Introduction:

Sex offender registries remain one of the most controversial components of the criminal justice system in the United States. Their very existence sparks heated debates about public safety, privacy, rehabilitation, and the right to move on after serving a sentence. But a subtler, yet crucial, debate simmers beneath the surface—a debate that has tangible consequences for thousands of people navigating life after conviction: Does having your name listed on a state’s public sex offender website mean you are still “registered,” even if you are no longer actively reporting, checking in, or under registry-based restrictions?

In online forums, news stories, and even legal arguments, this question crops up time and again. Some, like “Larry” in the conversation above, insist that being listed is not the same as being “registered,” especially when someone has moved away from the original jurisdiction and no longer faces its legal obligations. Others, like “Andy,” argue that public presence equals ongoing registration in the eyes of society—and that the consequences are real and significant.

This article tackles the nuances and real-world realities of this often misunderstood distinction. We’ll explore what registration actually means, how public websites function, the implications of ongoing public listing without active registry requirements, and why it matters so much to individuals and communities. Whether you’re directly affected, a concerned family member, or simply someone interested in understanding a complicated system, this comprehensive analysis will clear up the confusion and highlight what the public registry really means today.

---

Registration vs. Being Listed: Drawing the Line

What Does It Mean to Be “Registered”?

To most people, the phrase “registered sex offender” conjures up the image of someone whose personal details—photo, address, crime—appear on an official government website. However, as Larry points out, there’s more to being registered than online visibility. In most states, “registration” is a legal status, not just a public record. It obligates individuals to:

• Report in person to a law enforcement agency, often several times per year (quarterly in places like Florida).
• Submit biometric data such as fingerprints and updated photographs.
• Notify officials of changes to address, employment, vehicles, and travel plans.
• Abide by restrictions on where one can live or work.
• Risk criminal prosecution for failing to meet reporting or compliance requirements.

These duties are enforceable by law, and failure to comply can lead to arrest and imprisonment. Once a person leaves a state like Florida, their obligation to check in, update records, and comply with those laws ceases—though their name may still linger on the state’s website.

Being “Listed” on a Registry Website

In contrast, being “listed” means your data remains posted online after you move away or are no longer required to check in with authorities. The information doesn’t update. Your photo, address (sometimes last-known or outdated), and nature of your offense remain publicly viewable, often in perpetuity.

For those still subject to registration, being on the list means active, ongoing duties. For those who have moved out of state or completed their term, the listing is static—a relic of their prior obligation, no longer legally binding, but still socially significant.

---

The Public Perception: Is “On the List” Always “Registered”?

Andy argues, with considerable exasperation, that the average person doesn’t distinguish between someone whose name appears on a registry and someone who is “actively registered.” Poll a hundred people, he says, and virtually all would equate internet listing with ongoing registration.

Social Consequences Remain

• Google Never Forgets: Information that appears online, especially in government directories, is indexed by search engines. Anyone—neighbors, employers, schools—can easily uncover a person’s listing, regardless of their current legal status.
• Stigma and Hardship: Even without legal obligations, the ongoing presence leads to public shaming, discrimination, and sometimes harassment or vigilante threats.
• “Doxxing” and Privacy Loss: As Larry concedes, the act of publishing sensitive information online is a form of doxxing, exposing individuals to ongoing harm even when registry requirements end.

This persistent public spotlight essentially ensures that, for practical purposes, the difference between active registration and mere presence on a state registry may feel non-existent to those affected by it.

---

Why Does Legal Registration Status Matter?

Despite public perceptions, the distinction is more than academic. The legal system draws crucial lines between active registration and passive listing:

• No Reporting, No Risk:
  If you are no longer required by law to report, update information, or comply with related restrictions, the threat of prosecution for non-compliance disappears, as Larry notes.
• Changing States, Changing Rules:
  Each state handles registration differently. Upon permanent relocation, most states terminate their obligations—though records (and websites) may not update promptly.
• Control Over Life Choices:
  Active registrants may face prohibitions on where they can live or work (e.g., not residing within 1,000 to 2,500 feet of schools or parks). Once off the registry, these restrictions no longer apply—even if outdated information remains online.
• Travel and Notification:
  Registered individuals may need to notify authorities of travel, and in some cases, trigger international notifications (more on this below). Static listings no longer have this effect.

In short, the loss of registration status is meant to restore rights and agency, yet the digital footprint lingers.

