a public registry, but if you wanted to know if your neighbor or anyone near you was on the registry, you had to go to the police station, and they got a big binder out, and you paged through it. Now you can, open on your phone in less than fifteen seconds, everybody in the state, in Pennsylvania, there’s more than 24,000 people on the registry here. It it it still, I think, continues to be built on a perception of, a misconception about risk. It’s a one size fits all Well, this is all things that, I’m sure, our listeners know, but, it’s built we’ve gone thirty years, And what’s happened in those thirty years is thirty years of research on its effectiveness on the best way to prevent sexual harm, the best methods to treat individuals who cause sexual harm and prevent them from committing or causing additional harm. But we still are rooted in that 1995 idea that we just treat everybody the exact same way and go from there.

[08:56] Andy: Well, at at the heart of today’s events and advocacy is this idea of modernization. And it sounds great in theory, but for people living under these rules, what would modernization really mean, for them on a day to day basis? I mean, we were talking a little bit in preshow that, people people keep mailing Larry about IML stuff, and they’re like, I would like to go visit France. And it’s like, we’ve people living in under bridges in Florida. It’s like I mean, there’s there’s not a lot of parity there. You have people who are about to lose their SNAP benefits to go on a teeny tangent, but you got people who can’t function not function, who are are restricted from daily functioning so bad. And then, so what would modernization look like for them?

[09:41] John: Sure, Andy. At its core, modernization would mean shifting away from the forever punishment mindset. It would recognize that someone can actually change and that things like treatment and supervision should count for something. Parcel has several proposals in the legislature right now, to hopefully have bills introduced that would shift us to risk based systems. Right now, no matter what your actual evaluated level of risk, is in Pennsylvania, your registry status is set by the crime that you committed. We know that that’s a one size fits all system which doesn’t work. There, except there are eight different registry tiers in Pennsylvania. Eight. All with different requirements, all with different conditions. So it it’s kinda confusing for anyone. There are attorneys that have looked at me and said eight. And when I show them the list of them, they’re like, oh, yeah. Hey. There there are eight here.

[11:00] Andy: I didn’t know that there were eight. That’s that’s kinda crazy. Because they were they were talking about in Georgia of adding maybe making it five levels or adding five to the existing three. I can’t remember which way it was. And I was like, what is that gonna do? I don’t I don’t see the point of having that many. It seems like to me, I feel like I don’t even know that low, medium, and high would make sense because there isn’t a lot of difference between low and medium if you look at it from, like, a tier one and a tier two or a level one and level two. There’s not a lot of difference. And once you go to level three, then you’re, like, forever forever monitored, you know, lifetime GPS kind of thing? So there’s there’s three

[11:37] John: tier of of those, there are three groups that have any method to petition to be removed from the registry, and that happens to people who are registered for life in some way or another with some number of conditions or another, after twenty five years on the registry with no slip ups and no registration issues, not that as long as you have a perfect record, after twenty five years, you can apply to maybe petition to pay an attorney and go before the judge and pay court fees to maybe get off the registry. So we are we have a proposal in for that. We have a proposal in for what happens I mean I mean, you’ve been to Pennsylvania. There’s there’s a thing called snow here. So what happens if there’s a if there’s what happens if you’re supposed to register February between January 31 and February 9, and there’s snowmageddon, and the governor declares a state of emergency and you can’t register. But somehow during the snowmageddon, the police still can make it to your house and arrest you for failure to register. Or what happens if you get in a car accident or fall down the stairs and break both your legs and are in in traction in a hospital room? And well, that’s an interesting thing. I’d love to get Larry’s, take on that. My idea my thought kind of in a tongue and cheek way is if you have seriously injured yourself and have a ton of medical bills, then let the state come arrest you and pay all your medical bills while you recover. But, anyway, but but we have a proposal in that would that would suspend registration requirements during periods like that. And then we have a proposal in for people who are elderly, people who require long term care in a nursing home. And, I mean, I have parents that are elderly dealing with dementia issues. And so if, if someone on the registry can’t remember their name, they’re not going to remember to register nor are they a going to be able to get in a car, drive to, state police barracks, and register in person. So, we have, proposals for that as well. So there’s there’s a lot of things that could happen, based on these thirty years.

[14:15] Andy: And now I think a lot of people, especially in our community, run up against this kind of question. How do we build broader support? A lot of advocates advocates are on board, but the folks directly impacted, are on board. But how do you reach everyone else, especially when politicians worry about being seen as, quote, unquote, soft on crime. Because as Larry frequently says, if we do blah, blah, blah, we’re gonna unleash a tidal wave of crime. Is that do I have that right, Larry? Precisely. You have a good memory. I do. I try to. John, so what’s the answer to that? That’s where practical strategy comes in. One piece is education.

[14:54] John: Most people don’t realize that the registry covers tens of thousands of people. It catches an enormous range of of cases. It is not based on actual risk. It’s based on perceived risk, again, based on on crime, not assessment. They people assume that the reoffense rates are high. They’re not. They’re the they’re the lowest reoffense rate of any tracked crime except a homicide or murder, and usually people who commit murder are not usually back out on the street to reoffend. So education is a key. We do a lot of that. That was a big part of of this, event in Harrisburg. Is that educating the politicians or the public? Both. Absolutely both. It I just the list this really cool thing happened during the speech. We had, one of our elected officials, one of our state representatives, speaking, and another state representative who was walking by stopped, listened to the speech, and literally walked up onto the steps and stood with the crowd. So that was a really cool spontaneous thing. Like, you just need to start the conversation. And, you know, I think that that’s a big component to it. The other component is we develop strategic relationships with people that you might not think we would, with treatment providers, with law enforcement, with other civil rights organizations. Andy, you came up to PA for our, conference last year where the executive deputy attorney general of of Pennsylvania at the time was our was our keynote speaker, and and spoke about all of these issues and trauma and changing these laws and making them more fair and safe for everyone. So, we develop a lot of relationships, and, we work with other groups throughout the country and in the NARSOL family and in the, national, National Coalition Against Conviction Registries, to make sure that everyone is on the same page and telling the same story and using the same language, so we can build that support.

[17:47] Andy: So let’s talk, I guess, more specifically about Pennsylvania a little bit. It’s does Pennsylvania have lifetime registry for everybody or anybody?

[17:58] John: Yes. Yes. The of the eight tiers, four of them are lifetime.

[18:09] Andy: Jeepers. And so, like, so the question I I this would almost be a a question that you would ask a politician maybe is, why should a registry be for life? So what what would your take what would that be, what would your take be for that?

[18:26] John: I think I think the the answer and I and I try not to say this because I don’t wanna reinforce the wrong idea. So I’ll put out there that this is completely incorrect. That once some that they feel that once somebody, makes one decision or one choice in their life, they are going to continue to make that same choice for the rest of their lives no matter, the circumstances, no matter their age, their experience, their treatment, their situation, they’re always going to go back and commit the same offence or make that same decision. And so that’s why advocates for lifetime registry would say we need that. We know from dozens of researchers over the last thirty years, that is not the case. We know that Doctor. Karl Hansen has has written extensively on the desistance threshold, which states that at some point, because people who commit sexual harm are required to do supervision, treatment, etcetera, that at some point, typically between eight to thirteen years from their, their release, they’re actually at a lower risk of committing sexual harm or committing a crime than the general public. So but people are driven by fear and myth and not rationality and facts.

[20:17] Andy: I I think you can point to politics in general that people are afraid of the other team being elected, and that’s what prompts them to vote for who they vote for. It’s just my own personal feeling there. So you guys have built, in in my opinion, in a fairly shortish, five ish or so years period of time, possibly one of the best organizations within the NARSAL umbrella. How would you turn this into something that can be replicated at individual states? What are the steps that you guys in Pennsylvania have taken to build these relationships that we could move this into even a national kind of conversation or at individual state levels to to make changes?

[21:05] John: Well, I think the first thing that has to happen in any organization like ours in any state is people need to get involved who are who have gotten through their own stuff. I’ll say stuff. I don’t know if I can say other things on here. You can say whatever you want. Alright. Well, so you’ve gotta get through your own shit before you can help other people. I thought you were gonna say something bad. And and one of the things that we we see is people get involved because they’re very emotional and they want to do something. But they’re in it because they’re in trouble or their kid’s in trouble, and they want justice for their kid. They don’t care. I shouldn’t say they don’t care. It’s not their focus to change the law for everyone. It it it’s that. And so so we need to get people involved. And this is this is where getting to people you you know, there’s the phrase, we need to meet people where they are. Right? Sure. Well, we need to meet people a couple steps ahead of where they are. So we need where they are, where they’re going to be, where we want them to be. Because we want them to get through that, and eventually it becomes a more, holistic, globally, pointed, goal. And so we need people to get involved at at that level. And I think that that NARSOL, NCACR, all of the organizations are are really doing work now that that will be helpful to get everyone on the same page, so that we can learn from each other. I’m I’m happy to have conversations in any with anyone, any of the state leaders on how we did this event. But we also need to, as a movement and as movement leaders, understand that, we all live in different states, all with different political environments, all with different laws, all with different things. So what works in Pennsylvania is probably not gonna work in Alabama. You know? And and and what works in Florida, it has a huge narcolepsy and a huge organization, is not gonna work in Indiana where there’s Of course. Just a handful of people. And then I think that we need to develop, inspired advocates from which can be anybody, anybody who cares about the cause to volunteer, to write letters, op eds, tell their story. We’ll coach them on how to tell their story. Amber Vilangas, did a wonderful workshop at the Narsil conference on storytelling, that people can see on YouTube. As soon as Andy gets it figured out, I’ve been posted. But when real people speak up, it makes a difference. It’s slow work, but the more the more the public sees, people forced to register as neighbors and not monsters, the more likely change will will be and happen.

[24:51] Andy: That’s perfect. So for someone newly faced in the registry or feeling isolated, what do you have as any sort of practical words for them?

[25:04] John: Don’t isolate. Don’t isolate. Don’t isolate. There saying don’t isolate. Right. There are there are fearless support groups. There are, restorative circles programs. There are, the the NARSAL social network connections. There’s this the Registry Matters Discord server. You know? There are all of the sorts of places where people who get it will help you.

[25:46] Andy: Perfect. How about as a final piece? Would you could you give me I mean, I I don’t wanna out anyone. I don’t wanna as far as who was in attendance at your event. But I mean, it’s on YouTube. But yeah. Yeah. I I I mean, I I get that. I’ve just you know, I I was talking to Larry, and I I shared something. And he’s like, I wouldn’t ever say that publicly. So how are you guys able to affect change effectively in Pennsylvania? And then I will turn all of this over to Larry if Larry has some questions that he wants to toss at you because he’s so much more adept at this field. Like, he seems like he’s in the exact same arena that you are.

[26:30] John: Sure. The the high level strategy is is we have limited resources. We have very, very limited resources. So we have to pick and choose the most effective pathway to influence. And for us, that is the House Judiciary Committee. They have an open door policy. You can talk to the people on that committee. And, the way legislation works is that anything that pretty much anything that has to do with the registry is going to go to the judiciary committee in the House or the Senate, and ultimately in the House. And so by developing good relationships with leadership on that committee, we’ve been able to effectively, make sure that everybody in leadership understands our position and understands the facts and not the myths. So at our rally, we had state representative Emily Kinkade from the Greater Pittsburgh area, and we had chairman of the judiciary committee, representative Tim Briggs from Montgomery County, which is out right outside of Philadelphia, where the King of Prussia Mall is. The second largest mall on the East Coast is is there. And they both spoke, in support of parcel and support of our bills, in support of registry modernization. And it was an just an amazing opportunity. And they helped us, like, preserve the capital, and they helped us, like, get the space that we had, and they helped us invite other people. And, you know, that’s that’s taken years of relationship development, but if you find people who get it, it’s not a stretch for them to go out on a limb and and help because, you know, it’s all about creating a safer Pennsylvania for them.

[28:47] Andy: Awesome. Thank you for all of that. Larry, do you wanna chime in with questions, concerns, comments, complaints?

[28:54] Larry: I just love what I heard from John because some of that is echoing what I’ve said for many episodes now about relationship building. Now, Pennsylvania is a much larger state. I don’t know the population, but it’s at least five times the size of New Mexico. And he said 11 ish million, 12,000,000? Yeah. It’s five to six times our size. He said it’s very open and accessible. I think if I remember right, it’s a full time legislature. They meet most of the year. So, and they’re they receive a much greater resource of staffing support and they get a salary that our state doesn’t pay. And amazingly, even with all that, he can still do exactly what I tell people when they say, well, Mark’s in New Mexico because you people are out in the booties, but it wouldn’t work here. Well, it is working there.

[29:43] John: Right, John? It is working here. Yeah. We we have the largest full time legislature in the country.

[29:51] Larry: And despite that, you’re able to go in and do the very same things I do here, And I just really commend you for, for what you guys are doing. I would probably be a little bit more secretive about what I do because I don’t want my adversaries knowing who I have relations with and who they could smear in the next election cycle. But as far as what I see and hear, you guys are making extraordinary progress, and I’m pleased with it.

[30:24] Andy: Very good. John, as always, man, thank you so much for coming on. You can stick around and chime in if you want to on these other segments. If you have any other obligations to be anywhere, you feel free to go attend them if you need to.

[30:41] John: Well, thanks for, having me, fellas. I am gonna hop over to another event, but I’ll probably be back. I’m just gonna mute this here, and I’ll pop back over in a little bit. Very good. Thanks, my friend. Talk to you soon. Bye bye.

[30:57] Andy: Let me make a configuration

[30:59] Larry: change here. Mhmm. Did you wanna do the Obama veto quest?

[31:05] 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 d.

[31:54] Andy: Oh, well, we can totally put that in. I I’m totally okay with that. I it didn’t fit with the way that the script was laid out at that particular point, so that’s why I dumped it out of there. Okay. Well, I was trying to find a place for it, but while you’re configuring, I can tell people it shouldn’t take very long. There. The reason why the

[32:14] Larry: president didn’t veto it is IMEIL was passed in 2016, which is an election year. Every two years, in the even number of years, we elect one third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives. And President Obama was a lame duck at that time. He had served his two terms. He was in the final year of his second term, and he didn’t have a lot to offer people in the Democrat party. He was not gonna get any Republican votes to sustain his veto if he were, if he had such inclinations, which he did not, because he would not have been told that there was anything wrong with the legislation since it passed unanimously, or almost unanimously. But he didn’t veto it because he would have put his party in an extraordinarily difficult position in an election year, trying to sustain a veto, and he would handed a campaign ad cycle for the rest of 2016 to how these Democrats are pro sex offenders. And that’s why he didn’t veto it. It’s really straightforward politics. He did not have the political capital as a lame duck president to lean on his party members to support a veto that he didn’t even think that he should issue because nobody told him, and it would have put his caucus in extreme danger electorally, and he just wasn’t gonna do that. No president would.

[33:33] Andy: Totally understand. Makes perfect sense. Shall we move along then? Sure. What is it? What’s this new segment’s cockamania that you’ve dreamed up? It is a segment that I am putting together manually by hand without any assistance from anybody else or anything else.

[33:51] Larry: I see.

[33:53] Andy: Well, what I wanna talk about though is life after probation. So it’s when a PFR finally finishes their sentence and is moving forward, what should folks keep in mind?

[34:05] Larry: You want me to answer this?

[34:08] Andy: You you are the expert explainer in chief about all things criminal justice pre, post, during, after prison, court, all that stuff. After they’ve spent their $100,000 defending themselves and and still end up going to prison and get on the registry for their life, all that?

[34:25] Larry: Well, if you finish PFR probation in most states, that’s huge because they are destined to find a way to violate most individuals. So that’s been years of reporting and restrictions and constant stress of worrying about small mistakes that could put you back in court and possibly prison.

[34:46] Andy: So when that ends, that’s a huge relief and weight off of their shoulders. I’m quite sure. I know it was in my case. It was in my case. And so in this example, the person that we are kinda, like, modeling this after didn’t have to register after probation. Now that’s going to surprise some people, I’m sure. Can you walk us through how that could be possible that a person ends up with, you know, a PFR type conviction, but then, doesn’t end up on the registry after their supervision?

[35:13] Larry: Sure. I can do that. So, not every sexual offense will trigger a duty to register. For example, in many states, practically, I think all states, indecent exposure is a crime. But it doesn’t put you on the registry in many states unless it’s in the presence of a minor or where a minor could have seen it or if it’s your second or third or fourth conviction. So, each state sets its own rules for what triggers a duty to register. And sometimes there’ll be plea negotiations for getting a plea that would be to an offense that doesn’t require registration. For example, the person might plead to contributing to delinquency of a minor when they actually had unlawful sex with a minor, and that still gives the state their felony conviction, but it would not trigger in my state a registration obligation. It would trigger it in many states because they have that inclusive category of if it was sexually motivated and that’s a separate finding. But in my state, it must be on the list. So there’s ways that you can avoid registration.

[36:20] Andy: And now just quick, I I remember movies back in the day, and it’s just like boys being boys or whatever, and there’s a a school bus going by and, like, the jocks put their behinds out the window. They’re mooning the cars as they’re driving by. Well, that would be considered indecent exposure, wouldn’t It would. And they did that back in my days back in the eighteen seventies. When you guys were riding chuck wagons? No. We did we did that for horseback. That would be hard to do.

[36:47] Larry: But that would also be not You just stand up and drop your bloomers. And then but that wouldn’t be sexually motivated necessarily. Right? No. You were you were just trying to get the shock value of it.

[37:02] Andy: So if someone is eligible to avoid registration, it often comes down to what? Sentencing, negotiations, a tarot card reading, Rochambeau, rock, paper, scissors, maybe legal defense strategies?

[37:17] Larry: Well, it can be most of everything you’ve mentioned there. Early advocacy can really matter when a person gets arrested. If they get lawyered up with the right lawyer and they get in treatment and they recognize they have a problem and that they’re dealing with the problem. Sometimes there can be a rational prosecutor and they offer a non registrable misdemeanor or the judge has some discretion in not ordering registration. In other cases, like I mentioned, people plead to a lesser charge. It might be a felony level, but it’s not a it’s not a duty to register type offense. And people should always make sure that they have a good lawyer if you’re charged with PFR type of offense.

[38:02] Andy: Now so here you go again. So you say people should always have a good lawyer. How does how does one know if they have a good lawyer or not?

[38:11] Larry: Very simple. You call me.

[38:14] Andy: Okay. So for anyone struggling through their probation right now or waiting to see if they’ll get registration, it’s not always spelled like and wait. They should call you? Is that what you’re saying?

[38:23] Larry: Well, not just tongue in cheek, but what it’s really hard. It’s like me trying to find a good medical provider. You know, I had one of my dearest friends refer me to a podiatrist that I thought was the biggest quack I’d ever run into, and she swore by him. She’d go into him for twenty five years, and thankfully, just announced a couple days ago he’s retiring. But, it’s really difficult. And I can arm you with questions like I did with you personally many years ago, several years ago. And you can tell when you’ve got a good lawyer, when they can answer those questions or when they tell you to butt out it’s their business, which I think one of the lawyers told you that that He he was not a fan of me challenging him. He was not. He didn’t think he didn’t think he needed to be explaining anything to you.

[39:10] Andy: He was not a fan. I I mean, I sat in the office when he called the prosecutor, I guess excuse me, the DA. And, I I I mean, it was just very strange, but I anytime I was trying to, I guess, Larry him is the way I’ll word it. Just ask, like, strategy, challenge anything that I knew about the law that was different than what he was. He was like, you don’t you don’t like lawyers, do you? No. Not really.

[39:35] Larry: So well, but, you know, this this is essential that you do these things with attorneys. A good professional, when when I was dealing with my air conditioner this spring, you remember, I had, I think, two or three different companies wanted to sell me a $10,000 system, and I knew just enough to know that I didn’t need that. And I ended up getting it fixed for $600 because it was a condensing fan that had gone out, but they wanted to sell me a new system. They told me all these dreadful stories about it was R-twenty two system. They said you can’t get Freon. I said, but I don’t need any. It’s not leaking. Where would the where would the Freon go?

[40:12] Andy: It’s like I’m with you. But, so there’s an undercurrent to this that I noticed, in this conversation, the story that I was reading. This per the person’s personal transformation, both mental health and relationship, how does that fit? Does that fit into the equation of when you’re, getting off of probation?

[40:32] Larry: I think so. I think it’s significant. The registered community understandably can be focused mostly on laws, but so much of surviving and thriving after probation is also your mental health. Many people like me have OCD and they’re dealing with, I’m not dealing with any addiction that I know of, but you’ve lost your support system. You’re working on rebuilding that, and the daily work of going to a job setting where people know, and, or even though you’re not registered, oftentimes when you’re under supervision, your employer was visited and had to sign a form saying that you need what you’re under supervision for, And all of a sudden, they get out of the workplace. All that stuff causes a lot of stress.

[41:16] Andy: Absolutely. And and the the story mentioned leaving a domestic violence situation, and that stuck out to me too. Any practical advice on rebuilding social support when coming out of probation and difficult circumstances?

[41:34] Larry: Oh, boy. I think I’m the worst person to ask this question. Start small, toxic relationships, even without the PR for the situation. Again, isolate a person. I’ve been told that by people who have toxic home lives and, find at least a supportive person or two, to be in your life, maybe an AA sponsor or therapist or even online connections I’ve heard are very

[42:04] Andy: attractive these days to folks. I’ve heard even people get married online and, from meeting someone online. Have you heard that? I have. How so literally, though, how would that be super different than people only being pen pals with a person in prison and they get married? I knew a dude in Georgia that had gotten married in prison to a person that he was only a pen pal with, and then the person starts doing visitation, which I realized now you have visits. But, like, you got married in prison, which seems, to me, feels really bizarre.

[42:36] Larry: I’ve heard of that and and also seek professional help from a qualified mental health professional. And, again, I don’t know how you identify that qualified person, but

[42:49] Andy: well, let’s talk about identity too. Some people say, thank you for telling your story. There’s power in telling your story. Right? You know, and let me go back one step on this because we talk about this pretty regularly. Like, I don’t I’m I’m not saying I don’t care about your story, but your story is the same or very, very similar to that person, that person, that person, that person, that person. And all of us are dealing with the same shitty laws, So it doesn’t matter because we need to help everybody and all of whatever it is. The rising tide lifts all boats, whatever that expression is. So I don’t really super care about people’s stories, but there is power in telling it under certain circumstances.