---

Registry Websites: Static Listings and Their Limitations

A common concern among affected individuals is that a stale listing—one that is never updated and may carry out-of-date information—provides little benefit to law enforcement, but substantial ongoing cost to the individual.

• Old Photos and Addresses:
  Once someone is no longer required to update, their online photo can become multiple years old. As Andy jokes, “You could tattoo your face and grow your hair long… and the picture that’s on there is gonna be what it was when you last had your picture taken.”
• Misidentification Risks:
  Outdated data may lead the public to misidentify or pursue someone who no longer lives at a given address, causing unnecessary alarm or harassment for current residents.
• No Law Enforcement Value:
  Because inactive records don’t trigger regular updates or in-person check-ins, their law enforcement value is questionable compared to active, up-to-date registries.

---

The Special Case: Notifications and Cross-State Travel

One persistent myth is that foreign governments or interstate agencies receive notifications about sex offenders based solely on what appears on public websites. Larry explains why this is unlikely.

How Are Travel Notifications Triggered?

• The Role of “NCIC”:
  The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a national database maintained by the FBI for real-time law enforcement information sharing. Each registered person’s file is flagged accordingly.
• Comprehensive Data:
  Government-issued notifications—such as those sent to foreign countries when a registrant travels—are believed to be triggered by the presence of data in NCIC records, not by public-facing websites. If it were otherwise, he argues, “people who are not listed on websites but are registered would magically become invisible,” which is not the case.
• No Clear Public Disclosure:
  Despite the importance of this process, Larry notes that to his knowledge, nobody has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to definitively confirm the procedure.

Takeaway:
While the public may conflate visibility and ongoing official status, key systems for monitoring and notification operate behind the scenes, independent of the static, consumer-facing registry pages.

---

Enduring Harms: Does a Public Listing Still Restrict or Disable?

Both Andy and Larry agree that being listed—even when no longer “registered” in the legal sense—creates significant personal hardship.

• Ongoing Discrimination:
  Landlords, employers, and the broader community continue to act on information from registry websites, perpetuating exclusion and social stigma.
• Barrier to Rehabilitation:
  The goal of sex offender registration, theoretically, is to enhance public safety while allowing for eventual reintegration. Endless public access to outdated data frustrates this aim.
• Restraint and Disability:
  Having personal information prominently displayed, even when outdated or irrelevant, functions as a disability and a restraint on opportunity, making meaningful second chances elusive. Larry notes succinctly, “Are they suffering an inconvenience and hardship? Yes. Are they being discriminated? Probably so.”

---

Conclusion: Registry Listing vs. Registration—A Difference That Matters

At the heart of the debate is both a legal and a moral distinction. In the eyes of law and due process, being “registered” carries distinct, active obligations and risks. The act of being passively “listed” online is not the same under the law—but, as many registry subjects and their advocates point out, the consequences can feel all too similar.

For communities seeking to balance safety, justice, and reintegration, it is vital to understand—and communicate—the difference. Legal reformers argue for regular review and removal of outdated registry entries. Others call for more public education so that mere online presence is not misinterpreted as a measure of threat or guilt.

As these debates continue, it is important to remember that policies around registries affect not just abstract legal categories, but real people striving to rebuild their lives.

---

Actionable Takeaways:

1. Know Your State’s Policies:
   If you or someone you know is affected by registration, understand the specific legal obligations and what happens to registry listings upon relocation or completion.
2. Encourage Policy Reform:
   Support efforts for accurate, up-to-date, and fair registry practices that allow for removal of listings when obligations end.
3. Challenge Misconceptions:
   Educate others—whether employers, neighbors, or lawmakers—about the difference between being “registered” and simply being listed, reducing the harmful effects of public misunderstanding.

---

Further Reading:

• National Registry Removal Resources
• The Impact of Sex Offender Registration: Research Summary
• How the NCIC Works (FBI.gov)

Introduction

Navigating the complex world of sex offender registration laws can feel like stepping into a legal labyrinth. Across the United States, registrants and their advocates constantly grapple with questions about residency requirements, registry duration, and—perhaps most importantly—the possibility of removal. What does it really mean to be “removed” from a registry? Is being taken off a state’s offender registry the same as vanishing from the public sex offender website? Or does your digital shadow linger long after your obligations have ended?

These questions came to the fore in a recent conversation between Andy and Larry, two advocates deeply involved in sex offense law reform. Their debate, sparked by a listener’s theory about achieving freedom from registry obligations in multiple states, exposes some of the thorniest legal and practical misunderstandings about registries today.

In this article, we’ll break down the key points from Andy and Larry’s dialogue, explain how registries and their web presence actually work, and provide context so readers can understand what it truly means to be “off the registry.” Whether you’re a registrant, a family member, or simply concerned about criminal justice reform, this post unpacks crucial realities that affect thousands across the country.

---

Understanding the Sex Offender Registry Maze

Before digging into Andy and Larry’s exchange, it’s essential to understand how sex offender registries actually function.

What Is a Registry—Beyond the Website?

States maintain sex offender registries for people convicted of certain offenses. Being “on the registry” typically means:

• You must report in-person (sometimes quarterly) to local law enforcement, verifying your address and other personal details
• You may face restrictions on where you can live or work
• You may be subject to random visits by law enforcement

Most states also run public websites that list registered offenders’ data—a form of digital “doxxing” that’s entirely separate from the official government registry itself. While being on the website is a result of registration, the practical burdens registrants feel day-to-day stem from legal requirements, not just having their name online.

Key Distinction:
– The registry = government obligations and monitoring
– The registry website = public notification; online presence

Registry Duration and Removal

States vary greatly in how long one must remain on a registry. Some set fixed periods (e.g., Rhode Island’s 10 years), while others, like Florida, have lifetime requirements. Many states also allow time spent registered in another state to “count” toward their own requirements—creating a patchwork of rules that can be confusing.

Removal from the registry typically means no longer having to register or check in with law enforcement. Removal from the website, however, is regulated separately and can lag far behind—or sometimes never happens automatically.

---

The Theory: Chasing Freedom, State by State

Andy recounted a correspondent’s plan: since some states recognize out-of-state registry service and have automatic removal timelines, couldn’t a person systematically “deregister” across multiple states, gaining incremental freedom?

For example, Rhode Island allows out-of-state service to count toward their 10-year registry period. Andy’s contact—currently registered in Florida—plans to move to Rhode Island when eligible and seek to be “removed.” If successful, he’d attempt the same in as many states as possible.

But what’s truly achieved by this kind of legal hopscotch?

---

Registry vs. Website: What’s the Real Difference?

Larry offers a critical perspective: in states like Florida, even after deregistration, a person can remain listed on the public website indefinitely. Florida is notorious for:

• Maintaining public listings for life, even for people who have moved out of state
• Not removing people’s profiles when they’re no longer required to register

According to some, being listed online is almost the same as being registered—since stigma, housing, and employment barriers persist. Larry challenges this logic, emphasizing the practical burdens that come off only when the registration obligation ends. For example:

• No more in-person check-ins
• Freedom from housing/social restrictions
• Relief from routine police scrutiny

The digital listing poses real-life challenges, but it is not synonymous with the legal duties and direct law enforcement scrutiny of being a registrant.

---

Legal Hurdles: Can You Really Petition for Removal Everywhere?

Andy and Larry dig into whether a former registrant can simply petition to be taken off other states’ lists once their “time has served.”

Justiciable Controversy and Advisory Opinions

Larry explains an overlooked legal concept: courts generally only decide actual controversies—cases where the petitioner has a connection to the state. You can’t usually petition another state to be “removed” from a registry you’re not on or have never been obligated to join.

In legal terms, courts don’t issue “advisory opinions” on hypothetical scenarios. If you don’t live, work, or study in State X, you likely have no standing to ask for removal from its registry or website.

A registrant moving state to state may, in theory, stack state-level removals, but practical and statutory barriers abound. For most, it’s simply not feasible to “pre-clear” yourself from registries in every U.S. jurisdiction.

---

Case Study: The Florida Conundrum

Consider Florida—a state often referenced for its tough registry policy.

• Even after moving away, former registrants remain on Florida’s public sex offender website.
• Deregistering in Florida ends active reporting, but does not guarantee website removal. This persistent online listing can have severe social consequences, even for those no longer under any registration requirements.

Some try to fight for website removal via legal petitions, but success is rare and requires substantial legal justification. Florida’s policies demonstrate how being “off the registry” doesn’t always mean freedom from public scrutiny.

---

Common Reader Questions Clarified

If I move to another state and fulfill my registry term there, do I disappear from the registries of other states?