[43:28] Larry: I agree. And and for many, the shame and secrecy or shackles, and you share when you share your journey, that removes some of that. It helps others to see hope and find hope. But always practice safety. No full names, no doxing. Just speak from your experience and help others, but don’t put yourself at too much risk.

[43:52] Andy: And one comment in the thread asked, how do you avoid registration? Practically speaking, should folks be asking their attorneys about post sentence possibilities even if they if they’re already well into their case?

[44:07] Larry: That’s a good question because laws do change very commonly and it’s very rare that they take an offense off of the list of registered offenses. It’s more likely they’re gonna add offenses, but it may be that the law has changed to allow you a post conviction remedy. You may have found some evidence that that’s something that would give you an opportunity to eradicate your conviction, or you just may be able to petition for removal after a specified period of time or achieving certain milestones, like completing therapy with a specified period of time. It varies a lot from state to state, and some states don’t have a process like we don’t, but we have some offenses where you just time out. So it’s just worth talking to a qualified lawyer as I’ve said previously.

[44:57] Andy: Now if you don’t mind, again, you are the, the person the the practical expert on this stuff of what a person should do when they’re transitioning out. Can you give us some kind of basic list of your after probation checklist?

[45:13] Larry: One of the things I harp on here is is the first point is make sure you have official paperwork when you’re done. Because contrary to popular belief, the NCIC can be wrong. Stuff can be reported incorrectly, in the NCIC, and your paperwork is important to have that you completed successfully. In my state, you have to present that to the county clerk. Now, the probation of the department of corrections is supposed to send it to the county clerk saying that you’re eligible to to vote again, but you need that documentation in case that that part of the bureaucracy is broken down. So get the documentation. Keep the documentation. If you’re not required to register, make sure you’re, you know, I tell people keep those letters in multiple copies of locations. So, you know, they confirm your registration or lack thereof requirement. If you’re in one of those states where you have to have PFR specific IDs, update those things, get that PFR information off of your ID card. Your social security shouldn’t be a problem for registration as long as you’re not in prison. If you’re in prison, notify social security when you’re out because they won’t pay you while you’re in. Right. If you’ve been lacking on medical care, catch up on your medical care, reconnect with people you deem safe. But really, most importantly, focus on stable stability, stable employment, stable housing, which will still be problematic for the criminal record, even when you’re off supervision because we don’t eradicate criminal records very easily in this country. And more, more, well, equally important, become a voter. There’s a couple states that don’t, argue on voting while you’re serving your sentence, but most do. But almost all states permit you to return to the voter rolls after conviction, after you’ve served your sentence. And, so know know your rights to vote and vote if you can.

[47:27] Andy: So do you think there are any surprises that people could expect? Like, you’re not on under probation anymore, but?

[47:34] Larry: Sure when you’re even when you’re off paper, you still face the consequences of background checks identifying that you have convictions. Those background checks can result in denial of housing, denial denial of employment. So be prepared for a gradual process. It’s not gonna be overnight, but if you can secure some stable employment, not even in your chosen profession at the salary you want, but if you come to me as an employer and you’ve been working stable somewhere else, even if I’ve discovered your background, I’m gonna be impressed with that stability. So that’s important.

[48:10] Andy: Do you think that you’re different? Like, you’re in a you’re in a position where you are you you see people that are down on their luck and you offer to help them. Do you think that employers generally see things that way? And you and you’re the anomaly, or do you think generally employers are compassionate?

[48:31] Larry: That’s hard to say because employers are looking out for their interest. And when you’re trying to run a business, you don’t have but so much capacity to solve people’s personal problems. But I think from my decades in the workforce, most employers that I’ve worked for do care about you as an individual. You’re not just a number. So, I think that I’m not that much of an anomaly, but maybe I am. I just don’t realize it.

[49:00] Andy: And I love that you mentioned hope earlier. The original conversation closed with you’re worth it from, another person in the thread. Now for a lot of folks in our audience, that encouragement is rare. What’s your final word on that topic there?

[49:16] Larry: Well, when people have made an awful decision and then the world tells them they’re worthless, that’s hard to deal with. But, first of all, there are no saints on their on their planet Earth I’m aware of. But whether anyone’s done what they’ve done, what they’ve been through, there’s always a possibility of growing, surviving, improving, and doing good things. So, find what gives you hope and move forward in life. I tell people, quit dwelling on the past. You’re all supervision. Go out and find a new career even if you have to change careers. If you’re if you’re not as old as I am, you can start doing something new even if you’re not allowed back in your previous profession.

[49:57] Andy: Very well. That’s that’s well said. So let’s recap. So finishing probation, obviously, is a super huge win milestone for someone. Registration isn’t always required for everybody, but the path forward is never the same for two people. Meaning, my situation is very different than someone else’s, and you can’t directly compare. There may be similarities. Lean into support, legal advice, and mental health care, and keep telling that story to people that will listen to it and those that can actually make change. We’re like, if you’re telling our people, it’s kinda preaching to the require, which isn’t really look, man. We’re all just trying to make it day to day.

[50:34] Larry: And don’t forget, there’s a community pulling for you, sometimes in person, sometimes online. But I’m one of those people. I’m pulling for you. I want you to make all the money you can earn because I have my pod every month waiting for a check from the government, and I need I need that coffer filled with your tax dollars so I can collect that money.

[50:56] Andy: I understand. Alright. Well, you threw this article in here that says and it’s from a courthouse news service. Liberal justices slam supreme court approval of nitrogen gas execution in Alabama. In a graphic dissent, justice Sotomayor, one of those liberal pointy headed communist loving people, invited readers to imagine themselves in the shoes of a man Alabama executed on Thursday.

[51:23] Larry: God. So, well, and I put this in here because the expansion of the death penalty is underway around the country and the gruesome way that states are executing people. Folks, you go ahead and vote for these folks that promise you law and order, and you are gonna be on the execution list next because they’re already putting PFRs type offenses on the list. I think they did so in Florida already. Correct?

[51:55] Andy: I think so. That sounds about right. So,

[51:59] Larry: but yes, but the lambasting comes from a liberal communist sympathizer, and it’s what would you expect, you know, from, from Sotomayor. But it says Justice Sotomayor Sonia Sotomayor lambasted her conservative colleagues for allowing Alabama to move forward with a nitrogen hypoxia execution. Is that the way you pronounce that? It is hypoxia.

[52:22] Andy: On Thursday,

[52:24] Larry: stating that the experimental method induces psychological terror and violates the mandate against cruel and unusual punishment. Folks, listen carefully. The Liberals believe that there is a such thing as cruel and unusual punishment. Sotomayor said, take out your phone, go to the clock app, and find the stopwatch. And then we’ll get into more about how much time you would have to watch your stopwatch for further as we go.

[52:48] Andy: Alright. And not just Sotomayor. She was joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Of course, the other communist justices there. Sotomayor instructed readers to watch the seconds count up on the stopwatch until how long? The four minute mark. Now imagine for that entire time, you are, well, if there only is nitrogen going into your lungs, which means there’s no oxygen, the air is 74% nitrogen already. So you’re only talking about, you know, 15 or something percent oxygen is what I understand it to be. So if you’re only getting nitrogen, that means you are suffocating. And Sotomayor wrote, you want to breathe. You have to breathe, but you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face, pumping your lungs with only nitrogen gas. Your mind knows the gas will kill you, but your body keeps telling you to breathe. This is disgusting.

[53:38] Larry: Unless then the majority of execution stays that the Supreme Court looks at, do not generate illicit public dissents because they get these last minute requests all the time, let alone detailed descriptions of the planned execution. But Sotomayor offered a graphic picture of Alabama’s execution of Anthony Boyd, which the Supreme Court refused to block to chronicle what she said was a form of cruel, unusual punishment.

[54:06] Andy: Now did Boyd have any sort of particular, peculiar request? Excuse me. Peculiar request?

[54:11] Larry: He did. Boyd Boyd asked for the rarest form of mercy mercy. He wanted to die by firing squad, which would kill him in seconds rather than a torturous suffocation lasting up to four minutes.

[54:24] Andy: The constitution would grant him that grace, Sotomayor said, but my colleagues did not do not. Now before you get too many people in tears about this, Larry, keep in mind that Boyd was sentenced to death in 1995, in the murder of Gregory Huguley. I have no idea if that’s pronounced properly, and I apologize if not. And he was burned alive over a whopping $200 debt. But in 1995, that was like a million dollars today.

[54:52] Larry: Oh, not quite, but, I would pronounce it heucaly the way you did. But Alabama was the first state to use this controversial method in 2024 to execute Kenneth Eugene Smith. Similarly, the Supreme Court refused to stop Smith’s execution from moving forward against the dissent of the three liberal pointyheads, communist sympathizers. Then Sotomayor described nitrogen hypoxia executions as experiments on human life. She said the court knows what will happen.

[55:22] Andy: Now you know how we got here. Right? I’m I’m gonna take a little detour because the I don’t know if it was The United States was ever a manufacturer of the concoction, but the other countries have decided that they are not gonna be participants in executing people. So they won’t release it and sell it to The United States. So The United States is then forced to figure out a different way to nuke people, and this is what we’ve come up with.

[55:47] Larry: Correct.

[55:48] Andy: Alright. So isn’t that but so isn’t dying this way, what wouldn’t that be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

[55:56] Larry: No. Not according to the conservative wing of the court, and that’s what I keep telling people when they say isn’t the registry cruel and unusual punishment? If you will allow this to happen in America, how the hell can you say the registry comes close to this? Right. But but anyway, Sotomayor wrote, for two to four minutes, Boyd will remain unconscious while the state of Alabama kills him in this way. Hold on. Conscious, not unconscious. Alright. Conscious. Excuse me. She said when the gas starts flowing, he will immediately convulse. He will gasp for air. He will thrash violently against the restraints holding him in place as he experiences the intense psychological torment until he finally loses consciousness. Just short of twenty minutes later, Ward will be declared will be declared dead. And this is not cruel and usual punishment. The registry never will be under this type of court.

[56:47] Andy: Alabama and Louisiana are the only states that use nitrogen hypoxia, executing a total of seven people with this method. Alabama started using the method after a slew of botched lethal injection executions. When Smith was executed, witnesses said he convulsed for around four minutes like watching someone drown without water.

[57:07] Larry: And according to Alabama, Smith’s convulsions were due to him holding his breath and fighting the execution process. Well, they’re probably right. Sure. But he couldn’t hold it for so long. But Sotomayor said subsequent nitrogen, epoxy executions had similar results. Sotomayor said Gary Carey, Dale Grayson, Demetrius Fraser, Gregory Hunt, and Gregory West, all executed by nitrogen hypoxia, had similar experiences.

[57:35] Andy: It’s interesting that Boyd elected an alternative execution method death by firing squad, but Alabama rejected his request. It’s probably too expensive, Larry, to get, I don’t know, a dozen or whatever bullets to do it. The lower courts refused to force the state’s hand, fighting that distress was an unavoidable consequence of capital punishment.

[57:55] Larry: They did say that. Sotomayor, had a response. She said there’s significant constitutional difference between three to six seconds of physical pain and terror of two to seven minutes of conscious suffocation with its associated psychological pain and terror. Sotomayor said that the courts must weigh the associated pain and different execution methods, even though the process could be deeply troubling. Now I vaguely remember when the Supreme Court, when a bunch of the damn liberals back in ’73 had declared the death penalty unconstitutional, and states started passing new death penalty laws. Georgia was among the first. Utah did, I think in 1976. You can Google them and see if I’m right, they executed Gary Gilmore. I think, and they used a firing squad. He wanted that way. And I think they, I think if I remember right, Utah honored his request to give him the give him the bullet.

[58:49] Andy: Sotomayor went on to say that allowing the nitrogen hypoxia experiment to continue despite mounting and unbroken evidence that it violates the constitution by inflicting unnecessary suffering fails to protect the dignity of the nation we have been, the nation we are, and the nation we aspire to be.

[59:06] Larry: I would say the better description of the nation that we used to be. The conservative majority did not explain its decision to deny Boyd’s execution state request. But Alabama attorney general Steve Marshall countered that Boyd’s arguments by countered Boyd’s arguments by stating that the victim was not given the opportunity to delay his death, which would be true. Alabama remained steadfast in its commitment to uphold the law and deliver justice for victims and their families. This is your attorney general. Remember, I think we got a clip for what I think about Alabama. Do you wanna run that right now? Oh, I think I got that right here. Run by the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes since the advent of the Third Reich. But Marshall said in his statement, I am proud of my team’s tireless dedication to that mission, and I pray that Gregory’s loved ones may finally find peace and knowing that justice has been served. If you call that justice, okay, attorney general.

[60:06] Andy: Alright. Well, let’s quickly move over to this final segment so that we have an equal bashing session. You have the story, and it’s called, how a Maryland prisoner died by excuse me, died an excruciating death from dehydration. So we went from suffocation to dehydration. And it begins on July 2023. An officer working at the Western Correctional Institute noted in his log book that Lamont Meeley, housed in an isolation cell without even toiletries, appeared to need help, according to filings in the Baltimore County Circuit Court. The officer later told investigators that Meeley looked dazed and was unresponsive at the time. He noted excuse me, notified a sergeant who did not get medical attention for Meeley even though an IV at that point would have saved his life. The filing said, now hours later, Meeley, 52, was dead. This is just horrible.

[61:01] Larry: It is indeed. And the medical examiner’s office concluded that the cause of death was dehydration. Per report, Mr. Mealy had a history of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Medical examiner’s reports that he was found in his single person cell with fecal matter in and around his mouth. The medical examiner officers ruled the manner of death and accident. There was no signs of significant trauma, and the toxicology report for drugs and alcohol was both they were both negative.

[61:32] Andy: They ruled it an accident? Like, to die by dehydration, that doesn’t happen in a day, Larry. You don’t die of dehydration in twenty four hours. Oh, I know. So many of the details of the events leading up to what the lawsuit described as Meeley’s slow and excruciatingly painful death were drawn from letters written by fellow prisoners who was housed nearby excuse me, by a fellow prisoner who was housed nearby. Danny Hoskins. I’m sure he’s not getting any favorable attention now either. Hoskins filed complaints and wrote letters claiming that Meeley spent a week suffering in an isolation cell with no access to water, at times taunted

[62:10] Larry: by correctional officers. These are guys that had very, very broken upbringings, and they were boldied, and now they can turn around and bully people that are less than them. Now and I remember, Andy, this is coming from the pure wind driven state of Maryland. Right? I I know. I yeah. I know. Is Maryland the pure wind driven snow? I know. Yeah. And and this is this is disgusting because, it doesn’t matter. It seems like they’re Looney Tunes regardless of whether it’s Alabama, so we’re bashing Maryland also. The first complaint prompted correction officers to come to house Hoskins cell and beat him.

[62:44] Andy: Wait. I’m sorry. You’re too thirsty. Take a take a stick in the vase.

[62:49] Larry: Well, sounds like a good idea. But before he was later transferred to other, rather, the prison to other prisons, then he sent letters to the governor, to attorney general, and to Carolyn Scruggs, secretary of Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

[63:04] Andy: Hoskins wrote, for years, the Western Correctional Institution has gotten away with murder, beatings, and pepper spraying of the black inmates over and over again. Hoskins wrote to the governor in a letter obtained by a legal team representing a member of Meeley’s family. By the way, I’m a white man who has risked my life in this. What will you risk?

[63:24] Larry: Yeah. Well, the corrections department investigated the hostage claims and disputed parts of his account. Can you imagine that they did this? I’m so so surprised.

[63:33] Andy: Now attorney Carrie Hansel representing the family member is arguing in a public record lawsuit related to the case that the relative ins is entitled to discovery. He wrote in a filing that the correction secretary and her top lawyer were both made aware of the death, but covered it up and did not disclose any of the wrongdoing to mister Mealy’s family. The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the attorney wrote, then stonewalled the family’s public records request until they filed the lawsuit and engaged in an obvious and unlawful effort to hide the most incriminating evidence of what was done to mister Mealy.

[64:09] Larry: And in response to questions about the lawsuit, the department spokesman, Keith Martucci, said, quote, while the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is unable to comment on matters involving pending litigation. The health and safety of those in DPSCS is responsible for as well as, facility personnel remains the department’s foremost priority. Now I can certainly see that for the Yes. They have demonstrated it for sure.

[64:39] Andy: On 03/20/2024, Hoskins wrote in a letter to governor Wes Moore introducing himself as an inmate at Jessup Correctional Institution. I’m writing to inform you of a murder that was committed on or before 07/05/2023 at the at the Western Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland, he wrote. This murder was done by all white correctional officers of a single black male inmate. Hoskins wrote that he was housed in a cell adjoined by Meeley’s, witnessed the events leading up to his death, and had repeatedly tried to get your employees to do something about it with no success. Though he did not know Meeley’s name, he described seeing correction officers lead him to the isolation cell. Meeley, Hoskins, recalled, was struggling being pulled from several directions one by excuse me, one time by correction officers.

[65:27] Larry: Yeah. And here’s what gets really juicy. Hoskins also wrote that Mueller was placed in the cell by two officers who were not wearing name badges or rank insignia, which is kind of uncommon. Would you agree? I would until you go talk about the, ICE officers running around these days. And and they went directly into the closet between Cells 1 And 2 On 4 Unit 4 B and turned the water off to the cell.

[65:54] Andy: Well, that’s so he can’t flush his drugs down the toilet. So on June 07/02/2023,

[66:00] Larry: the the same two officers were, who cut the water off stood in front of 4 B 2 and asked, are you thirsty? Are you thirsty? And the inmate asked several times, water, water, and officers merely laughed and exited the tier according to this accusation from mister Hoskins.

[66:19] Andy: Hansel, the family’s attorney, described this as an eight day period of torture during which the prisoner was designed denied toilet paper, soap, deodorant, towels, and a toothbrush. Hansel wrote that video evidence from the de Amelie’s death shows that officers performed about half the required checks on his cell approximately once an hour as opposed to every half hour. That’s special.

[66:45] Larry: Yeah. And this is one of the reasons why I feel so strongly at at Narstel while I’m handling the mail. I don’t believe everything that every inmate writes to us. You’d be a fool to do that. But I try to take as broad an action as I can when these type of accusations are made and people laugh at me. But I say, look folks, if we don’t take these people in an isolated world where no one has access to them from the outside, except for when they’re granted access and they tell us stuff and we, everybody ignores them as if it’s made up, which some of the stuff is made up, but we don’t know. And it would be the same thing as like in 1963, when the Supreme Court received the handwritten petition from Clarence Gideon, scribbled out on legal paper paper and sent to them, if they had had that attitude. When we receive letters, we have the duty to try to do the best we can to figure out if the person is crazy, hallucinating, or if they’re making true accusations, because hopefully intervention can happen. And every everything broke down in this case, every single check and balance broke down.

[67:53] Andy: Well, what is a check, though? I mean, I I don’t sure. The the officers are supposed to be almost that entire check and balance. There’s nobody else that’s like, an an independent auditor to to go by the cells and check on people. And if there is, they’ll certainly go shuffle you around from dorm to dorm to make sure that you’re not where they are looking at that time.

[68:15] Larry: Well, I would like to think that they haven’t served time in a in a state prison or federal prison. But I’d like to think when you have medical needs, when you have you can put in a kite or some sort of site request and a medical officer would review you. Is is it that bad that you can’t get any attention from medical, period? If you’re in an isolation cell, if you’re, like, in PC, whatever, how does your letter get out? Well You don’t have you can’t just, like, hit a button in the in the the dorm and and summon someone, like, you’re in a old age home where you have, like, the help by falling, I can’t get up button. Oh, I know that, but I’m I’m that’s what I’m saying. Checks and balances. I’m assuming that if I’m running a prison, I’m gonna have oversight. I’m gonna have someone in charge of monitoring my staff. I’m gonna have someone who’s making sure that shit like this doesn’t happen. And if something like this happens, heads are gonna roll. Because we’re not in the business of killing people. We’re in the business of housing people.

[69:06] Andy: This is gonna roll away just like Freddie Gray and all those other people that end up in police custody and die.

[69:13] Larry: Probably. But that’s not the way I would like to think of how things should work. And my goal is to try to make things work better. That’s why I respond when we get letters from prisoners that are saying horrible things are happening. I’ve got one writing from Texas saying that he’s a former, police officer, and he’s saying that they’re manipulating his food and putting drugs in his food and all sorts of things to him. I don’t know if he’s crazy or not, but I’ve sent it to to tell. I’ve sent it to the people in Texas saying, have you heard from this guy? Can you get can you get somebody to check on him and find out if he’s crazy or if this is possibly true? Because if you’re an ex cop, you’re probably not very popular in prison, I wouldn’t think. I wouldn’t guess so. They’d probably put you in a special prison too. So

[69:57] Andy: Someone someone asked, I and I don’t know the answer to this, but but isn’t the prison system sort of like the police? Isn’t their oversight internal?

[70:05] Larry: Yes.

[70:06] Andy: So they’re they’re They monitor prison Phelps. Yeah. So that doesn’t sound very effective way of monitoring. Alright. Well, that that was a pretty you wanna talk about doom and gloom, Larry? You achieved new heights. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I know that’s what you aspire to do. Alright. Well, head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and and links to more doom and gloom. Email registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You could send old fashioned voice mail (747) 227-4477. And as the people that are listening here tonight have done, and I appreciate them so very much, they became patrons at patreon.com/registrymatters.

[70:51] Larry: And any any closing words before we go? I’ve got a political event next weekend, so hopefully, we have a magic creation of content because I’ll be occupied most of the afternoon or next Saturday.