Not automatically.
In most cases, you’re only removed from the active registry requirements of the state where you currently live. Public listings or other records in previous states may remain active indefinitely.

Is being on the public registry website the same as being legally registered?

No.
The website shows the public what the registry contains, but the true registration burden is about check-ins, restrictions, and law enforcement oversight. The website is damaging but does not carry the same legal obligations.

Can I petition a state to remove me from their registry if I’ve never lived there?

Generally, no.
You need to have a legal connection—such as residence, employment, or being previously registered—to petition successfully.

---

Beyond the Law: Why Listing Still Matters

While legal obligations might end, the stigma associated with public defamation on government websites can still be devastating. Housing and employment discrimination, harassment, or even vigilante threats often stem as much from online information as from legal status.

Some activists argue for changes to registry websites or limitations on public information, citing studies that show little connection between online exposure and public safety.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Being removed from a sex offender registry means the end of legal reporting obligations—but public listing, especially in states like Florida, can persist much longer.
2. You cannot petition for removal from registries in states where you have no direct connection (e.g., have never lived or worked there). Courts require a real, justiciable controversy.
3. Website presence and registry status aren’t the same, even if both cause harm. Being off the registry eases direct law enforcement oversight, but may not erase your digital footprint.

---

Actionable Steps

• Understand Your Status: Know the difference between active registry requirements and online listing in every relevant state.
• Seek Legal Guidance: Before moving states or pursuing deregistration, consult an expert on sex offender laws in your jurisdictions.
• Advocate for Policy Change: Support organizations striving to reform lifetime registry and public website requirements, especially for people who have served their time.

---

Conclusion

The quest to be entirely “off the registry” is fraught with legal loopholes, state-by-state variations, and the ever-persistent shadow of public websites. While ending registry obligations offers substantial relief, it rarely equates to true anonymity or an unfettered second chance.

Andy and Larry’s thoughtful debate serves as a reminder: meaningful reform will require not just legal petitions, but a broader rethinking of how our communities handle past offenses, accountability, and redemption. For registrants and advocates, patience and persistence remain vital tools on the long road toward genuine freedom and reintegration.

---

If you have unique registry experiences or questions, contribute your story to help inform this ongoing national conversation.

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, FYP.

[00:17] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 341 of registry matters. Larry, is that right? Is it three forty one this week? I can’t really keep track anymore.

[00:29] Larry: I do believe that’s correct. Fantastic.

[00:32] Andy: Well, how are you tonight?

[00:35] Larry: Improving.

[00:37] Andy: Did you did you have COVID, measles, a rash, allergic reaction? What did you have?

[00:45] Larry: It’s unknown. I had either an allergic reaction to amoxicillin or I had measles, but it was lovely.

[00:53] Andy: That, and and you had, what kinda looks like chickenpox. Right?

[00:58] Larry: It certainly has that appearance, but it’s clearing up. I’m 80% clearer now.

[01:05] Andy: Alright. Well, please head over and show your support by, like and subscribe, whether that’s in your favorite podcast app or even in your not favorite podcast app. Do it on YouTube. Thumbs up these videos. It all helps us make a difference and spread the word. We truly appreciate your love. And in return, we’re here to keep delivering content you’ll enjoy. And if you’re feeling generous, you can head over to patreon.com/matters, and that would also be incredibly valued. Thank you for being a part of our community. We have a bunch of people here in chat joining us tonight. And, so without anything else, what are we gonna do tonight?

[01:42] Larry: Well, we have a series of it’s a accumulation of stuff. We got, a couple of TV stories. We’ve got some listener submissions and an article or two if time permits. And I know that we’re gonna have fun.

[02:00] Andy: You know this. You’re confident. To what degree of confidence do you have that we’re gonna have fun?

[02:07] Larry: What was that movie where they said confidence is high when The United States was supposedly under attack? What was that called, War Games?