[71:04] Andy: Gotcha. And, also, I would like to say that, you know, it’s hard for me to show it all, but I’m gonna lift it up. I am wearing one of the fine FYP shirts. This one says, it’s not punishment. It’s just a civil regulatory scheme. And, so you can head you can find those over at fypeducation.org/shop. And I got nothing else, Larry, and I hope you have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you soon. Everyone that’s listening, same to you as well. And, one other thing, hey. We record these on Saturday nights usually at 7PM. And, if you want to listen in, you can just message me on Discord. I’ll let you in. Some people show up late and we start over for them. Just kidding. We don’t do that. But, otherwise, patrons get, to to listen to the show while we record it. And any outtakes and conversations with Larry and so forth afterwards. Have a great good night, have a good night, Larry. I’ll talk to you soon. Good night.

[71:55] Larry: Alrighty.

Prison mix-ups or administrative errors are rare, but they have the potential to create a whirlwind of confusion—both for the justice system and the individuals involved. Few recent incidents capture the bizarre complexities of such a situation better than the story of David Kramer, a convicted felon who was mistakenly released from an Arizona prison 22 years ahead of schedule. In a saga filled with forged documents, legal loopholes, and unresolved questions, Kramer’s case has not only stirred controversy but also highlighted potential vulnerabilities in the corrections system.

In this blog, we’ll unpack the strange chain of events that led to Kramer’s early release, the implications of fraud in the legal system, and how such incidents are likely to shape future legislation and justice protocols. By the end, you’ll have a clearer understanding of not only what happened but also why—and, perhaps most importantly, how the justice system is responding.

Imagine being sentenced to 34 years in prison, with no chance of release until 2047, only to walk free decades early due to an alleged “clerical” error. For David Kramer, a 54-year-old man convicted of multiple crimes, including kidnapping, this astonishing scenario became reality. However, his freedom was short-lived, as authorities eventually discovered the error and re-incarcerated him. But what caused the mishap in the first place?

The Arizona Department of Corrections initially attributed Kramer’s early release to misleading court documents they received. These documents falsely claimed a legal authority to vacate Kramer’s sentence, citing “concurrent jurisdiction” and laying out what appeared to be a legitimate court order. What makes the story even stranger is Kramer’s insistence—and that of his family—that these documents were entirely valid and that his re-arrest constituted a violation of due process. The case has since spiraled into investigations, public outcry, and questions about the integrity of criminal justice systems.

How Did This Happen? The Role of Fraudulent Documents

At the heart of Kramer’s premature release lies a questionable set of documents sent to prison officials. According to reports, these documents included a release order instructing the Arizona Department of Corrections to vacate Kramer’s sentence and set him free by June 4. Such orders typically involve significant checks and balances, including signatures from authorized court clerks and judges. Yet, these particular documents were forged—an act of fraud that has sent shockwaves through the legal system.

What Were the Documents?

The fraudulent paperwork reportedly bore the signatures of a “Kenneth Bennett,” identified as a deputy court clerk. Additionally, the documents included a page with signatures from a former presiding judge and court clerk. These signatures affirmed innocuous statements, such as the legitimacy of the court in question and the authenticity of the documents. Though these signatures were linked to legitimate officials, they were taken out of context and repurposed for fraudulent purposes.

How Did Officials Miss the Red Flags?

This is one of the most puzzling aspects of the case. Prison officials, despite having issued prior warnings about inappropriate and even falsified filings in Kramer’s case, somehow acted on the fraudulent release order. The central question remains: How did these clearly fake documents pass muster?

It appears that both human error and systemic vulnerabilities played a role. These oversights suggest not just mistakes but also a glaring need for reforms to prevent bad actors from manipulating administrative processes to their advantage.

Who Is David Kramer? A Look at His Criminal History

To understand why this case has sparked such outrage, it’s important to examine David Kramer’s criminal background. This was not a one-time offender being mistakenly granted freedom but an individual with a lengthy criminal record.

Kramer was convicted in 2013 on a range of charges, including:

• Kidnapping – a charge that stemmed from an incident in which Kramer reportedly used his children as human shields when police attempted to arrest him.
• Felony drug charges – part of a pattern of run-ins with the law.
• Prior felony convictions – underscoring a history of criminal activity.

Kramer was sentenced to serve several decades in prison, with a scheduled release date of 2047. His early release, whether intentional or resulting from procedural failure, has reignited debates about how well correctional and legal systems can manage such cases—and what should be done when the system fails.

Kramer’s Defense: Claiming Legal Authority

After being re-arrested, Kramer steadfastly maintained that his initial release was legitimate. He and his daughters, McQueen and Paris Kramer, argued that the documents presented to prison officials were valid and that his subsequent re-incarceration violated his rights under due process.

Kramer reportedly cited a little-known legal theory, claiming his release had been approved under an authority that, according to him, the courts and officials “don’t want the public to know about.” While these claims border on conspiracy theories, they nevertheless raise an important issue: How do courts handle accusations of systemic secrecy or perceived misconduct, even when such claims lack merit?

A Family Divided

The role of Kramer’s daughters in this case adds an emotional layer to the story. They argue that Kramer had been “wronged” by the justice system, pointing out past grievances, such as Paris being unable to testify during Kramer’s original trial. Paris was only seven years old at the time and, under common legal principles, not deemed competent to serve as a witness. Though this decision aligns with standard legal practices, it has nonetheless become a focal point for the family’s frustrations.

Legal and Legislative Implications: What Happens Now?

If there’s one silver lining to this chaotic sequence of events, it’s that lawmakers are unlikely to let the matter rest without action. When high-profile errors occur, it’s common for new legislation to follow, aimed at tightening the cracks in the system.

Likely Outcomes for Kramer

For Kramer, the future looks bleak. Experts agree that authorities are likely to bring additional charges against him, which could add significant time to his sentence. Potential charges include:

• Forgery of public documents
• Fraud
• Abuse of legal processes

While Arizona may not categorize this episode as an “escape” in the legal sense, it will certainly result in serious consequences for Kramer. In addition to completing his original sentence, he could face years or even decades of additional prison time.

Legislative Changes

Mistakes in the justice system tend to inspire legislative fixes, sometimes far beyond what the situation demands. In this case, Arizona lawmakers may consider measures such as:

• Criminalizing the filing of falsified court documents at a higher level, potentially categorizing them as severe felonies.
• Strengthening verification protocols for court orders, including multi-checkpoint systems to guard against fraud.
• Introducing harsher penalties for inmates or outsiders who facilitate procedural misconduct.

While these measures could close loopholes, they’ll also raise questions about how to balance security with efficiency in legal systems already strained by bureaucracy.

Final Thoughts: Lessons From a Legal Mess

The case of David Kramer’s early release is both a cautionary tale and a call to action. It highlights the need for systemic robustness, heightened scrutiny, and better safeguards to prevent fraudulent manipulation of legal processes. While Kramer’s case is unique in its details, it serves as a stark reminder that even small cracks in the system can be exploited, with far-reaching consequences.

Key Takeaways:

1. Forensic Checks Are Crucial: Legal documents must undergo rigorous verification processes to eliminate the risk of fraud.
2. Consequences of Misconduct Are Severe: For Kramer and others who might attempt similar schemes, the fallout is likely to far outweigh short-term benefits.
3. Legislative Reforms Are Inevitable: High-profile mistakes galvanize lawmakers, leading to stricter penalties and preventive mechanisms.

Ultimately, cases like this compel us to reflect not just on how the justice system functions but also on how it can evolve to better serve society while maintaining its integrity. For David Kramer, though, the consequences of this premature freedom are likely to resonate for decades—and they won’t be in his favor.

Have you ever been stuck in a frustrating conversation where someone, with absolute confidence, claims to be an expert in a topic they hardly understand? Maybe you’ve seen it in debates about politics, science, or even everyday issues like parenting advice or car maintenance. If it feels like you’re encountering this phenomenon everywhere, you’re not wrong. What you’re witnessing may be a cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

This psychological concept, first identified in 1999 by researchers David Dunning and Justin Kruger, explains why people with limited knowledge or skills in a specific area often overestimate their abilities. It also sheds light on why true experts—those who genuinely understand the complexity of a subject—tend to be more cautious, often underestimating their expertise.

In this article, we’ll dive into the psychology behind this phenomenon, share real-world examples of how it plays out, and explore ways to combat the challenges it presents in debates, policy discussions, and everyday life.

What Exactly is the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with a small amount of knowledge or skill in a domain mistakenly believe they’re far more competent than they actually are. Essentially, when you know very little about a topic, you don’t even have enough knowledge to recognize that you’re missing important context or facts.

But the effect doesn’t just go one way. On the flip side, those with high levels of expertise tend to underestimate their competence. Why? Because they’re aware of how much they don’t know, and they assume that others have the same understanding of the subject.

In popular culture, this effect is often oversimplified as “the ignorant being confident and the knowledgeable being uncertain.” However, it’s more nuanced than that. This phenomenon specifically affects people’s perception of their own abilities and isn’t a measure of intelligence. In essence, it’s about perspective and knowledge gaps, not inherent smarts.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect in Everyday Life

One way to understand the Dunning-Kruger effect is by examining how it manifests in everyday conversations and debates. Let’s explore a few examples:

1. Voter Fraud and Confidence Without Evidence

In the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, “widespread voter fraud” became a hot topic. Many people confidently claimed that voter fraud had significantly altered the outcome, but when pressed for evidence, their arguments were shaky at best. Courts, state audits, and even officials from the previous administration found little to no evidence of fraud that would have changed the results. Yet, the belief persisted for many, based on nothing more than “gut feelings” or incomplete understanding of election processes.

The gap between confidence in a claim and the reality of evidence is a core example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Those lacking expertise in election systems felt certain that their feelings of irregularity must hold merit, while true experts—who had analyzed ballots, conducted recounts, and checked for irregularities—emphasized the absence of widespread fraud.

2. Guns vs. Cars: Overconfidence in Misleading Comparisons

Another example can be found in debates about gun control. A common argument goes something like this: “Cars kill more people than guns, but we don’t ban cars.” On the surface, this sounds convincing—until you consider the complexities.

Cars are heavily regulated through licenses, insurance requirements, and safety standards. Over decades, measures like seat belts, airbags, and crash tests have significantly reduced car fatalities. On the other hand, guns, while constitutionally protected in the United States, often face fewer regulatory requirements.

Those who confidently repeat this comparison may not have considered the historical advancements in vehicle safety—or the potential for similar policies to reduce gun violence. Again, we see the Dunning-Kruger effect: familiarity with one aspect of the topic (e.g., the high number of car deaths) leads to overconfidence, while ignoring the broader context (e.g., regulation and public policy).

3. Religion and the Separation of Church and State

In discussions about religion and its role in public life, misconceptions abound. For instance, some argue that “separation of church and state” isn’t in the U.S. Constitution because those exact words don’t appear. While technically true, this argument misses decades of legal precedent interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Court cases such as Reynolds v. United States (1878), Everson v. Board of Education (1947), and Engel v. Vitale (1962) have consistently upheld the principle of separating church and state, ensuring that state-funded institutions don’t impose religious practices or beliefs. Yet, those offering simplistic interpretations of the First Amendment may not realize just how much legal and historical context they’re overlooking. Their misplaced confidence once again highlights the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Why Does the Dunning-Kruger Effect Matter?

Understanding the Dunning-Kruger effect is more than just an intellectual exercise—it has real-world implications for how we consume information, make decisions, and respect expertise. This phenomenon plays a role in:

• Public Policy Debates: Misinformed opinions with misplaced confidence can shape public discourse on voter integrity, gun control, climate change, and more.
• Misinformation Online: Social media amplifies voices regardless of their expertise, allowing confident-but-wrong perspectives to spread rapidly.
• Everyday Interactions: Whether it’s debating politics with a friend or seeking advice on personal finances, the Dunning-Kruger effect can fuel frustration and misunderstandings.

As Carl Sagan famously wrote in The Demon-Haunted World, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.”

Combating the Dunning-Kruger Effect

If the Dunning-Kruger effect frustrates you, there’s good news: we’re not powerless against it. Here are a few actionable ways to address this issue—both in ourselves and others:

1. Practice Intellectual Humility

The antidote to overconfidence is humility. Be willing to say, “I don’t know,” and resist the urge to form strong opinions on subjects you haven’t deeply studied.

2. Check Your Sources

Before claiming expertise, ask yourself: Am I relying on credible evidence? Seek out reliable, well-vetted sources, and avoid making emotional declarations based on limited information.

3. Listen to Experts

True experts often acknowledge complexity and nuance. Pay attention to voices that embrace those gray areas instead of offering overly simplistic solutions. Remember: confidence is not the same thing as competence.

4. Question Simplistic Assertions

When someone makes a confident claim, ask clarifying questions. As one of the speakers in the transcript mentioned, it’s often insightful to ask questions that only a true expert would be able to answer. This can reveal gaps in understanding.

5. Commit to Lifelong Learning

The more we explore subjects in depth, the more we come to appreciate their intricacies. By expanding our knowledge base, we can better identify when others are oversimplifying or misunderstanding a topic.

Final Thoughts: Confidence in Complexity

The Dunning-Kruger effect reveals a frustrating, but ultimately human, tendency to speak the loudest when we understand the least. We’ve all fallen victim to it at some point. The key is not to eliminate overconfidence entirely (a near-impossible task) but to cultivate awareness—both of our own limitations and the areas where others might need more depth before claiming certainty.

Whether it’s debates on voter fraud, gun control, or constitutional interpretation, the lesson remains the same: the most confident person in the room isn’t always the most correct. True understanding requires humility, curiosity, and a willingness to embrace complexity.

To close with a quote credited to Socrates, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

When it comes to laws governing international travel, few are as controversial and far-reaching as the International Megan’s Law (IML). Signed into law in February 2016 by then-President Barack Obama, the legislation aims to prevent the exploitation of children and other vulnerable populations by addressing the international movement of individuals previously convicted of certain sex offenses. But what exactly is the International Megan’s Law? How does it work? And what does this mean for individuals seeking to travel abroad? This comprehensive article will break it all down.

A Brief Introduction to International Megan’s Law (IML)

The International Megan’s Law was introduced by Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey in 2007. It took nearly a decade of persistence for the bill to finally pass in 2016. The law’s primary objective is to enhance child and vulnerable population protection both within the U.S. and abroad by addressing the risks posed by certain travelers with sexual offense convictions. At its core, the goal of IML is ambitious: curb child exploitation in foreign countries by monitoring and regulating international travel for individuals deemed potential risks.

The law has garnered strong opinions on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, proponents argue it’s a necessary tool to combat child sex tourism. On the other, critics believe it unfairly stigmatizes individuals who have served their time and limits personal freedoms, raising concerns about constitutionality and human rights.

The Origins of Megan’s Law

To fully understand the International Megan’s Law, it’s important to go back to the origins of “Megan’s Law.” Named after 7-year-old Megan Kanka of New Jersey, who was tragically murdered in 1994 by a convicted repeat offender living in her neighborhood, the original law mandated public notification about convicted sex offenders’ whereabouts. This resulted in the creation of sex offender registries nationwide, all aimed at improving community safety and awareness.

The International version of Megan’s Law expands on these foundations, targeting offenders who travel internationally and could potentially harm vulnerable populations.

Key Provisions of International Megan’s Law

IML primarily focuses on individuals required to register as sex offenders due to a conviction involving a minor. Let’s explore the law’s core provisions and mechanisms:

1. Notification to Foreign Governments

Under IML, U.S. authorities are required to notify foreign governments when an individual who meets specific criteria—a person required to register as a sex offender involving a minor—plans to travel to their country. The notification enables foreign governments to take measures to monitor the traveler or deny entry outright.

Critics point out that this notification process may discourage travel or lead to detainment or deportation in foreign countries. Supporters, however, argue that it mirrors procedures the U.S. itself uses to screen foreign nationals and keep its citizens safe.

2. Passport Markings

One of the most controversial aspects of IML involves passport labeling. Passports belonging to individuals convicted of certain offenses involving minors are issued with a unique identifier—a small but explicit endorsement indicating their conviction. This marking alerts border and immigration officials in other countries, potentially limiting entry or enabling closer monitoring.

This provision raises significant privacy concerns. Individuals affected often express feeling publicly branded and excessively penalized for past offenses.

3. International Cooperation

IML encourages collaboration between U.S. and international authorities to combat child exploitation. Through agencies like the Angel Watch Center, the law facilitates information-sharing across borders, ostensibly to help other nations protect their communities from potential risks.

Proponents see this as a necessary step to curb global exploitation. Critics, however, point to the lack of transparency around how these systems operate and worry about the potential for misuse of sensitive data.

4. Advance Travel Notification Requirement

IML requires individuals currently on the sex offender registry for offenses involving minors to submit notification of international travel plans at least 21 days in advance. Registrants must disclose details such as travel dates, destinations, and accommodations to their local registration office, which in turn informs federal authorities.

However, logistical challenges often arise. For instance, not all states have established processes for collecting and forwarding this information, leaving registrants in a legal gray area.

5. Penalties for Noncompliance

Failure to comply with IML’s requirements carries significant consequences. Specifically, under federal law 18 U.S. Code § 2250, individuals who fail to notify U.S. authorities about planned international travel can face criminal prosecution, with penalties including prison time and hefty fines.

6. Visa Denials and Border Turnaways

In addition to U.S.-initiated restrictions, IML outcomes often include other countries denying visas or turning travelers away at borders. Some nations—like Canada, Japan, and Australia—are particularly strict about admitting individuals with sex offense convictions, and U.S.-flagged notifications can exacerbate these challenges.

The Angel Watch Center: A Shadow Agency?

The law authorizes the Angel Watch Center (AWC), a division of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to oversee international travel notifications and determine whether individuals meet IML’s criteria. AWC collects data from the U.S. Marshals Service and National Sex Offender Targeting Center to review registrants’ travel plans and share relevant information with foreign governments.

While some see the center as a critical tool in combating exploitation, detractors liken it to a “shadow agency” with limited oversight. AWC does not provide transparency about how decisions are made, leaving many travelers with unanswered questions.

Criticisms of International Megan’s Law

While the intent to protect vulnerable populations is universally supported, IML has faced significant criticism for its implementation:

1. Inconsistent State-Level Compliance: Critics argue that not all states have established systems for registrants to submit the required 21-day notice, creating confusion and potential for unfair penalties.

2. Lack of Emergency Provisions: IML does not account for last-minute international travel due to family emergencies, such as attending funerals or unexpected work obligations.

3. Privacy and Stigmatization: Opponents often highlight the long-term stigma associated with passport markings and travel restrictions, arguing that these measures could violate constitutional rights.

4. Broad Application: The law applies indiscriminately to individuals with varying risk levels, failing to consider individual rehabilitation or time since conviction.

Can You Travel Internationally with a Sex Offense Conviction?

Although IML does not outright prohibit international travel, its requirements and the notification system make the process more challenging. Moreover, restrictions vary by destination. Countries may deny entry outright, delay processing visas, or impose significant limitations.

Here’s a breakdown of how select countries handle travelers with sex offense convictions:

• Canada: Strictly regulated; requires special waivers or applications for rehabilitation.
• United Kingdom: Decisions often handled on a case-by-case basis; certain offenses could lead to visa denials.
• Australia: Likely to deny entry based on serious criminal history, unless a waiver is granted.
• Mexico: No formal ban, but serious convictions could result in denial at the border.
• Thailand and Japan: Both enforce strict screening for criminal records, particularly for offenses against minors.
• European Union: Most nations do not impose automatic bans but may retain discretion to deny entry.

Final Thoughts: Balancing Protection and Fairness

The International Megan’s Law reflects a complex balance between safeguarding children and upholding personal liberties. While its intentions are laudable, its execution has sparked debates about fairness, constitutionality, and privacy. For individuals affected, navigating the law’s requirements can be daunting and fraught with uncertainty.

Actionable Takeaways for Travelers:

1. Check Local Laws: Ensure your state or jurisdiction has procedures in place for 21-day travel notifications.
2. Plan in Advance: Thoroughly research entry requirements and visa processes for your destination country.
3. Document Efforts to Comply: If your state lacks a formal process, create written records of attempts to notify authorities.
4. Consult Legal Expertise: Work with a knowledgeable attorney to understand your rights and responsibilities under federal and international law.

By remaining informed and proactive, travelers can better navigate the challenges posed by the International Megan’s Law while protecting their rights and complying with all requirements.

[00:15] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 354 of Registry Matters. How are you tonight, Larry? I’m gonna go look at something real quick while you, ramble and babble for a minute.

[00:29] Larry: Alright. I’m doing awesome. It’s glad I’m glad to have the opportunity to be back on this fabulous program where we talk about such important issues of the day. And I can’t imagine how any family could overlook the opportunity to listen live to the registry matters as it’s being recorded. Who would not wanna be here with us?

[00:51] Andy: Well, clearly, all of the patrons that have are not here are those, but maybe they I I so, one of the listeners, I know he I’m pretty sure he works at this time. Well, another one. He’s here because he doesn’t do anything at his job. But, yes, my glasses do reflect pink, by the way, and I did not request that. So anyway, let’s dive right in. I’m I’m trying to look because we are really, really rapidly approaching our anniversary. And, I wanted to go double check when that is. That’s what I was, trying to get you to vamp for a minute. What are we doing tonight? Tell me that part, and I’ll and I’ll find this information. Well,

[01:30] Larry: another batch of sad news. Chance is not with us, and I didn’t hear from him this week. I thought he was gonna be back, but this means it’s just mister doom and gloom for this episode. Oh. And, but we have a discussion about your favorite topic, International Megan’s Law. That is frequently my favorite topic. Also, there’s a segment by Andy, the cohost. Who?

[01:58] Andy: Andy, the cohost. Did you allow him to make a segment? So

[02:05] Larry: and we have a segment of Larry’s general rules, along with a deep analysis that I will publish, regarding this particular rule. And then we have one article that I would like to cover from something that happened in Arizona.

[02:24] Andy: Alright. Well, I look, Larry, 10/22/2017 is episode one.

[02:33] Larry: That’s what I was thinking when I said eight years. So we’re eight years into this here in a in another month.

[02:40] Andy: Not even. Less than. Alright. Wow. Alright. Well, you guys have put up with us for that long. Hey. So please make sure that you like, subscribe, thumbs up, leave a review, become a patron. You know, what was the 14 how much was the the checks back in the day? Were they just 4 1,400 even? Well, that was the final stimulus. There was three. So there was 1,200, I remember, 600 and then 1,400. So we would prefer the 1,400. Prefer. But, you know, hey. Whatever. If you could maybe even add a zero to that, that would also be beneficial. And, then you can join the discord. We’re gonna be doing something really fun very soon. Maybe hey, you know, right around our anniversary, Larry, it would be right after the conference that we could, do my little surprise thing, and we’re gonna have a super fun thing to do with a Patreon special. Have no idea when we’ll do it as far as which day of the week, but it will only be open to patrons. And it might only be open to, like, $5 and up patrons. I’m not sure. But we will see how that all plays out. Well, shall we, just go right ahead then? I think it sounds good. Well, tell us about this general rule, first of all.

[03:54] Larry: Yes. Enough. FYP education does not condone anything illegal and certainly not what this person has alleged has been alleged to have done. But if you feel that you must create a fake release order to get out of prison And if it actually works, I would urge you not to remain in the jurisdiction.

[04:19] Andy: That seems like a reasonable idea. Okay. So so what worked? And I can’t wait to hear more about the details later. That’s what we’re gonna we’re we’re gonna cover that later? Yes. We’re gonna cover that later. People need to know about,

[04:33] Larry: like I say, don’t do this. But if you must do it and it does work, leave right away.

[04:40] Andy: Very well. Well, let’s do do this main section. And this is about International Megan’s Law. And, I posted this in Discord and there, somebody had asked, what is International Megan’s Law?

[04:55] Larry: International Megan’s Law was proposed by Representative Smith of New Jersey. He serves in the house, has for quite some time, and it took perseverance to get it passed. He first proposed the legislation in twenty o seven. It finally had passed in February 2016 and was signed into law by then President Obama. According to Representative Smith, it was created to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable populations, both in The US and abroad by addressing the international movement of PFRs. Except he didn’t say it that way.

[05:32] Andy: Did he use any, like, language we shouldn’t use on the on the seven on the networks of the seven words?

[05:38] Larry: No. He did not do that. But he did,

[05:42] Andy: most as most people do, has pejorative comments about people that have committed sexual offenses. I see. Well, where tell me where the name came from. What what is Megan’s law? International Megan’s law at that, but what is the Megan’s law part?

[05:55] Larry: Well, the law was named after Megan Kanka, who is actually from New Jersey, a seven year old, and who was murdered in 1994 by a convicted PFR who lived near her, who was no longer in prison. And Meghan’s death led to the creation of the original Meghan’s Law, which required public notification about convicted PFRs. And over time, this effort evolved because of international concerns. Due to the growing number of US citizens, and not only US citizens, but around the world, people who have affluence, do affluent people can travel more easily. I think you would agree with that. It’s generally easier to travel if you have some cash in the bank. And some of those people that have that level of of affluence or traveling to nations where they know that they can get boys, girls, or whatever they want. And it was trying to prevent or diminish that, in particular for those who have offended against children.

[06:58] Andy: What are the key provisions of IML?

[07:02] Larry: Well, I’ve got a list of bullet points that I think we’ll get go through having a time. It has notification to and from foreign governments. It deals with passport issuance and identification on the passports. It promotes international cooperation. It imposes penalties for violation of those travel restrictions that we’ll get into later. And it can the the whole framework can result in visa denials for people who are traveling. Can you do do you know what’s on the marking, what it says by chance?

[07:43] Andy: Yes. It’s, it is going to be covered downstream a little bit. Sorry. Then I’ve jumped ahead. So I I have heard people complain about this Angel Watch Center that it’s just like almost like a shadow agency, almost. And, so what is that?

[07:58] Larry: Well, the Angel Watch Center, which we’ll refer to as AWC, unless you wanna say it every time every time we it comes up, is headed by the immigration and custom enforcement’s child exploitation investigations unit. And IML provides specific statutory authority for AWC to engage in certain activities. Generally speaking, the Angel Watch Center receives information about the intended travel of individuals through Customs and Border Protections National Targeting Center. And my source from that is this SMART office, the Sex Offender Management Apprehension Registration and Tracking Office that they have a publication which I borrowed from. And they say the Danger Watch Center does not receive notice of international travel from individual vendors or even jurisdiction registration offices.

[08:55] Andy: But isn’t that directly at odds at what is happening?

[08:59] Announcer: No. It doesn’t. It’ll it’ll get

[09:01] Andy: covered more later. Okay. So then what is AWC’s authority? So that’s Angel Watch Center. What is their authority to do this?

[09:09] Larry: Well, the International Megan’s Law specifically authorizes, the Angel Watch Center to determine if any person who intends to travel internationally is a registered PFR because of a conviction for a sex offense against a minor. If AWC determines that a person fits that definition, it is authorized to send any relevant information about that individual to the destination country where the individual intends to go. As part of this process, Angel Watch is also required to consult with the National Sex Offender Targeting Center to determine if the individual is in compliance with their PFOA registration responsibilities.

[09:50] Andy: Now you just, mentioned the National Targeting Center. Like, I can’t I’ve never even heard of that one. What is that?

[09:58] Larry: Well, in 02/2011, the SORTAS Supplemental Guidelines, that was the second version, added a requirement to SORTAS baseline standards that jurisdictions were required to have their offenders inform them of any intended international travel at least twenty one days prior to the travel taking place. Per these standards, offenders are to provide authorities with information regarding their itinerary and intended destinations, among other items. And registration jurisdictions are required to provide the information to the National Sex Offender Targeting Center of the United States Marshals Service. So if the SMART Office knows what it’s talking about, that’s the flow, not from the offender or even in the jurisdiction. It’s from the US marshal service. But, folks, I’m not an expert on this, so I’ll disclose that I’m using public source information that should be reliable.

[10:54] Andy: Now is there is there a penalty for people who fail to provide the required advance notice? That’s the twenty one days. That’s what you’re talking about there?

[11:03] Larry: Yes. There is a penalty. IML specifically amended federal sort of, and that’s 34 United States code two zero nine one four subsection eight. It requires registrants to provide certain information about their intended travel outside The United States. Now this gets very blurry. Oh, I didn’t put this in the script because although the federal law requires you to give the notification, if your state has not adopted that and you’re not required to provide it, there’s no way to provide it. And that’s what drives everybody crazy. Yeah. There’s there’s no place to provide it to. But we’ll get like I said, I’ll get into more of that later.

[11:41] Andy: And so there is then a penalty clause to the the 34 US code you just cited above?

[11:49] Larry: Well, there is actually in the the, in the sort of portion that applies to the registrants, and that’s, 18 United States code twenty two fifty. And it, it criminalizes, under federal standards, under the federal law for which where an individual has failed to provide the best notice of international travel as required by federal law. And this scares people to death legitimately because even though their state doesn’t require it, they say, well, I looked up yonder, and it says in that federal law. But you ain’t got nobody to report it to, so you can’t do it if your jurisdiction doesn’t receive the information. And I’ve had this discussion over and over again. If your jurisdiction won’t receive it, you can’t file it. Yeah. No kidding.

[12:32] Andy: Alright. Well, then, you listed the points before. So can we take those in order? Yes. Alright. So what about the notification to foreign governments? Am I supposed to reach out when I wanna travel to France or whatever and go, yo, dog, I’m coming?

[12:49] Larry: No. You don’t do that. Under IMEI, US authorities are mandated to notify foreign governments when a PFR has traveled to their country. This is intended to allow the countries to take any necessary steps to monitor the offender’s activities and to protect community safety in their nation. Imagine that a nation wants to protect its citizens, just like we hear coming out of the United States administration about we wanna keep Americans safe. Can you imagine that?

[13:16] Andy: Yeah. I was I was just gonna ask, is there do you know of any reciprocity type things? Not not IML, but just do other nations notify us that so and so is on the way? Oh, absolutely. We have an extreme amount of data sharing with people that are coming from other nations. If you’re in Great Britain and you wanna travel The United States, British authorities

[13:38] Larry: cooperate with every bit of information that’s that’s releasable to American authorities about that person. So it’s it’s just so bizarre that people people are shocked that we want information about people coming here, but it befuddles them that other nations would want information about Americans that are traveling there.

[13:57] Andy: So, alright. Well, I I sort of spoiled this a minute ago, but what about passport issuance and identification? Is this where you’re gonna talk about putting markings on there?

[14:06] Larry: Don’t remember where it is, but it’s in here. The I the the IML requires that PFRs be flagged in The United’s in The US National Sex Offender Registry. If an individual has been convicted of certain sex crimes, their passport may have a specific identifier that marks them as a convicted PFR. This, obviously, would serve as a red flag to border control authorities in foreign nations.

[14:32] Andy: Do you mind if we dig into that a little bit? What is the national PFR registry? Since I know we have talked about this to the point where people are, like, pouring gasoline on themselves, that that there’s no such thing as a national PFR registry. You can have it both ways. There either is or there is not. It’s kinda like there is I’m not telling you the way it is be, it’s or the should be, and then the is be.

[14:55] Larry: There is. Actually, there is a national public I’m not national public. There is a national PFR registry, but it’s not a national public PFR registry. The national PFR registry, in my opinion, is the NCI system, and that system is non public.

[15:11] Andy: Oh, I see what you’re saying. So when you’re talking about the national PFR registry, you’re talking about the NCIC where they can look up that you had a conviction. This would cover anybody with a conviction, not just PFRs. Right? That is correct. And I believe with all of every bit of capability I have to believe that that is the source of where they get it.

[15:31] Larry: I don’t believe that they would use the public websites because there’s too much duplication. And there’s too and there’s too many people that are not listed publicly that are registered. So if that were their source, just think about that, there would be massive, massive gaps in the data because PFRs are not listed all across the nation on public websites. So just if you think if you think logically, I want people to think logically. If they were doing that, there would be massive gaps in the system. I’m with you. So you don’t believe that the NCIC that that that there is not a national PFR registry. Right? Well, I believe there is one, but it’s the NCIC system lists all registered PFRs. And the national public PFR website that many believe is a national registry is merely a website that cultivates and manages what’s publicly listed. That often doesn’t include juveniles. Often, it doesn’t include them the full gamut of adult offenders. Many states do not list all of their, registrants on the website. And just like I said before, there’d be vast gaps. So I I can’t see how that would work that way. I I get it. So, and I get this question all the time. Will my passport be marked? It could be, depending. IML IML provides the Department of State shall not issue a passport to a covered PFR unless the passport contains a unique identifier.

[17:00] Andy: So then who is covered, who’s a covered offender as described by law?

[17:06] Larry: Based on the SMART Office’s publication on their website, this provision is applicable to anyone who is, emphasize, currently required to register the PFR based on a conviction for a sex offense against a minor. The unique identifier is a passport endorsement that states the bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code section two one two b subsection c one. So, therefore, if you’re not currently required to register people call me all the time saying, I got, released from the registry three years ago. And, an attorney in California told me that I have to, file this. And I said, well, but you’re not currently required. Well, the attorney said and and it’s an attorney. And I said, but the attorney’s wrong. So you could either believe the doom and gloom attorney or you could believe what the federal, information that they put out to the public says if you’re currently required to register.

[18:10] Andy: Now now you also then listed international cooperation. Would you go into that?

[18:16] Larry: Yes. IML facilitates cooperation between US and foreign governments, allowing them to share information about individuals who have been convicted of serious sex crimes. Proponents, of course, say this information is critical in helping foreign countries monitor offenders who pose a potential risk to children or vulnerable populations. It is a fact that affluent individuals from Western nations do travel to foreign nations to secure sex. I wish people would quit denying that fact because it is a fact that does Sure. Now then what about the penalties for violation of travel restrictions? If a registered offender travels in internationally without informing US authorities or violates any conditions set by law, they can face serious federal criminal charges under that section twenty two fifty. So this is serious business. You do need to comply if you’re required to comply. But you don’t need to spend hours and hours awake at night if you’ve been released from the registry for fifteen years worrying about this.

[19:18] Andy: Alright. Well, then what about, visa denial for PFRs?

[19:22] Larry: That is definitely true. Countries deny visas once they get the background from The United States. Proponents of the law argue that international make up law helps ensure that foreign countries are made aware of PFRs traveling to, to their borders. And we have proof that this information has resulted in a denial of these applications for individuals with criminal histories, not just PFRs. In fact, some of our people have been turned away at the border. It’s similar to what The United States does. We turn away people at the border for having criminal histories. Folks get over it.

[20:01] Andy: Hey. What’s the difference? Be different? Yeah. Of course. But could you quickly go over what the difference between a passport and a visa is?

[20:09] Larry: Since I’ve never traveled internationally, I don’t know. The passport is issued by your government. Yep. And and it says let my citizen pass, but that is an order. It doesn’t have no authority. The the visa is the other government saying you may enter our borders as I understand it, but but I’ve never traveled outside The United States.

[20:30] Andy: Never. Not even like Mexico. You live right there.

[20:33] Announcer: Well well, but I wanna go. I I don’t need to go. What what would I see that I don’t see here?

[20:39] Andy: I think you can see a lot in Mexico that you don’t see here. I teach their own. I Mexico is a wonderful place. I’ve been there a couple times. Canada is a nice place too. But, Ain’t Goin’, I don’t think I don’t even though I’m off the register. I know I can’t go to Canada, but I don’t think I can go to Mexico with a fella maybe I could get into Mexico. You think I could get into Mexico?

[21:01] Larry: I think you could get into Mexico. You look too clean to have a felony.

[21:06] Andy: Alright. Well, let’s see here. So the law can have significant consequences for individuals who have committed such offenses such as their right to travel internationally. You call it a right to travel internationally? That’s what they call it. There is no prohibition on international travel. You can travel anywhere you wanna travel.

[21:22] Larry: There’s not a single thing in that international makeup law that says you cannot travel. The law essentially creates a global monitoring system, which can limit the travel and personal freedoms because since you’re being monitored globally, the country may not want you just like we don’t want certain people. The law also mandates that some PFRs passports be marked, as we stated above, with that specific identifier, which alerts foreign countries. So if you made it to the border and they see that passport, they may turn you back. Yep. They they identify or access a flag to border authorities. Allow them to take appropriate action. What would US authorities do if a person came here that we knew had a serious PFR conviction? Do you think we say, come on in?

[22:06] Andy: Y’all come. I I would imagine many other kinds of I don’t know. If you’re Al Capone, you’re not coming in. Especially if you’re coming from a shithole country, you’re not coming in. Not my words. I’m just repeating them. Okay? So don’t flame me. Now I know that many countries have strict laws in place regarding the entry of individuals convicted of PFR type crimes, particularly those who have committed offenses involving children or minors. In some cases, PFRs have faced denial of entry to these countries, or they may be deported upon arrival. In certain situations, PFRs may be detained until they can be returned to The United States. Did you have a list of those countries?

[22:47] Larry: Well, in yesteryear, before a certain person went to prison, there was a what was that website, that used to keep people informed about who was getting turned away that that our Well, there there there’s another one. And I’m I’m asking chat feverishly to give me the, travel matrix. But, so it’s the, yeah. But I know what you’re talking about. The, the tag, the travel action group matrix. There is another there are just taking it over. But I did a little bit of, FAR research and, so I got a list of a few countries so we can go to. So, Canada is one of the strictest countries when it comes to admitting PFRs. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows Canadian authorities to refuse entry to individuals with criminal records, including PFRs. Those convicted of serious PFR offenses, particularly those involving minors, may be permanently banned from entering Canada. However, vendors can apply for criminal rehabilitation if enough time has passed since their conviction, and they may be granted entry under certain conditions. PFRs may also seek a temporary permit to enter Canada on a case by case basis. And I think there’s also a a where you can travel. If you’re not wanting to visit Canada, you can travel from, like, Alaska to down to the to the Mainland United States. And I think you have to stay ask about that. Yeah. I think you have to stay warm. Because you hey. I would like to go, like, planning on retirement in the next whatever number of years and putting myself in an RV. Hey. Let’s go to Alaska. Nope. Can’t can’t get there. Gotta go via Canada. I think I think you have to stay within so many miles of the main highways, and you’ve or given a limited amount of time. But, again, I’ve never traveled, but I’ve heard tell of that. So maybe some of our vast audience can tell us if that’s true, but I think that’s what I’ve heard.

[24:36] Andy: I did find the link, but it that website called just facts not fear, and then there’s a link on there for international travel, and then there’s a a Google doc that’s embedded in it that will show you by continent which countries you’re allowed to get to. Now, this is all anecdotal. This is just someone tried to go to Cambodia. Did they make it? Did they not make it? Anyway, so that’s just facts, not fear. We had him on and that guy’s name is River. We had him on an episode, I think, was one ninety five. Hilarious episode. Go back and listen to it. But what about Australia then? Well, that would be a place where I think I’d love to visit, but Australia’s

[25:13] Larry: immigration policies are similarly strict to Canada regarding people with serious criminal convictions. Those involving PFR offenses may be refused entry or subjected to additional scrutiny. But apparently, the government has broad discretion to deny entry based on criminal history in general and visa applications must be carefully completed, including disclosing any criminal convictions. In some cases, USPFRs may apply for a waiver to enter Australia, but it’s not guaranteed according to my limited research.

[25:44] Andy: And then what about The UK?

[25:46] Larry: Well, The United Kingdom may deny entry to foreign nationals, including US citizens, with serious criminal convictions. While I can’t find that there is a blanket ban on US PFRs, those who have been convicted of serious offenses in general may face difficulties entering The UK, and particularly, PFR type offenses involving minors or exploitation are apparently are very heavily crudest scrutinized, and such individuals may be placed on The United Kingdom’s watch list.

[26:14] Andy: And then down there next to Australia in the in the New Zealand area? God, that would be another amazing place to go.

[26:21] Larry: Well, apparently, they have some stringent laws regarding entry of individuals convicted of of, sexual crimes. PFRs with such convictions may be refused entry outright or face additional scrutiny upon arrival. See, that’s the risk. You need to figure this out before you get there. If you arrive and they say, our scrutiny says you need to turn back, you wasted a whole bunch of money. So she need to find out before you get there. A visa application must be submitted in advance. Do that. If they ask for criminal history, provide that and see if you can if you’re gonna be admitted. But don’t spend $5,000 to take a trip where you’re gonna have to sit in a detention waiting to be returned back to The US. Yep. And then what about the all them countries to our south starting with the big one of Mexico? That’s the only one I did any research on. Apparently, Mexico is another country that imposes significant restrictions on PFRs. Although it does not have a formal nationwide ban, Mexican authorities may refuse if a US citizen has a history of serious criminal history that is, particularly if the offense involves minors. So Mexico may tell you you ain’t coming just because you have a criminal history that they view serious.

[27:31] Andy: Interesting. And then, over across the pond, a long way, how about Thailand?

[27:36] Larry: Well, a lot of people ask about that place. Thailand is known for having strict immigration policies for individuals with criminal convictions. Immigration authorities may also conduct additional background checks and refuse entry on a case by case basis, but it doesn’t seem like it has a blanket policy that I could find.

[27:56] Andy: And then moving over to Japan?

[28:00] Larry: Good luck. Japan is very clear about admitting people with criminal records of any type. USPFRs are gonna face extreme difficulties obtaining a visa or getting entry into Japan, especially if they have defense against a minor. And, apparently, they say while entry is not always outright denied, offenders are required to disclose their criminal history, and failing to do so can and will result in deportation. United Arab Emirates? Now wouldn’t you like to go to Dubai?

[28:30] Andy: I would.

[28:31] Larry: Yeah. Me too. But The UAE, particularly Dubai, has some very stringent entry requirements. Probably some of the most stringent in the world. Criminal records, including PFR offenses, can and often result in denial or deportation. Individuals with a history of serious crimes are likely to be detained until they can be returned to The United States. Don’t go there unless you’ve got advanced permission.

[28:56] Andy: And and your information here is a little off on the, the European Union. Most of the countries there, we we can get into. There’s a handful that we cannot. So, well, you wanna you wanna put what you have because that’s what I came up with my limited research. Yeah. I mean, I have it up on the screen and, let me try and get it to to post there. So this is Europe and The UK is, like, the problem child. But if Germany, if you’re a crime my understanding, totally anecdotal, but my understanding is if it’s older than ten years, they’ll ask you what it was and and have a nice trip. As long as you have, like, a return travel voucher on your way out and you have hotel information on where you’re gonna stay, the like, most of the countries there, they do not give you any grief. If you’re looking at the, YouTube, video then what you’re seeing there with all the greens is that they they’re, they’re not turning, sex offenders away. They’re not turning they’re not, there’s no registry there. So those all those green boxes let me get up to the legend at the top of it to see what it says. It’s also really small on my screen. But there’s just a series of of check boxes. So our RSOs denied entry, law barring RSOs, and the law I can’t remember I can’t remember what that one is. But almost all of Europe is just

[30:16] Larry: have fun. That’s my understanding. Well, that’s what I’ve sort of got here. Countries may refuse entry to individuals convicted of serious PFR crimes and probably criminality in general, but there is no blanket ban that I could find. PFRs in each country, they have the discretion. I mean, the country has the discretion and and they apparently do not arbitrarily deny everybody in the European Union. That’s what I could find them.

[30:41] Andy: So then, one question that I received prior to the show was that from so and this is a listener from Arkansas. Wow. I put that as Alaska. Sorry. What if a state refuses to honor the twenty one day notice and decided it wasn’t worth their time to basically take reservations for the federal government? What consequences could that cause? Do you have any do you have any sort of recourse for that? Well, when he says a state refuses to honor it, I I guess he’s saying that Arkansas doesn’t process it. Again,

[31:10] Larry: you’ve got to be able to comply. That’s an absolute defense if you cannot comply. So if Arkansas will not receive the information, I mean, I would want proof that Arkansas won’t receive the information because you’ve got a whole bunch of counties and each county may be may be operating differently. But if if they registrars will not accept information, there’s nothing more you could do. So

[31:35] Andy: and then another person asked and and we’ve talked about this before, and he was referring to it more of, like, in a business sense that you have business overseas and that you have to give them the the twenty one day notice. But we’ve talked about it in the in the frame of it being maybe, like, oh, a family emergency, a death that you’re trying to get overseas and, like, they’re not gonna hold the body for twenty one days for you while it’s decomposing. And you just might be SOL?