[02:15] Andy: You mean War Games? Is that what you said? You broke up for just the slightest. Yeah. The the they were announcing that there was confidence was high with those missiles were real. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I I haven’t seen War Games. I watched it halfway recently, but it’s been a while. Yeah. WAPR, w a p r, is the name of the machine. Good good movie. Man, Matthew Broderick, good flick. I was doing that stuff back in the day, Larry. If you watch that movie and him doing the war dialing, I was doing that stuff. I like I like that movie. That was the last time I was at the picture show. I believe that. We need to watch some, prison slash lawyer movies. I think that would be we should start doing those for Patreon extras. Like, watch the, what is the the Lincoln Lawyer? We could watch My Cousin Vinny. We should start with My Cousin Vinny and do a response some kind, maybe, like, do a twenty minute something or another with the movie playing in the background while you talk about his lawyering skills? That sounds like a plan. Sounds like a plan. Have to do any work. You shouldn’t really have to do any work, really. And and it’s a it’s an incredibly funny movie. I mean, it’s off the charts funny. Alright. Well, so let’s dive into this first thing that I sent you was it this morning or yesterday? I don’t really remember anymore.

[03:31] Larry: I have no idea.

[03:33] Andy: Alright. Well, this comes in and says, perhaps you recall that when I sent my draft NARSAW Digest article to you for your review, you made a change, which was where I had said that for states that specify a time on their registry after which a registrant is supposedly automatically removed, it should be theory should be in theory be possible to ask that state for a determination that one has fulfilled their registry obligation there. You change that to say that no court would consider such a determination because there’s no case coming before them. I let it go because that change did no violence to my overall thesis. And I know that I sent you that violence and we talked about that. But what the what is violence?

[04:19] Larry: I think he meant it didn’t violate his overall thesis.

[04:23] Andy: Okay. Good. I kinda could’ve gotten there. But I was like, no violence? Did I miss something? Alright. Anyway, continuing. One thing about my theory is that my I can test it, Larry. My brother lives in Rhode Island, which famously has a twenty four hour visit limit. I wanna check that one in a minute. But they are also in this group of states, and have one of the shortest registry time periods in the nation, which is ten years, and they allow out of state service to count. I will have ten years in 2027, at which point I have every intention on testing my theory in Rhode Island. And guess what? If I’m successful in Rhode Island, I will definitely move on to other states so that I can gain my freedom in as many states as possible before I die. I have so many questions.

[05:11] Larry: Well, what’s interesting about this, and it’s gonna bleed into a second segment we’re gonna have, about whether being on the Internet is the same as being registered. But this person is currently registered in Florida. Now, what does that mean? What does that mean in terms of their theory? Just at first blush,

[05:32] Andy: since Florida’s, doesn’t remove you from the Internet even when you move out of state. But the way that I understand it is you would leave Florida and you would deregister there. But if you’re on the registry, they’re going to require you to register in the destination state. But they’re gonna remove you from Florida’s registry,

[05:49] Larry: but they’re not gonna remove you from the website. That is correct. They will remove the registration obligation once he joins up with a new state. But, his theory is really boggling my mind because if he gets to Rhode Island and they do give him €10 credit and they say you don’t have to register here, according to what everybody tells me, being on the Internet is the exact same thing as being registered. So, what would he have accomplished by moving to Rhode Island? And then beyond that, what would he accomplish by doing this all over the country? Because theoretically, according to his theory, being on the Internet is the same as being registered. So, therefore, he can get this determination in all 16 states, if that’s how many there are out there, that give you credit for a time registered in another state. What good will it do?

[06:44] Andy: There’s so many questions in there. So he would still be on the Internet. So let’s let’s talk about Florida that you you leave. If he does his nine years and change in Florida and then moves to Rhode Island, when he crosses that ten month window, excuse me, ten year window in a handful of months, they are going to proactively remove him from having to register, which means going to get your fingerprints and whatever, all that is. But Rhode Island probably doesn’t really do much of that to begin with. But, whatever. He’s not gonna have to do any kind of annual or quarterly registration, and he’s not gonna be on the Internet. What more do you want?

[07:22] Larry: Well, that’s what I put this in here for because he does doesn’t seem to have any problem with being on the registry, the website in Florida. But, he’s gonna go petition the rest of the country to get off of the registry. He says he’s gonna take it all over the country. Right? That’s against freedom. He he’s not.

[07:43] Andy: Are are there peep I I guess there are people that are registered in two states, particularly if they were, like, living in in a state where they happen to work in the other state. I guess you would be registered in two states probably in those kinds of circumstances. But otherwise, aren’t most people just registered in one?

[08:03] Larry: Yes. But in the smaller states, they’re they’re in border towns that overlap. Yeah. Yeah. They work in they work at they’re in multiple states, but I’m trying to figure out what good this will do him. If he’s right, that if being on the website is the exact same thing, and we’re gonna get to that in another segment, what will you accomplish by getting off the registry

[08:25] Andy: in every other state in The Union if being on the website is the same thing? I would agree. But, Larry, wouldn’t you have to be on the registry in that state to get off of it?