[32:03] Larry: That’s one of the sad things to me about the litigation that’s taken place here was that had the litigation been narrowly more narrowly targeted, that is an area that I believe is vulnerable because it doesn’t provide anywhere in the statute that I can see any situation, any exceptions for exigent circumstances. People have to travel for emergencies and people have to travel for employment. And that it just it seems like to me that would have been ripe for the picking. But the strategist that were way smarter than I could ever hope to be, they decided to to to challenge it facially saying that there’s no set of circumstances. I will absolutely guarantee you this is quite constitutional if it’s done correctly. And I would be happy to help them do it constitutionally because you could do such a thing for targeting to a small segment of the PFR population. And there would be a presumptive rollout period after they would no longer be subject like the ten year research you’re talking about at the European Union. And it would possibly be done quite well, constitutionally. I’m not advocating it, but if you’re gonna have this law, there’s a constitutional way to do it. It’s not being done constitutionally right now, in my opinion.

[33:18] Andy: One other question. So where do you get this form and who do you give it to? So how do you let’s say you’re living in New Jersey. Do you go to the post office and pick up a form? Who do you contact? There is no form. Where is where is that coming from? There’s no form for you. Yeah. But how do you initiate the process of

[33:36] Larry: doing this? Do you talk to your your your registry handlers? That is the only place you can file. It is with your registration officials. It is not designed in any way, shape, or form for an individual. That there is a form that, an attorney in California found somewhere, and she’s given it to people, but it’s not for individuals. It is submitted by a law enforcement agency with an operator reporter identification number, and it’s submitted electronically. If you if you waste your time with that form, if you go to that smart office document I have there, they do not take this type of information directly from individuals. If you if your registrar doesn’t collect this information, there’s nothing more you could do, in my opinion. You cannot do what can’t be done.

[34:20] Andy: Yeah. I’ve just people are asking how do you how do you do it? And I wanted to make sure that we covered it, that you would have to go you would have to bring you would have to have all of your planning in place. God, this would just be, and you have essentially purchased the tickets because you’re not gonna buy your tickets overseas in under three weeks. You’re gonna have all that stuff most likely, you’re gonna have that stuff planned out approximately two or three months in advance to get the right kind of deals. And then you start submitting this stuff and they drag their feet, and then you fall under that twenty one day notice, and then they say, sorry, we didn’t get to it in time.

[34:55] Larry: Well, but you first have to determine by asking I’m assuming most PFRs report in person. There’s only a few states where you get to go two or three or four or five years without reporting in person. But the next time you’re at your p f f r office, they usually have you sign an initial what the requirements are, and they say you have to do certain things. If that’s not on the list of things you have to do, then ask them. Say, well, I didn’t see anything on this list of responsibilities I have to do. If I were to travel international internationally, what do I have to do? And they’ll tell you, we don’t get involved in that. And if they get involved in that, there’s nothing else you can do. You just can’t do what can’t be done. So or you can follow the you can follow the advice of the California attorney. You can try to file something that can’t be filed as an individual, and you can go on that wild goose chase if you want to. But you if you can’t do it, if it were me, I would try to have something showing that I tried to disclose my attempt for international travel. I would probably sit down at the old fashioned typewriter, and I would type up an old fashioned letter, and I would send it in an old fashioned certified envelope to the old fashioned PFR registration office. And I’d say this is my twenty one days notice I’m told I have to give, and I’m traveling to Dubai on this date, and I will be staying at this hotel. Hopefully, you take care of the appropriate notifications that need to be sent to anyone else. Thank you very much. That’s what I would do. So

[36:21] Andy: Right. Okay. Man, what a pain in the ass. As well, how about can we do anything about this now?

[36:31] Larry: Well, we could file another lawsuit, but we would need to get over the fact that it’s not unconstitutional in all circumstances, and we would need to focus on where it is unconstitutional. It’s unconstitutional because there’s no room for exigent circumstances. It’s unconstitutional because there’s no way to review out of it, and it’s too broadly applied. And we would force them to litigation to to disclose to us who they apply it to, how they make the determination, what their databases are. We’d get a whole whole bunch of information we don’t have right now. But we in order to do that, we have to stay in court and not get dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, then we never get to go into discovery.

[37:10] Andy: I was gonna and then we should ask seek summary judgment too? Oh, yeah. Def definitely do summary judgment. Alright then.

[37:20] 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.

[38:08] Andy: Well, I wanted to cover a conversation that I had we’ve recently with you because it shows perfectly how the Dunning Kruger effect effect plays out in everyday debates and conversations that you have with people. The the what? The I knew you were gonna do that. The Dunning Kruger effect. The Dunning Kruger effect. Alright. I’ve never heard of it. Alright. Well, so from Wikipedia, the Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. Meaning, people that know a little bit about something will say, I know everything because I I did my own research. But it was first described by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. See, that’s where the name came from. Now you know it all. Right? Yep. I’m an expert. Some researchers also include the opposite effect for high performers’ tendency to underestimate their skills. Larry, you are terribly guilty of that. God, I was raised in foster care, dropped on my head. Why can’t other people know this? So you, underestimate what your special powers are. So then in popular culture, the Dunning Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of a specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task. It’s the idea that people with only a little knowledge about a subject tend to be the most confident. They don’t know enough to realize that they don’t know, so they speak with absolute certainty while the experts who know all of the complexities, tend to be more careful and cautious.

[39:50] Larry: Oh, now I I do deal with people that like that on a regular basis. They I figured you do. Are experts, and I start asking them just I will deliberately do this to people when they think they’re an expert. I’ll ask them something that an expert would know if if that is assuming I know about what they’re talking. And and I’ll ask them something, and I will trip them up right away because I I see and I conclude that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and I put them in a category of a nut, and I keep the conversation going. But I do I deal with people like that all the time.

[40:24] Andy: Well, the conversation started about voter fraud, and my friend insisted that there was widespread voter fraud in 2020. But when I pressed for proof, he admitted he couldn’t even really say what happened. He just felt like something was off. Meanwhile, courts, state audits, and even officials from the previous administration all confirmed there wasn’t fraud on a scale that changed outcomes. Now that gap between the confidence in a feeling and the reality of evidence, that’s Dunning Kruger.

[40:52] Larry: Well, so he’s absolutely sure of the claim, but the actual experts who looked under the hood saw nothing there. I would push back just a little bit on that. The the burden for staying in court does exist, the haphazard way the litigation was framed. And there was so little evidence put forward. Very few of these claims got deep analysis with the litigation. But they got deep anal they got deeply analyzed by election officials, particularly like in the state of Georgia. Yep.

[41:23] Andy: And they just couldn’t find it there. And believe me, Georgia was looking for it because they wanted to flip that election. But go ahead. Well, I mean, you you brought up Georgia, which is where I was headed. So let’s not forget that then president Donald Trump requested some 11,000 votes directly from the secretary of state of Georgia. A recorded phone call with the forever Republican, Brad Raffensperger, by no means a Democrat or a Biden supporter, wouldn’t cave, and Georgia recounted the votes three times. Then the topic topic shifted to guns versus cars, and he argued that since cars kill more people than firearms, we just accept those deaths. But that misses the nuance. Cars are heavily regulated through licenses, insurance, safety standards. Guns are constitutionally protected. Yes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from reasonable limits. Again, confidence without recognizing the complexity. Charlie Kirk even said, I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other god given rights. To which I say, we just have to accept that 20 children in an elementary school are going to have to be massacred. And in June 2025, Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband fatally shot and, and a state senator was wounded. Now as a child, I rode on our family station wagon standing up on that hump where the drive shaft was. Do you remember those cars, Larry, where the hump was there in the back seat? Actually, I designed those, but go ahead. Oh, there weren’t seat belts, no airbags, no nose not even seat belt laws. Forget the seat belts too. But but now you put your child in a person personal protection pod like Grogu in The Mandalorian to drive to the store. We heavily regulate how driving is performed to reduce the harm. But in the nineteen fifties, seat belts were introduced. Volvo invented the three point seat belt in 1959, which became the standard and greatly reduced injuries. Nineteen sixties, collapsible steering columns and side marker lights were mandated to improve crash safety and vehicle visibility. In the seventies, airbags began development. In the eighties and nineties, driver and passenger airbags became common. Nineties I I I mean, the list goes on of all the things that have been improved in cars to improve their safety, but you do have a constitutional right to a gun. And so this is just a short list of advancements in vehicle safety, but this is a civil regulatory c scheme, not a constitutional right. And religion came up too, I’m sure. Right? Oh, of course it did. And he asked, what can’t Christians do that others can? And I pointed out things like the efforts to mandate prayer in school, posting the 10 commandments in classrooms, and policies that allow federal workers to openly advocate religion at work. And his reply was that there’s no separation of church and state in the law because those exact words aren’t in the constitution, but decades of court rulings have built that principle out of the First Amendment establishment clause. And that’s another classic Dunning Kruger example, quoting one one line without understanding the broader and legal historical context. I would also then bring up, talking with the attorney that we used to work with there in your office, and she said that parental rights is a constitutional right and, like, it’s not enumerated anywhere. Did I did I reference that correctly? I believe so. Yes.

[44:38] Larry: And although the phrase separation of church and state does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court case law has long interpreted the establishment clause of the first amendment to encompass the the prince this principle. Key cases supporting this include: Reynolds v. United States, 1878. The Court referenced Thomas Jefferson’s letter about a wall of separation as an authoritative interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Everson versus the Board of Education, 1947. I was alive on both of those. The case explicitly upheld the concept of the wall between church and state, prohibiting the government from breaching that separation even while allowing certain accommodations. (Engle v. Vitale, nineteen sixty two) The Court ruled unconstitutional the official sponsorship of prayer in the schools reinforcing the prohibition of government endorsement of religion. And boy, that was controversial. And I remember that. And I that’s I’m telling the truth. Some of them I’m exaggerating, but I remember that. And then, Lemann versus Kurtzman, 1971 introduced the Lemann test to ensure that laws do not excessively entangle government with religion, maintaining a balance rather than total separation. So the common thread here is that overconfidence that comes from partial knowledge. We have almost, what, a hundred and fifty plus years of jurisprudence from the nation’s highest tribunal saying that’s actually what is in the constitution the way we’re interpreting it.

[46:16] Andy: And to to be fair though, it’s not really about intelligence, it’s about perspective. If you don’t know how much you don’t know, you overestimate your grasp of the issue. We see that in voter fraud debates, gun cop policy, and religion in public life. We also see it in registry debates. People think registries keep people safe, period. That’s the headline version. But once you study the research, you see how much more complicated the picture really is.

[46:43] Larry: So the lesson for our listeners is

[46:46] Andy: That the Dunning Kruger effect is everywhere, and it’s what makes debate so frustrating someone can be supremely confident while being supremely wrong. The antidote is humility, slowing down, checking sources, and being willing to admit that if all of the experts, courts, data disagree with us, maybe we don’t know how much, as we think we do. And I do have a quote to share from a book that I read while I was down, and it’s, from Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. And it’s one of the saddest lessons of history is this. We if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

[47:36] Larry: Oh, okay. Now can I go off script just a tad bit here? So the the, issue about where we’re fraught. I would be a complete idiot if I said the elections are perfect. Yep. We we rely on machines and machines, particularly the counting, chads in 2,000 Florida, the hanging chads. And, we had we had technological problems, and we still do to this day. There’s not an election system that can be designed that is perfect. So, of course, there will be human error, and there will be people who’ve moved out of the jurisdiction that come back and travel. They really shouldn’t vote there, but they didn’t update their address. And they come back and vote because that’s where they were last registered. And I’m not don’t think they drive across the country, but if you moved from Fulton County to Clayton County, and you moved to Clayton County after the cutoff of changing your voter registration and you wanna vote, you might go vote and you’d be voting in Clayton County elections because down ballot, there would be all those races that are local that don’t have anything to do with a Fulton County resident. So are you manipulating the re the election outcome by voting there? You are a legitimate voter or or or are you? So those those type of things happen. But for me to believe with all I know about elections, that there are people that are just going around the country, registering in multiple jurisdictions, and and just making that their daytime job to go out and vote, there is just no evidence to show that that happens.

[49:09] Andy: I read something There’s just In my preps for this, that the Heritage Foundation, which is a very right leaning, organization, they have found dozens of fraudulent votes over, like, decades of investigations. So, like, does it happen? Yes. Do hundreds and thousands of people are people being put on buses. If you ever saw the movie, The Gangs in New York, they would load people up on buses and they would go to the different districts. People in unions and whatever, they would load them all up so they could go vote and it was just a big thing. Almost almost like election rigging if you watch that movie. That was how that was per portrayed.

[49:45] Larry: Well, that’s where I was going next. Now, there are people here that won’t tell you what they really do believe. They don’t say it out loud. But what they believe is that people that have come here that are legally entitled to vote because they don’t look and speak exactly like they do, because you can become an American citizen and be entitled to vote, and you may still have a very thick foreign accent. And particularly if you don’t look exactly like people that you’ve lived around all your life, what they really are saying indirectly is that we don’t think these people ought to be voting. And then they want you to believe that there’s a whole bunch of people voting that do not have, the legal authority. They they want you to believe that people that have come to the country illegally, they’ve managed to go through all the process of getting registered through all the extensive screening that election officials do. And they don’t just take your word for it. You’re screened through a multiple plethora of databases. They want you to believe that all these people, particularly from south of our border, are voting and swaying elections in favor of the Democratic party. That’s what they want you to believe.

[50:49] Andy: Yep. Very well. Well, then let’s find let’s cover this little funny segment here to close out the show. An Arizona man was mistakenly released twenty two years early after the Department of Corrections say they received misleading court documents. The man, inmate David Kramer, and his family say they believe the documents legitimately ordered his release, citing a common law legal theory. Oh, boy. He’s not a sovereign citizen, is he? I don’t know. It’s funny because

[51:18] Larry: because court officials had previously sent warning letters about inappropriate and falsified documents being filed in Kramer’s cases. Arizona prison officials aren’t saying much about how the man was released by mistake twenty two years early. Twenty two.

[51:35] Andy: The documents delivered to the Department of Corrections central office also labeled release order cited a concurrent jurisdiction and directed the prisons to release David Kramer by June 4 and vacate his sentences.

[51:47] Larry: Now who signed the purport reported order? It was signed by Kenneth Bennett who was identified as, quote, deputy clerk, but also included an attached page with signatures from the former clerk of the court and the presiding judge. Those signatures were linked to innocuous statements. The clerk’s signature attested to the fact that the release order was a full and true correct copy of the original. The judge’s signature attested that that said, court is a court of record having a clerk, a seal. Oh, boy. This is fun.

[52:23] Andy: The documents weren’t real, but it worked anyway. David Kramer, who’s 54, was a free man for over two months. In an inter in an interview, He did an interview with the Arizona Republic. David Kramer and his daughters, McQueen and Paris Kramer, described why they believe the documents were delivered, and were legitimate. Now tell us about David Kramer.

[52:45] Larry: Well, David Kramer was convicted in 2013 of multiple crimes, including kidnapping, which stemmed from the use of his children as shields when police tried to arrest him on felony drug charges. He had prior felony convictions and was sent to prison with a release date of 2047.

[53:04] Andy: Now prison officials said it was a mistake based on a fraudulent court filing. Kramer and his daughter said the filing was legitimate. David Kramer contended he was released under a legal authority that the courts don’t want the public to know about. Oh, boy. Secret society shit here. And that his capture in mid August was unjust. Now what do you say about it, Larry?

[53:25] Larry: I do not know anything about such alleged authority. But, Tim, Eco, it looks like, a spokesman for the state bar, confirmed the matter was, quote, open and under investigation. And And the Arizona attorney general’s office also confirmed its investigating.

[53:42] Andy: Now McQueen and Paris Kramer, both of them his daughters, said their father was wrong by the justice system when Paris Kramer was not allowed to testify at his trial. She was seven when, she was the victim of David Kramer’s crime in 2012 according to the court records. And what’s the deal with her not being allowed to testify?

[54:02] Larry: Well, a witness who is only seven years old of age would not be deemed competent to testify in most court proceedings. In fact, I can’t even think of any proceeding they’d be allowed to be deemed competent to testify, and that’s just too young. Sure. And his family says he’s being held without due process. I do not agree with that. This would be a normal reaction. He was serving a sentence, and that sentence was in execution stage. It had not been stayed. Now in his mind, this the sentence had been aborted, but that was a fraudulent document. So the the sentence was an execution stage. So, therefore, they don’t need to provide due process. He already got that. Now if they file due charges, and they will, I’m confident of that, he will enjoy the presumption of innocence, and he will receive due process on the news charges. But he is not presumed innocent of the charges that already sent him to prison. But they’re gonna spend day and night trying to figure out what to charge this man with. And I didn’t have enough time, show prep, to figure out if he if this qualifies as an escape. I don’t think it would, but they will get him for falsifying, public documents and for fraud, and they’ll get him. And then the Arizona legislature will enact, legislation because of this one circumstance that’ll never happen again. It’s already been fixed. But they’ll pass a law that says it’s a super duper high level felony to do what he did and they subject to the death penalty or some crap like that. And this is fixing a problem that’s already been fixed, but that’s what they’ll do.

[55:33] Andy: Not only that, he was released twenty two years early. So he’s going to go back and whatever new charges, they may stack them on the back end after he finishes the twenty two. So he could have 22 plus 10 or something like that. That is exactly what he’s he’s really messed himself up. That’s why I gave my advice. If you’re gonna do this, which we urge you not to do that, he should have left the jurisdiction.

[55:57] Larry: But people do stupid things. I’ll tell a little quick story. I was, serving time at Boulder County Jail back in the nineteen eighties. The Rolling Stones were coming to Boulder and they needed jail space. That was a very, very small jail. I think it held, like, a 110, 120 people. And they needed they anticipated a lot of arrests and they needed to clean out space. And they they told people that we were gonna be people that were short termers or hella misdemeanor charges, that they had a new facility for us. They were putting us in what was once a fraternity house and it had been converted to a halfway house called empathy house. So the people that were in empathy house were given release temporarily and the people in jail were taken to empathy house. And Lieutenant Joe Gang, one of the fine people that served in the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department back in those eight that era, They had a fine sheriff, and they had just wonderful people working there. Joe Gang gave everybody a speech. It was on the bus. He said, my guys, there’s nothing we can do to stop you from leaving. He said, this is a halfway house. There’s no fence. He said, we’re not gonna shoot you. He said, we’re not gonna chase you very much. He said, but if you do leave, he said, what you’re gonna enjoy is a whole bunch of jail time because it’s an escape from custody on a Colorado law. And he said, even though most of you have short terms, he said, you’re gonna have a whole bunch of time stacked on it. Not a soul. Not one person out of the 40 or so that were taken out of the jail. Not one person dared to walk away with no security. They had one seal there who did have a sidearm, and he was instructed not to use it, but he had it just as a show of force. Nobody did anything other than cooperate.

[57:43] Andy: Now I don’t think we said anywhere in here. Did he make the order? Did he, like, somehow craft the paperwork? Did he sit there in the law library typing this thing up and go to the go to the mail room and send certified letter to get himself released? How did he execute this? It wasn’t completely clear on the story of how he was able to perfect this. And I suppose the investigation will show it. But guys, if you escape from jail,

[58:09] Larry: if you do that, you’re making things a whole lot worse because they’re gonna hunt you down if they really have a reason to. 22 Euros would that would be a global that would be worldwide extradition order would be on file for any nation that didn’t Unless there was a nation that didn’t have an extradition treaty, they would go anywhere to get you. Yep. And so he he had no hope.

[58:32] Andy: I understand. I want to make sure that we’re closing out. Right? We’re done? We’re done. We are done. An individual who is a very generous patron asked how to watch the show live. If you are a patron, we record almost always at 07:00 unless something weird happens. But 07:00 on Saturday nights, And if you show up on the Discord server then and you haven’t linked your Patreon account to your Discord account, so on Patreon that you would link the Discord account there. If you just, like, tag me, say, hey, then I will totally move you where you need to go if you, join one of the voice channels. But so that’s how you can do it. But if you just, if you set up the right linking, then the channels will show up to you in the discord server. But that’s how you can listen to it. So head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes, email registrymatterscast@gmail.com, leave an old fashioned voice mail message at (747) 227-4477. And again, support us on Patreon at patreon.com/registrymatters. And that’s all I got. Head over to fypeducation.org/shop for some swag. We sold another shirt, Larry, so that’s pretty awesome. And, without anything else, man, I will talk to you not at 05:00 tomorrow morning. 06:30. Okay. You say so. Have a great night. Good night.

[59:56] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Halloween—a festive night of costumes, candy, and childhood joy. But for some citizens in Missouri, it has also become a season of heightened scrutiny and legal contention. As the state attempts to reinstate a law requiring certain individuals to display signs on their property announcing they do not have candy or treats available, the debate over privacy, compelled speech, and constitutional rights has ramped up, leading to a lively court case covered in spirited oral arguments.

At the heart of this dispute is whether the government can compel individuals labeled as PFRs (Persons Forced to Register, often due to sex offense convictions) to display signs on Halloween—announcements that many argue could expose them and their families to risk, stigmatization, and constitutional violations.

In this blog post, we unpack the legal questions, humorous courtroom moments, and deeper societal issues tied to this controversial law. Along the way, we’ll provide context and analysis about what this case means for First Amendment rights and legal restrictions placed on marginalized groups.

The Missouri Law: What’s Being Debated?

The Missouri law at issue mandates that PFRs display a sign on their property during Halloween that states they do not have candy or treats available. This law ostensibly aims to protect children by discouraging them from approaching homes for trick-or-treating where someone on the registry resides.

The challenge centers on several key questions:

• Does this law violate the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech?
• Is this measure unnecessarily broad, such that it punishes all PFRs regardless of whether they pose a legitimate threat or not?
• Does existing public access to offender registries render this requirement redundant?

The case represents more than just Halloween decorations; it’s a broader fight over constitutional liberties versus public safety measures.