[08:35] Larry: Well, his theory is that you can ask for a determination. And the article that he referenced is different than what he put in this email. The article he referenced was about petitioning for removal. And he wanted to know if he could petition for removal. And I said, well, you really can’t petition because you’re not connected to those states. And therefore, there’s not what we refer to as a justiciable controversy. And it would be re a petition of that nature would be asking for an advisory opinion under hypothetical circumstances, circumstances, and courts don’t do that. So that’s what this whole came whole thing came about. And I asked him to modify that article to make it more consistent with reality. But this has gotten me so con so confused here. I don’t know what he would accomplish. We have tens of thousands of people listening out there, and I would urge them to write in and tell us what I’m missing because I know I’m missing something.

[09:34] Andy: What are you talking about? I’m trying to think. So he moves to Rhode Island and let’s just say he gets off the registry in Rhode Island. He is still on the website in Florida. And now he goes south a little bit and he ends up in Vermont. He’s gonna go knock on the Vermontian’s door and go, I would like to be removed from your registry. And they’re gonna like, you’re not on our registry. Would you like to be on our registry?

[09:57] Larry: Well, that’s beyond what I’m able to comprehend, but I’m trying to figure out what he would accomplish anyway if being listed on the website is the same as being registered. Like I said, we’re gonna get into that a little bit later. I’m gonna explain why it’s not the same thing. But if it is, then what would you accomplish? You would accomplish nothing. Yeah. I got nothing on this one. This one is confusing to me. Well, but we’ve got thousands of people. Someone will correct me because I’m I’m missing something. But I don’t know what you would accomplish. He would do exactly I mean, to me, his whole logic is flawed. Getting off the registry in Rorale would be, a great thing. But he maintains and so many people maintain that being listed on the website is the same as being registered. So therefore, under that theory, you would accomplish nothing. Right.

[10:46] Andy: Yeah. And then we could talk to super patron Mike who approximately every two to three months has to go visit the office to update car registration or just his quarterly stuff, and then they send the popo by his house all the time. That is being on the registry. That’s not the website. The website is just you being doxxed. But he is on the registry and is dealing with that garbage.

[11:12] Larry: Yes.

[11:13] Andy: Okay. I would invite the individual to write more information and be more clear.

[11:21] Larry: Okay.

[11:23] Andy: Well, moving along then, let’s go on to this. I’m sick and tired. Yeah. Okay. So I’m sick and tired. Did I oh, here it is. I got it at the wrong screen. Alright. I am sick and tired of hearing Larry’s bizarre claim that being listed on a state’s registry is not the same as being registered. I don’t know where he gets his wacky weed he smokes, but it’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my life. You could go out and poll a hundred people and probably all 100 would say if they found a person’s name on the registry, that person is registered. Is it the wacky weed or Kool Aid causing this craziness? Now, I think that that is true. If you went out and asked a hundred people, they would probably tell you that a person’s name being on the website is a person on the registry. I think that’s an accurate statement.

[12:11] Larry: I tend to agree with you. And when we get to the final segment from Utah, that’s gonna be confirmed. But just because people think that it’s not the same thing. So let’s talk about being on the registry. Now let’s talk about in the Deep South where this person is. The I don’t know who wrote this particular, but the Deep South where the previous person is is Florida. In Florida, you have to go in in person

[12:38] Andy: four times a year. Yeah. It’s like a it’s quarterly. And you have things to update.

[12:44] Larry: If you don’t go in those four times, you’re subjected to prosecution. K. When you’re when you leave the state of Florida, you no longer have that obligation. K. So that’s one difference. When you’re in Florida, if you’re in, Miami Dade County, you have a 2,500 foot restriction. In the rest of the state, you have a thousand foot restriction that applies to many PFRs. I don’t know if if it applies to all, but it applies to a heck of a lot of them. So they tell you where you can live and where you can’t live. And you’re subject to prosecution. You don’t have that prosecution threat. You don’t have to go in and give your butt print, fingerprints. You don’t have to do any of those things. You don’t have any prohibitions about where you can work that Florida can enforce or where you can live that Florida can enforce. They don’t have any travel restrictions where you have to give any plans for for travel, anything like that. All those things go by the wayside. So you have what is the remnants of a prior registration listed on the Internet, and it likely says after you’ve moved to the other state, living in the state, and it names the state. Sometimes I’ve seen it actually have that address where you tell them you were moving to, but then that address doesn’t continue to be updated. Is it ideal to have your stuff on the Internet? No.