A Courtroom Quip: When Signs and Quicksand Collide

During oral arguments in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, humor found its way into the serious proceedings. One member of the judicial panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson, compared Missouri’s Halloween sign mandate to a North Dakota law requiring property owners to post signs if there is quicksand on their land.

“In North Dakota, if there’s quicksand, we’re required to post it,” noted Erickson. The judge went on to observe the absurdity of such a comparison, musing that cattle—potentially at risk of quicksand—can’t read the signs anyway.

While some might dismiss this analogy as a humorous aside, it reflects a deeper critique of the Missouri law: Is the requirement of signs truly effective in advancing safety, or is it an overreach? Erickson’s comment hinted that the law could lean into performative, rather than practical, territory.

Compelled Speech and Narrow Tailoring: A Legal Analysis

The constitutional sticking point of the Missouri law lies in its potential violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, opponents argue that forcing PFRs to post these Halloween signs constitutes “compelled speech,” a government mandate requiring individuals to convey a message they might not endorse.

What Does the First Amendment Say?

The First Amendment largely protects individuals from government-compelled speech. However, as legal expert Larry noted during the discussion, compelled speech is not inherently unconstitutional—there are circumstances under which it is allowed. For example, restaurant owners are required to publicly post health inspection grades, and drivers must alert authorities to vision impairments when applying for a license.

The key legal criteria here are:

1. Compelled speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
2. The restriction or mandate must use the least restrictive means available.

Missouri’s argument hinges on public safety. The state claims that PFR signage prevents potentially dangerous interactions between children and registrants—starting with children being deterred from approaching their homes. However, critics like attorney Janice Bellucci argue that this rationale falls apart upon closer examination.

A Flawed Approach? Overreach and Stigmatization

A recurring critique of Missouri’s argument is its sweeping application. The law applies to all PFRs, regardless of the specifics of their offenses or the likelihood they pose a danger to children. For example, in this case, the plaintiff—identified as Sanderson—has hosted elaborate Halloween displays for years, attracting hundreds of visitors in his neighborhood. His conviction, which stems from an incident two decades ago involving a 16-year-old, has no documented connection to past Halloween events.

Do Blanket Laws Work?

As Bellucci observed during oral arguments, anyone concerned about visiting the home of a PFR during Halloween could simply consult the existing public registry. Most states, including Missouri, already maintain comprehensive online sex offender registries that provide exact names and addresses. The signage law imposes an additional, arguably redundant, layer of disclosure—one that critics say exposes PFRs and their families to heightened risks of harassment and vandalism.

Beyond technical redundancy, the law represents an overreach in targeting an entire group instead of individuals who might pose a credible and particularized threat. As Larry noted, a more narrowly tailored law addressing genuine risks might escape such constitutional challenges in court.

The Human Impact: Sanderson’s Halloween Dilemma

Sanderson, the plaintiff in this case, provides a poignant example of the ways such laws affect real lives. Since 2002, Sanderson has been a fixture of his Hazelwood, Missouri, neighborhood’s Halloween traditions. Despite his designation as a PFR, he has neither reoffended nor shown any evidence of being a risk to minors during Halloween. Yet in 2022, local police officers approached his home on Halloween and charged him with violating the sign requirement, despite his understanding that he had been “grandfathered” out of the mandate.

The Cost of Stigma

Beyond the legal ramifications, laws like Missouri’s carry social implications. Signs placed on someone’s property can vilify not only the individual but also their families. As Bellucci argued, “placement of a government-mandated sign on a person’s home exposes all who live there to the dangers of significant physical harm and possible damage or destruction of their property.”

Critics Say: Is This Even “Common Sense”?

In their brief, Missouri’s legal team described the law as “common sense,” arguing that keeping children safe around Halloween requires minimal effort. However, this assertion came under scrutiny. Opponents pointed out that Halloween traditions today involve significant parental supervision. As Larry aptly observed, children rarely trick-or-treat without adults maintaining a watchful eye from the sidewalk.

Given such realities, critics argue that the law offers little practical value.

Final Thoughts and Takeaways

At its core, Missouri’s effort to revive the Halloween sign law engages fundamental legal, social, and ethical questions. The court’s three-judge panel—comprising appointees of two conservative presidents and one liberal—has taken the case under advisement, with no set timetable for a decision.

Whatever the outcome, this debate highlights the tension between safety measures and constitutional rights. Here are a few key takeaways:

1. Precision Matters: Laws targeting public safety must be carefully and narrowly tailored to address legitimate risks without infringing on constitutional protections.
2. Redundancy Undermines Effectiveness: Existing measures, like public registries, can often achieve the same goals as more invasive laws.
3. The Human Cost of Litigation: Policies that stigmatize and sweep entire groups into their orbit risk harming families, reputations, and community cohesion.

As Halloween approaches, the spotlight remains on Missouri’s legal battle. Will the law stand as a precautionary measure or crumble under the weight of constitutional scrutiny? All eyes—and possibly some clever costumes—are watching.

The death penalty—a topic as controversial as it is enduring in American law—has once again found itself at the forefront of political conversations and public discourse. Recent data highlights a significant uptick in executions, particularly in Florida under Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration. While the death penalty has long been a divisive issue, the sudden rise in its application raises critical questions. Are these increases reflective of public opinion, or is the shift being driven by political agendas? What implications could this trend have for the future of the American justice system?

This article explores the factors behind the resurgence of executions in the United States, particularly in Florida, unpacks the political motives at play, and examines the broader consequences of this shift. Through a nuanced lens, we’ll also assess whether public opinion really aligns with this rise and explore the societal ramifications of normalizing such punitive measures.

Florida’s Record-Setting Execution Rate: A Closer Look

In what some are calling a grim milestone, Florida has recently set a record pace for state-sanctioned executions, with Governor Ron DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since 1976. Among the 2025 schedule was the execution of 72-year-old Samuel Lee Smithers, a man convicted in the brutal 1996 murders of two women. His case is a stark reminder of the often lengthy appeals process for death row inmates, which extends decades after their initial convictions.

Smithers is among 14 individuals slated for execution in Florida this year alone. This marks a notable shift when compared to past years, where the record prior to 2025 was set in 2014 with eight executions. The increase reflects broader policy changes spearheaded by DeSantis, who has consistently voiced strong support for the death penalty as a tool of justice and deterrence.

Supporters of DeSantis argue that the governor is simply carrying out the will of Florida’s citizens, who largely back capital punishment. “The people of Florida support the death penalty,” said Larry, a commentator in a heated discussion. “The governor’s doing his job. It’s the law of Florida.”

But this use of capital punishment isn’t just limited to Florida—it may signify a broader national trend under the influence of key figures in conservative politics, as discussed below.

Political Underpinnings: The “Trump Effect” and Beyond

The rising execution rates in Florida are not occurring in isolation. Many legal experts and advocates point to what they dub the “Trump Effect,” a period of reinvigorated support for capital punishment policies among conservatives. Under Donald Trump’s administration, there was a significant push to expand the use of the death penalty at the federal level. The appointment of Trump-aligned state leaders—such as Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Louisiana’s Liz Murrell—has also led to resuming executions in states where it had paused for years.

Trump himself vowed during his presidency to seek the death penalty for federal murder cases, emphasizing a “law-and-order” agenda. Although actual implementation varied across jurisdictions, the rhetoric has clearly resonated with state politicians and governors looking to align themselves with Trump’s policies. Ron DeSantis, for example, has repeatedly championed tough-on-crime legislation, including efforts to expand the death penalty further into cases of child sexual assault—a move widely criticized by opponents on constitutional and moral grounds.

A particularly poignant quote from Laura Porter, executive director of the Eighth Amendment Project, encapsulates these shifting dynamics: “It only takes one Trump-aligned leader in a state to restart executions of people who’ve been on death row for years.” This insight highlights how leadership at the state level directly impacts the prioritization of executions, often reflecting broader political ambitions rather than public mandate.

The Public Opinion Paradox

One of the key puzzles in this discussion is whether the rise in executions aligns with the will of the broader American public. A recent Associated Press (AP) report offers a mixed assessment. While polls suggest that public support for capital punishment hovers around 50%, courtrooms tell a different story: juries across the U.S. have increasingly moved to reject the death penalty. In 2025, only 10 people have been sentenced to death row, a stark contrast to the 315 cases from the mid-1990s.

Why this disconnect? Experts contend that fine distinctions exist between public polling and the nuanced, informed decisions of jurors. As Larry astutely observed, “Courtrooms are different than the general population. Jurors hear from experts and weigh evidence that regular citizens wouldn’t be in a position to consider.” This difference underscores how the judicial process itself may serve as a check against popular opinion, even if only indirectly.

Grave Sentences for Heinous Crimes: Individual Cases in the Spotlight

While statistics and trends often dominate the discussion, the stories behind those sentenced to death serve as a sobering reminder of the human element in this issue. For instance, Samuel Lee Smithers’ case exemplifies the brutal nature of crimes that often invoke public support for the death penalty. Smithers, a former deacon at his church, was convicted of murdering two women, beating, strangling, and eventually leaving their bodies in a pond. Sensationalized cases like his ignite predictable calls for justice, swaying public perception in favor of harsh punishments.

Similarly, the execution of Curtis Windham in August 2025, convicted of a triple murder in 1992, sheds light on the prolonged nature of death penalty cases. Decades often pass between the act of the crime and the carrying out of the sentence, raising questions about the practical purposes of executions as deterrents or means of swift justice.

The Desensitization of a Nation: Wider Implications

The normalization of executions is a growing concern among opponents of capital punishment. “We as a population are being desensitized to the death penalty, which will also make it easier to expand its usage,” warned Larry. This alarming trend could pave the way for broader applications of the death penalty beyond murder, particularly in states already advocating for its use in crimes such as child sexual assault.

The gradual expansion of capital punishment sets a dangerous precedent, according to critics, particularly as it intersects with issues like youth offenders and legal inequalities. Stories of individuals sentenced to death for crimes committed at age 20, or legislation targeting certain classes of offenders, paint an unsettling picture for the road ahead.

Conclusion: Is This the Future We Choose?

The rise in executions in Florida and elsewhere is a snapshot of shifting priorities in America’s justice system—priorities increasingly influenced by political partisanship, rather than reflective public consensus. Governor Ron DeSantis’s aggressive push for executions represents a trend many fear could desensitize citizens to the practice and lead to its gradual expansion.

While proponents argue that increased execution rates demonstrate justice being served, skeptics worry about the long-term societal consequences. They caution that unchecked enthusiasm for capital punishment risks creating a legal system where the focus on punishment overshadows rehabilitation, fairness, and the rule of law.

Key Takeaways:
1. The recent rise in executions, especially in Florida, exposes the intersections of law, politics, and public opinion.
2. Political agendas, such as those influenced by Trump-era policies, have reinvigorated capital punishment rhetoric and implementation.
3. Contrary to high execution rates, jurors are increasingly rejecting the death penalty, suggesting a disconnect between courtrooms and political priorities.
4. The normalization of executions risks paving the way for broader applications, including cases that push constitutional boundaries.

The future of the death penalty in America remains uncertain, but as the debate intensifies, it’s clear that the rising number of executions will spark renewed questions about justice, morality, and the nation we aspire to be.

Introduction:
In an era when law enforcement practices are under intense public scrutiny, the recent United States Supreme Court case, Barnes v. Felix, stands out as a pivotal moment in understanding the limits of police authority and accountability. Decided unanimously by a 9-0 vote, this decision takes aim at a controversial doctrine known as the “Moment of Threat rule,” significantly reshaping how courts evaluate police use-of-force cases. While the case did not directly focus on broader registry issues, its principles highlight a larger conversation about justice, accountability, and systemic practices within law enforcement and the judiciary.

This article delves into the Barnes v. Felix decision, tracing the events that led to the ruling, examining the role of “junk science” in law enforcement, and exploring the broader implications of allowing courts to consider the totality of circumstances rather than focusing narrowly on the seconds before an officer uses force. Whether you’re a legal scholar, a concerned citizen, or someone intrigued by the intricacies of the justice system, this analysis will offer clarity, context, and actionable takeaways about the evolving relationship between law enforcement and accountability.

The Case in Context: What Happened in Barnes v. Felix?

The case began with a tragic scenario involving Ashley Barnes and police officer Roberto Felix. Felix pulled Barnes over for something seemingly minor—toll violations. Events escalated rapidly when Barnes attempted to drive away. Felix chose to jump onto the door seal of Barnes’ moving vehicle and, within two seconds of clinging to the car, fired two fatal shots that killed Barnes. These moments, and their aftermath, raised fundamental questions about the reasonableness of Felix’s actions and, more broadly, the legal framework used to evaluate police shootings.

At first, both a district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Felix. How? By relying on the Fifth Circuit’s “Moment of Threat” doctrine, which restricts judicial analysis to the exact moment an officer perceives a threat—without considering any events leading up to that moment. Critics, including Barnes’ family, argued that such a narrow framework ignored Felix’s role in creating the dangerous situation in the first place. When the Supreme Court took up the case, those concerns finally got their day of reckoning.

Breaking Down the Supreme Court’s Decision

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Barnes v. Felix ruling is that it united the often ideologically divided Supreme Court. The justices unanimously rejected the “Moment of Threat rule,” arguing that courts must assess the totality of circumstances in use-of-force cases.

As the court stated, “[a] court deciding a use of force case cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has put on chronological blinders.” In simpler terms, the justices made it clear that isolating the final few seconds of an incident fails to capture the broader context, which may reveal how the officer contributed to the escalation of the situation.

By vacating the Fifth Circuit’s decision and sending the case back for further consideration, the Supreme Court opened the door for a more comprehensive examination of Barnes’ shooting. While this does not necessarily mean Felix will be found liable, it ensures that critical questions about his decisions leading up to the shooting are finally addressed.

Connecting Barnes to the Bigger Picture: Police Practices and Junk Science

During an accompanying podcast discussion among legal experts and advocates, the broader implications of the case emerged. One key theme was how certain systemic practices in law enforcement, including the use of so-called “junk science,” mirror the concerning dynamics seen in cases like Barnes’.

What Is “Junk Science”?

Junk science refers to pseudoscientific or unsupported methodologies disguised as legitimate forensic tools. Examples include debunked practices like bite mark analysis or faulty applications of software in analyzing cell tower data. This idea of introducing questionable “science” to support law enforcement goals intersects with the concerns raised in the Barnes case because both involve creating a narrative or justification that sidesteps scrutiny.

As one podcast guest explained, law enforcement agencies often develop or adopt proprietary techniques and technologies that only their personnel can be “certified” to use. By restricting access and using opaque methodologies, they establish an artificial legitimacy that courts rarely challenge, even when the science proves to be unreliable or entirely fabricated.

The Parallel to Police Use of Force

The playbook for junk science—from its invention to its perpetuation—is strikingly similar to the practices highlighted in police use-of-force cases. As in Barnes’ case, officers often escalate situations unnecessarily and later argue their actions were justified based on an immediate perception of danger. This narrow, moment-by-moment justification leaves little room for questioning how those situations arose or whether other approaches (e.g., backing off, radioing for backup) could have prevented violence altogether.

A Turning Point in Evaluating Police Accountability

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the “Moment of Threat” rule has profound implications. By requiring courts to consider all relevant events leading up to a police officer’s use of force, the ruling:

1. Enables Accountability: Officers can no longer rely solely on the immediacy of perceived danger as justification without scrutiny of their preceding actions.

2. Encourages Safer Policing Practices: Departments may need to rethink policies that incentivize escalation, knowing courts will now evaluate the broader context of incidents.

3. Strengthens Victims’ Rights: Families like Barnes’ now have an opportunity to argue more robustly in court that law enforcement’s conduct was not objectively reasonable.

Key Takeaways: What This Means Moving Forward

1. Totality of Circumstances Is Critical: Courts can no longer ignore the events preceding the use of force. This precedent may reverberate well beyond the Fifth Circuit, encouraging nationwide reforms in how police accountability cases are litigated.

2. Judicial Scrutiny Can Be a Catalyst for Reform: By forcing a reevaluation of police practices that prioritize escalation over de-escalation, the justice system can play a key role in addressing systemic issues within law enforcement.

3. Broader Awareness of Junk Science Is Necessary: For advocates, educators, and lawmakers, understanding how pseudoscientific methodologies influence court cases—much like the overly simplistic Moment of Threat rule—can be essential to creating lasting change.

4. Unified Decision-Making Is Rare, but Powerful: The unanimity of this Supreme Court decision underscores its importance. Advocates can seize upon this rare alignment as a model for nonpartisan progress in other areas of justice reform.

Conclusion: Beyond Barnes and Toward a More Just System

The Barnes v. Felix case is more than just a legal battle over a tragic interaction; it’s a referendum on how we evaluate and hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. By rejecting the narrow, snapshot-focused “Moment of Threat” rule, the Supreme Court has taken an essential step toward ensuring justice is not blind to the facts that matter most.

As the case continues on remand, it will undoubtedly shape future legal strategies, policies, and public dialogue about use-of-force cases. But beyond the courtroom, the case is a stark reminder of the work still needed to ensure that legal processes prioritize fairness and accountability over convenience and narrow legalisms. In doing so, it renews hope that justice may yet become a force for progress, not just punishment.

The California Supreme Court recently issued two significant rulings regarding gang-related sentencing enhancements, sparking widespread debate on their potential impact. These controversies aren’t just legal minutiae—they represent the intersection of law, public safety, and social justice in one of the country’s most populous states. How these rulings affect sentencing—and their broader implications—has sparked heated discussions about justice, racial equity, and public safety.

In this blog post, we’ll unpack these rulings, examine their roots in California’s legislative and judicial history, and analyze their potential ripple effects. Whether you’re hearing about gang enhancements for the first time or are deeply familiar with criminal justice debates, this article will offer a nuanced look at what these decisions could mean for Californians—and beyond.

Understanding California’s Gang Sentencing Enhancements

Gang sentencing enhancements have played a significant role in California’s criminal justice system for over three decades. These enhancements impose harsher sentences on individuals convicted of crimes deemed to benefit a gang. The penalties often include significant time extensions for convictions tied to gang-related activities, with the aim of deterring organized criminal behavior.

The origin of these laws can be traced back to the late 1980s, a time when violent crime rates in California were peaking. In 1988, the California Legislature enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, which explicitly targeted gang violence. This law aimed to curb escalating gang activity by allowing prosecutors to attach enhanced sentences for felonies alleged to benefit a criminal street gang—a controversial move that was met with both support and criticism.

As fears surrounding “super predators” and rising violence grew in the 1990s, voters supported measures like Proposition 21 in 2000, which further expanded the STEP Act. However, these laws have since come under scrutiny for their overly broad applications, excessive penalties, and the disproportionate impact they’ve had on low-income and minority communities.

Key Outcomes of the Recent Rulings

The two recent decisions from the California Supreme Court represent a shift in the legal system’s approach to gang sentencing enhancements. Both rulings stem from the Step Forward Act of 2021 (Assembly Bill 333), which raised the standard of evidence required to prove that a crime directly benefits a gang. Under this new standard, prosecutors are obligated to demonstrate that the gang received tangible benefits—beyond just reputational gains—from the criminal activity.

Let’s break down the two cases at the heart of these decisions:

1. Fletcher and Taylor Case
   In the first decision, the court determined in a 4-3 split vote that prior gang-related charges no longer met the new evidentiary standard introduced by AB 333. As a result, those charges could not be used as “strikes” under California’s notorious Three Strikes Law. Larry Fletcher and Eric Anthony Taylor Jr.’s 2015 gang enhancement convictions played a key role in their sentencing for a 2020 attempted murder charge. However, because their appeal overlapped with the enactment of AB 333, the court ruled that their prior convictions no longer qualified as strikes.

2. Aguirre Case
   In the second decision, the court overturned the death sentence of Jason Aguirre, an inmate who had been convicted of murder and attempted murder in a gang-related case. The court sent the case back to trial, stating that the jury in Aguirre’s original trial was not provided instructions that aligned with the revised definitions under AB 333. Aguirre’s crime occurred in 2003, yet the court’s application of the revised law retroactively introduced new legal uncertainties into his sentencing.

It’s worth noting that both cases reveal disagreement among the justices, with split decisions reflecting varied interpretations of AB 333’s retroactive application. Critics argue that these rulings could set a far-reaching precedent, potentially leading to reduced sentences or retrials in other cases involving gang enhancements.

The Broader Debate: Crime Control Versus Social Justice

California’s history with gang sentencing enhancements is intertwined with calls for balancing public safety and criminal justice reform. Supporters of enhancements argue they provide a powerful tool for prosecutors to combat gang violence and ensure community safety. Critics, however, argue that these laws target individuals based on racial and socio-economic biases, leading to over-policing of marginalized communities and excessively harsh sentences.

Legislative Origins: From STEP Act to AB 333

The STEP Act and its subsequent expansions, such as Prop 21, were developed during a time of heightened fear of gangs and urban violence. Critics have long asserted that these laws enabled prosecutors to penalize entire neighborhoods by criminalizing associations, cultural symbols, and geographic proximity to perceived gang activity. This approach, they argue, disproportionately affected Black and Latino communities, as well as other racially marginalized groups.

AB 333 attempted to address these criticisms by raising the standard for prosecutors to attach gang enhancements to crimes. No longer could “reputational gain” for a gang qualify as evidence—the law now requires material gains or benefits to the gang, such as financial profit or increased resources.

Proponents of AB 333 also argue that gang enhancements often rely on insufficient evidence, such as hearsay or circumstantial links to alleged gang membership. As societal views on criminal justice shift toward rehabilitation and equity, this legislation represented a move to correct what many saw as the overreach of earlier laws.

Dissenting Voices: Public Safety Concerns

Not everyone sees these changes as progress. Critics of the recent rulings fear the focus on social justice for the accused will come at the expense of public safety. In the case of Fletcher and Taylor, dissenters argue that removing the three strikes enhancements could result in violent offenders returning to society prematurely. Similarly, the Aguirre case raises concerns about retroactive applications of revised laws disrupting established convictions.

Justice Patricia Guerrero, who dissented from the Fletcher decision, admonished her colleagues for invoking powers she saw as exceeding the court’s authority. She argued that their ruling effectively rewrites the Three Strikes Law, undermining its deterrent effect and potentially eroding public trust in the legal system.

The Potential Impact of These Rulings

While it’s too early to gauge the full effects of these decisions, several key implications are already clear:

1. New Appeals and Retrials
   By applying AB 333 retroactively, these rulings could open the floodgates for appeals from incarcerated individuals sentenced under prior gang enhancement laws. This raises questions about how California’s courts and correctional system will handle the heightened caseload.

2. Precedent for Other States
   California often serves as a bellwether for national criminal justice reform. These rulings could inspire similar legislative or judicial challenges in other states that also use gang sentencing enhancements.

3. Public Safety Concerns
   Opponents worry that loosening gang enhancement laws will lead to higher crime rates, as individuals convicted of violent crimes could have their sentences reduced or overturned.

4. Progress Toward Equity
   On the other hand, reform advocates see this as a victory for addressing systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system. They argue that these rulings provide an opportunity to reduce mass incarceration and reconsider laws that disproportionately impact people of color.

Final Thoughts: Navigating a Complex Issue

The recent rulings by the California Supreme Court highlight the tension between maintaining public safety and advancing equity within the legal system. As the state grapples with the implications, other jurisdictions will likely keep a close eye on how California resolves these challenges.

This landmark moment in California judicial history reminds us that the path to justice is rarely clear-cut. Whether these rulings represent a dangerous potential for increased crime or a necessary step toward a fair legal system may depend on your perspective. What’s certain is that the conversation around gang enhancements and sentencing reform is far from over.

Actionable Takeaways

1. For Lawmakers: Consider revisiting existing gang enhancement laws to ensure they align with principles of fairness, due process, and public safety.
2. For Advocates: Focus on education campaigns that highlight both the human costs of excessive sentencing and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities.
3. For the Public: Stay informed about changes in your state’s criminal justice laws and their impacts on community safety and equity.

California’s story is one of evolving priorities. Whether you view these rulings as progress or peril, their implications are sure to resonate well beyond state lines.

Introduction: A Legal Odyssey and Its Potential Ripple Effects
In the world of criminal justice reform, few cases have the potential to alter legal interpretations as dramatically as Louis Matthew Clements v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections. This case highlights a key debate surrounding individuals listed on the Florida sex offender registry, also referred to as PFRs (persons forced to register), and whether their mandatory obligations constitute “custody” under federal habeas corpus standards.

Habeas corpus—a legal safeguard against unlawful detainment—has long been a cornerstone of American constitutional law. However, its specific application to individuals no longer physically imprisoned yet significantly restricted, like Florida’s PFRs, remains a point of contention. Could these restrictions—a relentless combination of residence exclusions, constant reporting obligations, and travel limitations—make registrants “in custody” for habeas purposes?

This blog post unpacks the legal nuances surrounding Clements, explores its broader implications, and examines how this saga could reshape the laws governing registries nationwide.

What’s at the Heart of This Case?

The case centers on Louis Matthew Clements, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to lewd and lascivious conduct under Florida law. He was sentenced to five years of probation and required to register permanently as a PFR under Florida’s strict statutes. The story doesn’t end after his probation expired in 2012. Years later, Clements challenged his ongoing registration requirements using federal habeas corpus—a legal instrument typically reserved for those “in custody.”

Florida courts dismissed his petitions initially, claiming his registration obligations didn’t qualify as “custody” under federal law. However, Clements argued otherwise, particularly focusing on Florida’s stringent residency restrictions, which effectively bar PFRs from living or traveling through significant swaths of the state.

The stakes of this case go beyond Clements himself. A favorable ruling could open the door for registrants across the country to challenge the constitutionality of their reporting restrictions via habeas corpus, dramatically altering the judicial landscape for PFR oversight.

Understanding Habeas Corpus and the Legal Debate over “Custody”

Habeas corpus, often referred to as the “great writ,” is used to challenge unconstitutional imprisonment. However, “custody” for the purposes of habeas isn’t confined to iron bars and prison compounds. Courts have broadly interpreted the term to include certain types of community supervision, such as probation and parole. The point of contention, however, is whether the burdens of being on the Florida PFR registry, such as residency and movement restrictions, meet the “custody” threshold.

Key arguments from Clements emphasize:
– Residency restrictions: Florida prohibits registrants from living within certain distances of schools, parks, playgrounds, and other child-heavy areas. According to Clements, this amounts to being effectively confined to only 50% of the state’s livable land.
– Ongoing registration and reporting obligations: Lifetime registration demands frequent updates to local authorities regarding any changes in residence, employment, or personal details under penalty of law.
– Additional restrictions: These include travel constraints, mandatory polygraph exams, and unannounced home inspections, depending on probation terms or state-specific protocols.

Florida’s position, on the other hand, relies on the argument that these requirements are neither punitive nor custodial but merely “civil regulatory measures.”

Key Legal Precedents and Developments

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ approach to Clements v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections signals that the judicial interpretation of Florida’s PFR restrictions is at a tipping point. While most courts deny that registry requirements amount to custody, some have started to break from precedent.

The Legal Precedent in Play: “In Custody” Cases

1. In-Appellate Review: The appellate court in Clements highlighted something critical—residency restrictions hadn’t received proper scrutiny in lower court proceedings. While earlier rulings denied Clements’ claims, they acknowledged that the cumulative restrictions on registrants could theoretically meet the “in custody” test.
2. Other significant cases: In 2019, the Third Circuit ruled in Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas that Pennsylvania’s PFR registration requirements constituted custodial restriction sufficient to qualify for federal habeas review. The case set a notable precedent reinforcing the idea that registrants under substantial limitations might utilize habeas corpus.

What’s Different About Florida’s Restrictions?

Florida has become infamous for imposing some of the harshest and most far-reaching restrictions on PFRs in the United States. From mandatory registration to ruthless residency restrictions, the “Sunshine State” casts a long shadow over its PFRs, leaving them with virtually no meaningful freedom.

For example:
– Residency requirements: Clements and others are prohibited from living within certain distances of schools, parks, or childcare facilities—essentially relegating PFRs to remote or undesirable areas.
– Lifetime penalties with no reprieve: Florida’s registry is unique because it imposes lifetime registration requirements with no provision for automatic removal, even for individuals whose crimes occurred decades ago under vastly different circumstances.
– Broad travel and employment restrictions: Registered individuals in Florida cannot move freely or pursue certain careers due to these lingering constraints.

Essentially, Clements’ argument hinges on these cumulative infringements functioning as substantial restraints on his liberty, despite being outside traditional incarceration.

What Are the Implications of a Favorable Ruling?

Should the Eleventh Circuit eventually side with Clements, the fallout would be profound—not only for Florida but across the United States.

Ripple Effects on Florida’s Registry System

1. Filing of New Habeas Corpus Petitions: A ruling finding Florida PFR registrants “in custody” could open the floodgates for similar cases. Thousands of individuals who believed federal habeas corpus was unavailable could now access it as a legal tool to challenge their restrictions.
2. Constitutional Challenges: With habeas corpus jurisdiction securely established, registrants could attack the constitutionality of registry laws themselves, particularly the claim that they are non-punitive.

National Implications for Legislatures and Courts

1. Other Circuits Joining In: A ruling in favor of Clements could nudge other federal circuits toward acknowledging restrictive registries as custodial for habeas purposes.
2. Legislative Narrowing of Policies: States with overbroad or unnecessarily draconian registration laws may find themselves forced to scale back these policies to avoid legal challenges in the future.

Where the Court Stands and What Comes Next

In its initial review, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of the factual record. Specifically, the court emphasized the need to assess whether residency restrictions, combined with lifetime registration obligations, constitute “custody.” The case now hinges on the ability of Clements, his legal counsel, and the state government to either reinforce or dismantle the case’s factual scaffolding.

Actionable Insights and Key Takeaways

While the final outcome remains uncertain, here are some lessons and potential next steps:
1. Understanding the Threshold for Habeas Corpus: Clements’ case underscores the importance of marshaling arguments supported by both constitutional principles and concrete evidence of restrictions’ severity.
2. The Role of Fully Developed Records: Lawyers filing habeas petitions must create a robust factual record during district court proceedings. Appeals courts review what’s presented—this is no time for last-minute discoveries.
3. Legislative Pushback: Advocates, scholars, and policymakers must reevaluate overbroad PFR laws and push for reforms that prioritize narrowly tailored, evidence-based solutions.

Conclusion: A Case to Watch, A Landmark in the Making

Clements v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections could mark a seismic shift in how courts interpret the rights and constraints of PFR registrants. At its core, this case tests whether lifetime restrictions under civil regulatory frameworks still rise to the level of “custody” for habeas corpus purposes.

Florida’s aggressive PFR laws, while framed as public safety measures, may prove unsustainable under constitutional scrutiny. With the Eleventh Circuit poised to potentially break new ground, this case serves as a clarion call to lawmakers nationwide: unchecked legislative overreach on registries will eventually meet its reckoning in the courts.

Stay tuned—this is one legal drama you won’t want to miss.

When it comes to registry requirements, residency restrictions, and state-level bureaucracy like Medicaid, nothing is ever simple—especially for individuals living with the designation of a “PFR” (Person Forced to Register). These challenges are compounded for those looking to relocate, live with loved ones, or access healthcare across state lines. If you’ve ever felt like you’re fighting an uphill battle against an invisible system that complicates every aspect of your life, you’re far from alone.

The story at the center of this article highlights the unique struggles faced by a Texas resident forced to register, known as Derek, and his partner living in Indiana. From navigating complex residency restrictions to deciphering the opaque world of Medicaid transfer waitlists, their journey brings to light the systemic hurdles faced by individuals in similar situations.

What follows is an exploration of the key concerns Derek brought up and the recommendations provided during dialogue, with additional insights to help clarify these issues for anyone in a similar predicament. From residency restrictions to actionable strategies for overcoming systemic challenges, this article aims to provide clarity and resources for navigating the sometimes-confusing legal landscape tied to registration and relocation issues.

Context Behind Derek’s Situation

Derek currently resides in Texas and is subject to life-long registration requirements due to a prior conviction. Despite this, he has built a life with his partner of five years, who resides part-time in Indiana and has his own unique obstacles, including living with a disability. Derek and his partner’s plan for a permanent move to Indiana seems promising— he assumes their relationship should allow for greater stability. However, complex barriers have made this process anything but straightforward.

Key complicating factors include:
– Residency restrictions for PFRs in Indiana, which prevent individuals from living within 1,000 feet of parks, schools, and other child-centric spaces.
– Questions around whether Texas could enforce Indiana’s residency restrictions, or how these restrictions apply across state lines.
– Difficulties transferring Medicaid benefits between states and the surprisingly long waitlists associated with some state Medicaid programs.
– Ambiguity in local law enforcement interpretations of these restrictions and inconsistent guidance when Derek’s partner attempted to gather information.

These overlapping issues raise a fundamental question: How can Derek plan for relocation without inadvertently violating statutory boundaries, especially when it seems like every system is set up to create blockers instead of solutions? Let’s break down each of these issues in-depth.

1. Understanding Residency Restrictions for PFRs

What Are Residency Restrictions and How Do They Vary by State?

Many states impose residency restrictions on PFRs, particularly individuals convicted of crimes against children or considered “sexually violent predators” (SVPs). These laws generally prohibit PFRs from living in close proximity to key locations like schools, parks, daycare centers, or other areas designated as child-focused. Indiana, for instance, requires PFRs meeting certain criteria to maintain at least a 1,000-foot buffer from such locations.

However, enforcement and definitions can vary widely not only between states but also between counties. In Derek’s case, his partner’s home, inherited through family, happens to be next to a public park, potentially complicating his prospective move to Indiana. When his partner sought clarity from the Allen County Sheriff’s Office, they were met with seemingly arbitrary refusals to answer or cooperate—raising questions about whether the law itself was the issue or whether restrictive attitudes against PFRs were creating barriers.

Does Texas Enforce Residency Restrictions Imposed by Other States?

Interestingly, the question of whether Derek’s current state, Texas, can enforce Indiana’s residency restrictions is legally murky. While Texas is known for its stringent registry enforcement practices, enforcing another state’s specific geographical limits on a registrant is rare. Why?
1. Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution: States are required to respect the “public acts and records” of other states, but they don’t have to enforce laws or restrictions specific to another state’s jurisdiction.
2. Equal Protection Clause: If Derek resides in Texas, under Texas law, he must be treated like any other Texas resident and not subjected to Indiana-specific conditions. While these claims would need to be argued in court, they highlight potential constitutional defenses if Texas tries to impose restrictions not explicitly written into its own laws.

At the same time, relocating to Indiana would bring him directly under that state’s laws, meaning he could no longer rely on Texas legal interpretations to challenge such restrictions. This highlights the importance of legal clarification before making any major changes.

Actionable Tip: Have a legal professional evaluate the specifics of residency restrictions at both state and county levels, making special note of any registry-related laws that are unique to either location.

2. The Medicaid Transfer Maze: Why Moving States Is so Challenging

Another substantial hurdle for Derek and his partner involves Medicaid. Medicaid, a program aimed at providing healthcare to low-income individuals and those with disabilities, operates via joint federal and state funding. While the federal government provides broad guidelines, states administer Medicaid independently, meaning eligibility rules, benefits, and application processes often differ.

Why Do Medicaid Transfers Take So Long?

In Texas, Derek’s partner faces a reported three-year waitlist to transfer his Medicaid benefits—a delay that could severely restrict Derek’s partner’s ability to move. While Medicaid is federally funded, states impose administrative controls on how they process incoming applicants. In some cases, new applicants (even those already enrolled in Medicaid in a different state) are treated as fresh cases, leading to long waitlists reminiscent of Section 8 housing programs.

Indiana Medicaid, however, has no such waitlist, making the decision even more complex. Derek and his partner must weigh whether they can both thrive in Indiana’s system given the residency restrictions versus Texas’ healthcare challenges.

Actionable Tip: If facing Medicaid transfer issues, consult a benefits specialist or Medicaid navigator in the state where you’re relocating. They may uncover ways to expedite the process, such as waivers or priority allowances.

3. Why Local Law Enforcement Isn’t Always the Best Resource

Derek’s situation also showcases another perennial issue for PFRs attempting to comply with the law: inconsistent communication and guidance from law enforcement. When Derek’s partner contacted the Allen County Sheriff to inquire about residency restrictions, they were met with dismissiveness and incorrect information. Unfortunately, this is a common experience for PFRs and their families, as many local officials prioritize deterrence—as opposed to carefully and accurately explaining how to comply with the law.

Why This Matters: While Derek’s partner didn’t provide his name or case details during the interaction, the uncooperative nature of the sheriff’s response underscores why PFRs need to navigate these conversations deliberately and carefully document any advice or instructions provided by officials.

4. What Are Derek’s Next Steps?

Given the complexity of his situation, Derek should consider the following actionable steps before committing to any form of relocation:

1. Clarify Indiana’s Rules with an Attorney: Engage a professional well-versed in Indiana registration laws to determine how residency restrictions may specifically apply to his circumstances. Ensure they also interpret any gray areas, such as Indiana’s allowance for proximity to public parks.

2. Determine Texas’ Position on Enforcing Out-of-State Restrictions: Have a separate attorney evaluate whether Texas law includes provisions requiring them to enforce Indiana residency restrictions if Derek remains a Texas resident—although this would only apply if Derek decided not to relocate.

3. Speak Directly with Medicaid Navigators: For Derek’s partner, speaking with Medicaid experts in both Texas and Indiana may unveil expedited pathways for transferring benefits or securing care.

4. Consider Selling the House and Moving Elsewhere: As frustrating as it may sound, the suggestion raised during the original dialogue holds merit. By selling the property next to the park in Indiana and relocating to a county or state without such barriers, Derek and his partner may find greater peace and stability.

Final Thoughts

Derek’s story is emblematic of the challenges faced by countless individuals caught in the web of registration requirements, residency restrictions, and state-level bureaucracy. While no one solution works for everyone, understanding the laws, leveraging legal experts, and adopting a methodical approach to navigating these hurdles can help pave the way toward a more stable future.

For PFRs and their families considering relocation, preparation and persistence are key. Don’t hesitate to consult attorneys, benefits navigators, and other professionals to ensure you aren’t inadvertently violating the law while moving toward a better life.

Actionable Takeaways:
1. Consult with legal experts before attempting to navigate residency restrictions in a new state or county.
2. Document all communications with law enforcement officials in case conflicting advice arises.
3. Explore all avenues for addressing bureaucratic delays, particularly when dealing with Medicaid or other benefits programs.

Your life and your rights are worth defending—don’t let systemic hurdles stand in your way.

When facing a situation that involves a polygraph examination, it can feel intimidating and fraught with pressure. Particularly in sensitive legal or supervisory contexts, polygraphs—commonly referred to as lie detector tests—are designed to detect physiological changes in response to questions, theoretically revealing the truth or uncovering deception. But does it really work this way? What are your rights, and how can you approach such tests judiciously to protect yourself and your legal standing?

This article delves into the mechanics of polygraphs, the limits of their validity, and how to strategically engage with them while navigating complex scenarios. Whether you’re dealing with a supervised release program or just curious about the nuances of polygraph tests, we’ve got you covered.

Understanding Polygraphs and Their Purpose

Polygraph examinations are often lauded as scientific tools to unearth truths. However, there are numerous debates about their validity, reliability, and real-world application. Polygraph machines don’t directly detect lies. Rather, they monitor physiological changes—like heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and perspiration—that might indicate stress when asked specific questions.

The key issue is that these physical responses are not exclusive to deception; anxiety, discomfort, or the phrasing of questions can easily trigger the same responses. In some instances, polygraphs are used in workplace vetting, criminal investigations, or supervisory conditions for convicted individuals, particularly in cases involving sensitive charges.

Introduction to the Scenario

Recently, a conversation arose concerning the rights of those taking polygraph examinations under supervised release and how to avoid potential self-incrimination. The question originated from a handwritten letter asking for clarification about a prior recommendation: is stating “I request that my attorney respond to that particular question” still a viable approach for navigating polygraph tests?

The short answer is no. As explored in this discussion, there are more effective ways to safeguard your rights without escalating the situation or risking unfavorable consequences. To understand why, let’s break down the points discussed by legal experts and their real-world insights.

Myths About Avoiding Self-Incrimination

One common misconception is that you can bring your attorney into the polygraph room as a failsafe for avoiding self-incriminating questions. Unfortunately, that’s not permitted. Courts and probation offices typically do not allow legal counsel to accompany individuals during a polygraph exam. Consequently, misunderstanding this restriction or outright refusing to engage in the examination can lead to serious repercussions, such as technical violations of supervision.

As Larry shared during the discussion, taking a hardline stance—like outright refusing to cooperate or defaulting to “talk to my attorney”—is not a viable strategy. You cannot abdicate your responsibility to answer every question to legal counsel. At best, it will escalate tensions; at worst, it could result in a violation of your release terms.

Protecting Your Rights: What You Can Do

While you cannot delegate your responses to an attorney during a polygraph, you do not surrender your right to avoid self-incrimination completely. As a probationer or supervisee, navigating these situations requires a delicate balance of cooperation and caution.

Here are the steps to take when preparing for and engaging in a polygraph examination:

1. Understand the Pre-Test Process

In any legitimate polygraph exam, the questions you’ll be asked are outlined in a pretest interview. This step is crucial. Accredited examiners will not attach the polygraph machine and ambush you with surprise questions. Instead, they provide a clear roadmap of what will be covered, giving you the opportunity to evaluate each question.

If an examiner skips this step, you’re not engaged in a proper examination and should report the irregularities.

2. Assess Each Question for Scope and Specificity

Certain questions may be too broad or poorly phrased, which could lead to unintended consequences. For example, Larry recounted an instance where the question “Have you ever had any sexual activity with someone below the age of consent?” was posed to him during a supervised exam. As he explained, this question lacked clarity because laws regarding the age of consent vary by state and often evolve over time.

By raising this concern, Larry was able to have the question revised to something more specific and legally appropriate: “Have you, since achieving the age of majority of 18, knowingly had sexual contact with anyone who was below the age of consent at that time?” This careful revision ensured that his responses reflected the facts accurately without triggering false physiological reactions due to ambiguity.

3. Invoke Your Right Against Self-Incrimination Strategically

If a particular question could lead to self-incrimination, you are within your rights to decline to answer—but this must be done with tact. Experts advise that you express your desire to cooperate with the examination overall while firmly and calmly stating that you cannot answer a specific question. For instance, you might say, “I’m unable to respond to this question, as it may incriminate me, but I remain willing to answer the other questions.”

Be prepared for potential pushback during this process, as refusal to answer may prompt examiners to involve probation officers or other authorities. However, staying composed and consistent in your reasoning helps protect your credibility.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Navigating polygraphs is already complicated; however, certain missteps can amplify the challenges. Below are some pitfalls to sidestep:

• Refusing the Entire Exam: Refusal to participate entirely can be interpreted as noncompliance, risking sanctions or even incarceration.
• Misunderstanding Context: Not all questions in a polygraph test will be incriminating. Collaborate to clarify which questions pose risks rather than assuming a defensive posture outright.
• Engaging in Emotional Reactions: Examiners are trained to manage emotionally charged situations. Remaining calm and rational is a critical advantage.
• Misinterpreting “Control” Questions: Questions like “Is your name John Doe?” are often control questions used to establish baseline physiological readings. They’re rarely intended to entrap you, so it’s best to answer them straightforwardly.

Looking Back: Historical Cases and Context

To illustrate the complexities of age-of-consent laws, the conversation referred to controversy surrounding Alabama politician Roy Moore. Decades-old accusations surfaced, alleging relationships with underage individuals during a time when societal perspectives on age differences were different from today’s. This highlights how evolving laws and cultural norms might complicate the interpretation of certain polygraph-related questions.

Such historical examples underline the importance of specificity in polygraph scenarios, as poorly phrased questions can open the door to unintended implications or misinterpretations.