[14:07] Andy: It is not ideal. And isn’t it static at that point that at that point you could tattoo your face and grow your hair long or whatever, and the picture that’s on there is gonna be what it was when you last had your picture taken?

[14:20] Larry: That would be correct. And so if you went to Rhode Island and you got off the registry, then you would have nothing approximating registration. So, therefore, I know the wacky weed and the Kool Aid that they’re talking about, but I don’t understand how they can equate it to being registered. It is a very inconvenient, disgusting thing, but it’s not anything approximating registration. Is

[14:49] Andy: it? Oh, it approximating. Yes. Approximating. Because your picture and your information is out there and someone can Google you and Google never forgets and they will find you and that could lead them to your local registration stuff if you happen to be in a place that might not have it published, but then you can find articles and stuff, and you can track down the person. So it’s approximately there.

[15:10] Larry: Yeah. I don’t think it’s anywhere close. There’s no risk of prosecution. There’s no obligations imposed upon you. And it is it is a doxing but I can’t see it as being registered. And there are people, they come at me from another angle to say, well, don’t you understand that the notifications to foreign countries come from the people on the website. And I said, well, let’s just work through this. Let’s think about this for a minute. Because I don’t understand that. If the public websites were how they linked the foreign travel notifications, then the people who are not listed on websites that are registered would magically become invisible. So that tells me by logical process of elimination that that is not how that system works. My belief is it works through the NCIC. That’s what I think happens, that the, notification is triggered by your NCI registration because each registered person is carried in one of the NCIC person files as a registered person. And I believe that for the comprehensive inclusiveness of travel notification, they would not rely on an incomplete out of date public website. I believe they would rely on the NCIC, which it would be far more complete, and it would be far more up to date. So that’s my theory.

[16:40] Andy: I I can’t really contest your theory.

[16:44] Larry: But I don’t know it for a fact because I don’t obsess about it the way some people do. I don’t know how for sure the foreign those green and purple and red and all those different notices they sent to foreign countries. I don’t know exactly how that works. But it puzzles me that after many years, I think this was signed in 2016, so we’re coming upon a decade. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a done a FOIA request to figure out what that process actually is like.

[17:13] Andy: I mean, it’s I think, Larry, you don’t obsess about it because you spent 90% of your life without the Internet. How old are you now? One eighty what? One eighty four. Okay. So the Internet came out, say, forty years ago. So you have spent a significant portion of your life without having Internet. And maybe that’s why you don’t really give two flips about it because you’ve spent so much time without it.

[17:42] Larry: Oh, I care about the Internet, and I know it’s a major inconvenience. But for people to say that they’re registered because they’re on Internet is nonsensical to me. But are they suffering an inconvenience and hardship? Yes. Are they being discriminated?

[17:57] Andy: Probably so. And is it a disability and a restraint? I think that would be one of the bigger ones that exist is having that information out there for everyone to track down and do something about.

[18:08] Larry: So but, yes, I will argue and argue that it’s not the same as being registered.

[18:16] Andy: Alright. Alright. Well, then here’s another one. I’ve got a question for you. I’ve heard people put forward the theory that if the state’s registration law has a clause that requires registration for anyone who has a registration obligation in another state, that he or she has an obligation in that state. The theory put forward is that the law also means that if they do not have a registration obligation in another state, they cannot be required to register in that state. What do you think of that theory? I turned down my volume for something else, and we didn’t get the full effect of the laugh track there. My apologies.