Conclusion: Balancing Cooperation and Self-Protection

Polygraph examinations are inherently stressful, but with preparation and a clear understanding of your rights, they can be navigated without jeopardizing your legal standing. The key takeaway is striking a balance: communicate your willingness to cooperate while firmly protecting yourself against self-incrimination.

3 Actionable Takeaways:

1. Prepare for the Pre-Test Interview: Anticipate questions and evaluate their phrasing to identify potential risks.
2. Request Clarifications When Necessary: Work with the examiner to rephrase overly broad or ambiguous questions.
3. Respond Strategically, Not Emotionally: Remain composed and politely assert your rights when declining to answer incriminating questions.

Ultimately, understanding the structure, purpose, and limitations of polygraphs equips you to respond confidently and judiciously, ensuring your integrity while maintaining necessary compliance.

[00:00] Intro: This episode of Registry Matters is proudly brought to you by our amazing pledge patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael, Joel, James. Your support makes this podcast possible. Thank you, and don’t forget FYP.

[00:15] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 352 of Registry Matters. What’s up, man? How are you?

[00:24] Larry: Doing awesome. I’m glad you made it back from your lovely weekend or week at the beach.

[00:30] Andy: It was quite delightful. And I I we had a little bit of a miscommunication. Sorry about that. I I swore we were not recording tonight because you told me there was not anything going on. So I was sitting on the couch watching television, but here we are.

[00:45] Larry: That shows the dedication to of the many, many workers who put together this quality con content

[00:52] Andy: from coast to coast. And the dedicated people are you and me, which mostly you for putting the content together. So you don’t think we have a team dedicated from coast to coast working on this? Yeah. We have a team of you and me. Yeah. That’s a team. It’s pretty much coast to coast. With some of gaps in between. Yep. We do have one dedicated patron listening to us live. Thank you very much for joining us. And you’re on time, which I know you’re gonna leave us in a moment and go have dinner. What are we doing tonight, Larry?

[01:26] Larry: Well, you forgot to tell people to sign up.

[01:30] Andy: Well, please head over, like, subscribe, five star ratings, notification bell, share it. If you’re over there on the, subreddit for the PFR subreddit, please thumbs up when I post the episode on there, and everybody will be super happy about it, and we can drive more listeners in here. There. Now, what are we doing tonight?

[01:54] Larry: Well, I hate to break the studio audience part, but it’s just mister doom and gloom chance cannot be with us probably until later this month. He’s got other conflicts, so it’s just me. But we have a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It’s not a huge win for PFRG yet, but it could become so in the near future. Also, we have we have a belated phone message that I should have covered months ago. We have a question from Frank about your favorite topic, the Kabuki machine. I like the Kabuki machine. Also we have an article that I’d set up for Chance and he was in it was intended to be covered by him. But since he’s not here, it’ll be mister doom and gloom for that as well. So I think we’ve got a little bit of of content going tonight.

[02:53] Andy: Fantastic. Alright. Well, let’s dive right into the letter, the handwritten letter from Frank. And it says, dear sir, please forward this to the legal corner. A couple of years ago, NARSO published an article regarding polygraphs and our rights. To avoid the yes no trap and the issue of self incrimination, you suggested we respond, I request that my attorney respond to that particular question. Can we still use that? Is this still a good method of defense?

[03:26] Larry: Well, the what caught my eye about that, I’ve been intending to cover that, was that I generally write all the things legally for the Arsenal newsletter. And I don’t recall writing that because yes no questions are the way the polygraph is designed. It’s not a narrative.

[03:43] Andy: Yeah. It’s not an open question of, hey. Can you tell me what you did last year for Christmas? It’s like, that’s not gonna be a yes or no. Is your name John Doe? Yes. That’s how that works.

[03:55] Larry: That is how it works. I can’t imagine that that I would have written anything of that nature. But in terms of Frank’s question, I’m not a big believer in being at the poll, polygrapher’s office and saying my attorney should answer that question. That’s why I don’t think I wrote that. That is the quickest way to get yourself a, violation of supervision if you were to do that. You don’t think they’d find that funny? Well, I would agree with you. You say nothing’s funny. This this this would not that would not be funny. I can’t imagine who the attorney was that wrote that, that said that, and how it escaped my scrutiny because, really, they’re a practitioner and they tell a person, you can’t take your attorney to a polygraph exam. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

[04:48] Andy: No. I can’t. I would like to bring my my attorney with me to these questions, and he’s going to then answer for the ones that would incriminate me.

[04:58] Larry: Now, that having said that, Frank, you do not give up your right against self incrimination. That is something that you can do, But you gotta do it very judiciously. We had a case in Georgia early on in this program’s history where the guy told them what they could do with their polygraph. You remember who I’m talking about, don’t you? I do. He wasn’t going to take any polygraph questions. Wasn’t going to be examined at all. That’s not the correct way to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because the entire exam may not be incriminating. It’s only a particular question that might incriminate you. So, each question has to be evaluated in the pretest interview. And you would tell the examiner in that situation, I won’t be able to answer that question because and then all the furniture on the Titanic’s deck will shift like you’ve never seen before. They’ll start pushing buttons to get the probation officer in there and they’ll threaten you with all sorts of bad things if you don’t cooperate with the exam. That’s what will happen if you do that. But if you don’t want to go to prison for incriminating yourself, you just have to stand firm and say, I can’t answer that particular question, but I am cooperating with the exam except for that question.

[06:13] Andy: Now let me let me dig into this a a little bit. Can you you can help them encourage them at whatever the terms we wanna use there. If the question might be too broad, or but then it can be you can get them to focus it so that you don’t have to answer to something. Do you do you see what I’m saying? Like, if they Well, I I don’t know. If if they ask you, did you do the bad thing to this person? You could get them to be more specific, etcetera, or less specific in a way that you can answer it where you’re not gonna ping the, the Kabuki machine?

[06:53] Larry: You’re correct. And I had that experience myself with the one and only PFR exam I took as the question needed to be narrowed because they asked, have you ever had any any sexual activity with someone below the age of consent? And I told them that’s not a good question. What do you mean we ask that all the time? And I said, well, you make a mistake all the time if you’re asking it if if you’re phrasing it this way. I’m laughing because you’re directing them over. If that’s how you’re asking it, that’s not a good question. Oh, and I said, so we we got variables here. I said, first of all, I need to know, was I above the age of consent at the time I had the sex? I see what you’re saying. But could the law have changed also in the time that they’re asking the question? That’s where I’m headed. I have been here a long number of decades and the law has changed. When I moved here, the age was 13 and I was considerably younger than I am now. And at the time when the age of consent was 13, I was in my early twenties. But still it was it would have been unlawful if they were below 13, but it would have been completely lawful if they were above 13, even though I was in my twenties. And I told him, I said, so you need to phrase the question like this. Have you, since achieving the age of majority of 18, knowingly had sex with anyone who was below the age of consent at the time you had the sex? Right. Right. I gotcha. I said, and they agreed to, modify the question because I said otherwise it can trigger a response because I have had sex with people under the current age of consent.

[08:34] Andy: I mean, this is making me it’s reminding me of the is it Doug Moore that was the somebody in Alabama, and he was catching all kinds of heat for forty years ago having a relationship or whatever that was. Is that the guy’s name? Yes. That was the, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. And, so looking back in the seventies or eighties, the age difference wasn’t looked at it wasn’t looked at the same way that it is now.

[09:04] Larry: That that is correct. If I remember right, he was a young person himself, and he was working at a restaurant called the Old Hickory House. And, he had, maybe worked up to where he was a supervisory type person, but he had sex allegedly with someone underage. And it was just nothing but rumor and gossip and, and malicious attack on him because there’s no way he could defend himself. You can’t find someone from the nineteen seventies that you supervised as a teenager and find all the people to find out if that was consensual or not. I mean, it was just crazy, but that’s what they did to him because they’re looking for ways to discredit him.

[09:42] Andy: Right. And so let’s go back to to Frank. So if they are going to so anyway, if they start asking you questions like, what is your name? Do you live at this address? Those kind of control questions, and then they’re gonna hit the the specific ones that would entrap you in in a sense. You need to answer all of the ones that you can and then work with them to make the question not roast you for the ones that, that are gonna well roast you.

[10:09] Larry: Correct. And that should be determined in the pretest interview. They don’t just hook you up and start asking you questions. You are apprised of what the questions are gonna be in advance. If you’re not apprised of those questions, then you’re not taking a bonafide polygraph exam from accredited examiner. I know from what you think about it, but still there’s a process to do it. And that’s not the process if they just wire you up and start asking you questions without you having any idea what’s coming at you. It’s just funny because to me,

[10:37] Andy: here’s the placebo, aspirin. And if you if you are not taking a bonafide placebo, aspirin, and it doesn’t make your headache go away, then you’re not taking a it’s like it’s pseudoscience, and it’s not real. It’s all in your head. And so we’re talking about a real thing in your head. Got it. Well, there’s a process to follow for Right. For the calligraphy business.

[11:01] Larry: I don’t know that it deviates anywhere coast to coast. So if you are hooked up and they just start asking you questions, that’s that’s totally junk.

[11:10] Andy: I gotcha. Alright. I think that was fantastic. That was a lot of fun. Kabuki machine. Alright. Well, then we will head over to this question from Derek. And I remember sending this to you, like, I don’t know, a decade ago.

[11:27] Larry: Well, I don’t think it was quite that long, but I do feel bad about it. I was that it’s lingered for months. I totally lost it until it popped up into my briefcase last night. I was going through trying to make it lighter and throwing out cases that I take home to review. You know, they’re thirty, forty, 50 pages on Yeah. Sure. I had printed this with the intent of calling Derek, and then it fell off my radar. So, Derek, I apologize. I intended on calling you, but you wouldn’t have answered your phone anyway, but still I intended on calling you. Nobody answers anymore. Well, this is what he said. He said, I’m a long time lurker and Patreon contributor to registry matters. The amount of time and effort that you, Larry, and Chance spend on this critical issue is incredible, and I’m very appreciative of it. I do, of course, have a registration question that I need help in determining what my next steps should be.

[12:16] Andy: If you have a couple minutes this week that I can lay on you, that would be awesome. I live in Texas charged with possession of CP at the federal level. One count, but I still have to register for life here in Texas. I’ve made peace with it. Now I have been with my partner for over five years. We actually knew each other before I went to prison, but he didn’t know what I was doing illegally. Anyway, we finally met up at the 2019, and he lives in Indiana, and he’s on disability. He has been amazing because for five years now, he has split his time flying between Texas to me and going back up to handle the rest of his affairs. His being on disability hurts his opportunities in Texas to get the same level of care that he’s getting in Indiana. There’s currently a three year waiting period to get Medicaid through Texas. He owns his own place in Indiana inherited through his grandmother, but his place is right next to a public park. I thought Medicaid was federally funded? Was it his three year wait what is this three year waiting list about? Is that actually something that to get your Medicaid, like, transferred into Texas, it’ll take multi, multi years?

[13:24] Larry: It can. And I learned that with my sister moving from Florida to Georgia, but she had an ex Medicaid friend that had worked in the bureaucracy and they were able to cut that weight down to just thirty, forty five days. But it’s, jointly funded by the Federal Government and the states, share that with the federal government. But the federal government picks up the larger share and many states do have waiting lists, for Medicaid. So you don’t just because you’re eligible, magically get on it. It’s kind of like, section eight housing.

[13:56] Andy: Everybody says, well, go get section eight. Well, there’s a three year waiting list, so you don’t get on it right away. Alright. Well, then he went on to say Indiana has a 1,000 foot residency restriction that they placed on SVPs and offenders against children. I found that they also give a clear definition of what constitutes an SVP, an offender against a child. But when my partner called the Allen County Sheriff, they completely shot it down without my partner even giving him my name or case number. I’m pretty sure that the sheriff was giving incorrect information. Now I’m not looking to pick up a registry violation. However, what would be the best way to reapproach the sheriff?

[14:36] Larry: Well, I still do need to speak with Derek for, for a point of clarification, but it sounds to me like Texas intends to enforce Indiana’s BFR restrictions. And I’m not sure they can do that. Cause Indiana is no longer in control if he were to move to Texas. So that’s a question we need to resolve. Is this a Texas law that says that he can’t live there? Because he mentioned the park in Indiana.

[15:02] Andy: And if he’s living there, then obviously it’s not a problem in Indiana. Right? No. No. What what the way that I’m reading this is that he’s going to try to move to Indiana to be with his partner, and his partner lives next to a park, and there’s the thousand foot restriction. So him moving to Indiana is gonna be a challenge.

[15:20] Larry: That’s what I’m reading. I read just the opposite. He was gonna move to Texas.

[15:25] Andy: But he is already in Texas.

[15:27] Larry: No. But the partner’s not. The partner’s in Indiana, and the partner’s going to move to Texas, and that’s where the Medicare whatever thing kicks in. Well, that’s what I’ve done. We’re saying the same thing, though. But but I it seems like that India, Texas is trying to enforce Indiana’s, restrictions. And I’m not sure they can do that because Indiana would no longer be in control. But the question would be, that’s my first question. Do I have this right, Derek? Is that what we’re talking about? And then the next question will be, does Texas have a provision in their law that requires them to enforce another state’s registration requirements? As wacky as Texas is, they’re right behind Alabama and wacky. But I wouldn’t be surprised as a deterrent to keep BFRs out of Texas. They would put something like that in their code that says that whatever restrictions that are another state would follow you there. But if they’ve gotten that in in their code, that is within its own most constitutional challenge because there’s also the full faith and credit and equal protection clause and all that and the the, the equal protection clause. If he becomes a resident of Texas, he has the right to be treated like a Texan. I understand. So with, what we know, what do you recommend for sure? Well, we need to do the point of clarification. So he can either call in again or agree to answer his phone, and I’ll call him now that it’s come back on my radar. But we need to know that clarification, and we need to have a legal opinion once we ascertain the facts, which I can get from an attorney in Texas. Do they have that provision in their law that they enforce out of state restrictions? But this is quite interesting. He can’t he can’t live with his with his partner because Yeah. Allen County Sheriff said no way. It’s like, really?

[17:16] Andy: Now now just from what you remember of this, and does it is he just, quote unquote, just on registration or is he still under some kind of supervision?

[17:26] Larry: Oh, that point is not clear also. But Okay. But by the way the letters the voicemail was constructed, it’s fairly certain that he’s not under supervision because he said he’s been commuting back and forth for five years. And I can’t imagine them letting him go back and forth to Texas if he were under supervision to see another PFR. I just can’t see that being approved.

[17:48] Andy: I don’t think his partner’s a PFR. Yeah. We need to get clarification because I think we’re reading different things out of this. I think we are. I don’t think I don’t think his partner is any kind of PFR. He’s just

[18:04] Larry: somehow he met him and he’s in Indiana. That’s what I’ve got. But I don’t yeah. I can see how you’re reading it that way. But I don’t see what if he’s a non PFR, what the hell does has to do with anything? Because it’s just like anybody else moving. But does this Texas tell you who you can live and be be, in love with and who you can be? Texas?

[18:23] Andy: Really? I can imagine that they would have an issue with a PFR living with a dude. I can totally see that. No. Not because we don’t. This is this is a state of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Come on, man. Not a state that believes in individual liberty and all that kind of stuff. Really? Not Texas. Not a chance. And then the whole Medicare thing, oh my god. You can’t move there and and just show up and end up taking money from the coffers. So, yeah, they would be very is the word reticent to let his partner move from Indiana and then immediately end up starting collecting a check? Benefits. And I don’t mean this in any disparaging way whatsoever. If the guys on disability, the guys on disability, but Texas, I would imagine they are not a fan of having somebody else show up, Especially gay living with a gay that’s PFR. No.

[19:15] Larry: Well, Google Allen County and find out. I didn’t take the time to do that. Find out if that’s Podunk City or where it is. But it sounds like a bastion of progression progressive thinking to me, doesn’t it, to you?

[19:27] Andy: Yes. See, and I’m thinking Allen County is then in Indiana. So, yeah. There’s an Allen, Texas. So I’m thinking it’s Allen County, Indiana. Well, we’ll have to get this cleaned up. But anyway, I wanted to get it back on the radar because it had fallen off. It is. It is Allen County in Indiana. So that’s what he’s talking about. He’s talking about him trying to move up there, calling the sheriff’s office there in Indiana to try and figure out what the deal is gonna be if he moves. And they’re giving him the runaround, which is what I’m sure every PFR office does for the most part is give everyone the runaround because they don’t want you to move in there either. However, his partner lives next door to a park. So that’s gonna be negative right out of the gate. You got that right. If if if you’ve interpreted it correctly, I think you have them. He’s gonna have a tough road to overcome to get there because But if that’s Okay. That’s you. So here, I’m gonna put on my love counselor hat. If the two of you are made for this and he’s inherited the house, then sell the house and move someplace where they can’t mess with you and you have that thousand foot restriction and move there.

[20:31] Larry: Well, tell me tell me about Allen County. Where is it? What’s the name of the county seat?

[20:35] Andy: Oh, good grief. Alright. Allen County is twenty twenty sent sent hey. It’s 385,000

[20:42] Larry: people. What’s the county seat? It’s the,

[20:45] Andy: a county I don’t even know how to understand what county seat means. If I if I search for seat on Wikipedia? Yeah. If you’re in the Wikipedia, it’ll say it’ll say the county seat. Fort Wayne.

[20:57] Larry: So okay.

[20:59] Andy: And I’m assuming that’s a good thing being, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Right? Well, being 385000

[21:05] Larry: people, that sheriff’s department has the power to enough manpower to be to be thorough.

[21:11] Andy: Okay. But isn’t wouldn’t if it were 2,000 people, then they’re going to be very aggressive about having a PFR to monitor. But three eighty five is a pretty substantial city. It is a pretty substantial population.

[21:25] Larry: But nobody wants PFRs to come. Period.

[21:30] Andy: I gotcha. Okay. Well, after we’ve, noodled around with that for a little while, do you have any, closing remarks before we head over to the main event? The main event. Let’s do it. Alright then. So this is a case that you put in here, you people have put in here from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And I read it over while I was driving back today. For six hours, I was reading this. And I see some justification for this case consuming FYP’s valuable airtime. The issue is a habeas corpus. Now how’s that so far? So far so good, so keep going. Alright. The name of the case is Louis Matthew Clements versus secretary of the Department of Corrections. And in 02/2008, Clements plead guilty to a single count of lewd and lascivious conduct in violation of Florida statutes. He was sentenced to five years of PFR probation. No time, just PFR probation. The terms of which provided that he qualified and shall register with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a PFR pursuant to Florida statute nine four three dot zero four three five. Do we need to describe PFR probation a little bit? We probably should because if it’s Florida, it’s going to be worser than anywhere else.

[22:48] Larry: Well, in most instances, with the exception of those supervised in Houston County, Georgia.

[22:54] Andy: I think I think that’s a dig at me.

[22:57] Larry: PFR probation is much stricter than any other form of community supervision. It involves frequent home visits, so called treat, but then involves the use of polygraph examinations, strict curfews, and really strict travel restrictions, except for Houston County, Georgia. So anybody who wants wants to be under lack supervision, transfer your PFR supervision to Halston County, Georgia.

[23:21] Andy: Alright. Well, I can’t really argue with this. In 02/2017, roughly four years after the expiration of his probation term, Clements proceeded, pro se, filed his first, twenty two fifty four petition in the United States District Court of Middle District of Florida challenging his conviction on various grounds. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction concluding that Clement’s obligation to comply with Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for PFRs did not place him in custody for habeas purposes. Now did Clement appeal that denial?

[23:58] Larry: He did. And on appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the district judge holding with some hesitation that the restrictions on freedom of his movement imposed by Florida’s lifetime registration and reporting requirements were not severe enough to place PFRs in custody under 2,254, which is a Federal law that limits habeas to review of state convictions to those who are in custody. And that was reported as Clements versus Florida. That’s Clements one fifty nine, Federal fourth at 12 o four to twelve fifteen, eleventh circuit. And a cert petition was filed with the United States Supreme Court, and it was denied.

[24:43] Andy: Alright. Well, then, do me a favor, please, and explain the significance of what the in custody requirement is for habeas corpus.

[24:52] Larry: Sure. In order to be able to utilize habeas corpus as a vehicle to seek judicial relief, a person must be in some form of custody. In custody is broadly interpreted to include probation and parole, but simply being on the PFR registry, I think has been denied as custody excepted one Federal Circuit. And I didnit do the research, but I think one Federal Circuit has held that it is, it does constitute custody. If itis not a Federal Circuit, itis a, itis a State Court, but I think itis a Federal Circuit. But a person who, who is not in custody, they’re, if they’re only required to register, they’re not under any form of restraint of their liberties according to the court. So therefore, you’re not in custody. You’re in a civil regulatory framework.

[25:36] Andy: Alright. But during his first appeal, Clements argued for the first time in his pro se brief that the residency restrictions in Florida impose excuse me, registry restrictions Florida imposes on PFR contributed to his, quote unquote, being in custody. Now what did they say in response to that argument?

[25:56] Larry: Well, they actually declined to consider the impact of those restrictions because Clements had not raised the argument below in the district court, and the record was undeveloped as to that issue. They even refused to take judicial notice of how much land was covered by these residence restrictions without access to appropriate and detailed maps and plots. And they explained that without knowing where Florida schools, daycares, parks and playgrounds were located, they could not sketch out the residency buffer zones as experts might do. And Clements did not provide the specifics necessary to evaluate the impact of these restrictions on appeal. Thus, they expressly reserved consideration of the issue for another day.

[26:41] Andy: And that day has now arrived.

[26:44] Larry: Correct. It has arrived.

[26:47] 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.

[27:36] Andy: Alright. Then in April 2024, Clements filed his second Prose twenty two fifty four petition, again challenging the constitutionality of his conviction. This petition provides the basis for the instant appeal. Clements’ petition included the explanation regarding lack of custody, which acknowledged the questions, question left open in Clements one, and Clements one is his first pro se whatever. Right? Right. Okay. So, opened by Clements one and argued that because Florida restricted PFRs to living in only 50% of the state’s land, the district court should conclude that he was, quote, unquote, in custody for habeas purposes. Did the district court agree?