[18:54] Larry: Oh, well, I think that the laugh track is what I think. I don’t think too much of that theory, other than I sincerely wish that would be the case, but it isn’t. But I’ve heard that theory myself over the years. It’s somewhat logical, but it’s not the reality of the situation. The states that do have that provision in their law have put that in to close what they consider to be a loophole. And as you’ve heard me repeatedly say, statutes must be read in harmony. And that being said, take a look at the states that have such provisions, and you will see their state uses or throughout to describe who’s required to register. I think or is referred to as a conjunction, if I remember my English. And the law will list covered offenses. So it’ll say in the state of Arkansas, you’re required to register for these sexual offenses. And then they will say for a non sexual offense in some instances, if there’s been a, a separate judicial finding that that that was sexually motivated. And then they’ll go on to list out of state equivalence or they will have language like substantially similar out of state offenses. And then finally, they’ll have that clause, anyone required to register in another state. But they’re usually joined with ors. And or is a conjunction that includes any of the foregoing. So what they the states that did that, they were trying to eliminate the loophole. Because if you take a person who comes to New Mexico, and our long term listeners will have heard this before because I keep harping on Georgia because that’s the only state that comes to mind that registers obscene phone calls from adults to minors. And if you were to make obscene phone calls in Georgia and be convicted, you would have a duty to register. But if you came to New Mexico, since our law says, it says, equivalent, not even substantially similar, then that person would not have a registration obligation here. But if you went to one of the states that said or, then you could run into the same situation where you would have to register there even though they would not normally register that offense. But it’s intended to expand the universe of registrable offenses. It’s not intended as a loophole to get out. It’s intended to prevent a loophole from people coming to those states and not having to register because people state shop. And they said, oh, I got convicted of this. And I don’t see this on the list and and this state, so I’m gonna move there. And that’s the loophole they’re trying to close. Sure. Sure. State shopping. Right? Indeed. And the states generally don’t prefer shoppers. Then we’ll learn that more when we get to the end of the program, more when we have the Utah segment because, sex offenders are just not all that popular in most of the country.

[21:57] Andy: Yes. I’ve heard this.

[22:00] Larry: So I just don’t think that’s a viable theory. Now, having said that, I think there is a viable theory. I think you should throw that one in the garbage pail, and I think you should argue the equal protection clause. So if you come to New Mexico from Georgia and they tell you you’ve gotta register for making them obscene telephone calls, you say, wait a minute. I’m looking at your constitution, and it says that New Mexico and The US constitution has an equal protection clause. I’m supposed to be given the same benefits as a New Mexico resident. And if I brought my vehicle to New Mexico, my personal vehicle, you wouldn’t single me out for special treatment because I’m from Georgia and impose additional duties on me replicating Georgia’s vehicle registration system. You can’t do that, so you’re violating the equal protection cost. That’s your argument. But you need to put this one in the garbage pail because it’s not a good argument. And it’s a civil regulatory scheme like your car. It is indeed. And and that’s what I tell people if they would just think about it as the same as their vehicle. When you take your vehicle to New Jersey, you may have lived in open Wyoming, and they have never heard of Smog Inspections in Wyoming. And you take it there and say, well, I ain’t never had to do this in Wyoming. And I said, well, that’s nice.

[23:16] Andy: But that no longer applies. You’re here. Yeah. You can either return or don’t have a car.

[23:22] Larry: Or you can go in where Georgia, where they used to when I lived there, they level they levied an abelorum tax based on the car value. Okay. New Mexico levies registration based on the weight of the vehicle and the age of the vehicle. And if you came here with a new car, you would pay from Georgia. You would have paid three or four times the registration fee in Georgia. What if New Mexico said, well, try to keep them out of staters out there. We’re gonna charge what Georgia charged them. That wouldn’t fly. Because that’s not how our registration system is built for vehicles. You know? And it’s it’s it’s the same. You’ve got the same argument that I’m entitled to be treated the way any other resident of the state is.

[24:02] Andy: Alright. Would you, as we move along, would you set up this thing for this video clip from, New Mexico about this individual?

[24:10] Larry: Yeah. This is a relatively long segment that was aired here in the last ten days or so. And, it’s about a a PFR that had been previously convicted, adjudicated in the military. And, his military conviction didn’t, trigger a Internet publication in New Mexico. And so the law enforcement apparatus teamed up with the victim’s advocates abber apparatus teamed up with the media, and they’ve made this segment about how bad this situation is. This loophole’s gotta be closed. So New Mexico needs to close a loophole to protect children. So we’ve got what, 10 or 11 segments of that five minutes to go through here. Correct.

[24:55] Andy: Here comes number one.

[25:01] News Announcer: In the meantime, we, of course, teach our kids to stay away from strangers, to beware of the big van or the person offering up candy or even puppies. But predators are actually much closer than ever before. And for investigator Britney Costello discovered our own state law is helping keep some very dark secrets.

[25:22] Andy: Well, okay. So if that’s the case, so what is the actual risk?

[25:27] Larry: Well, the the risk that that’s being protected is this person had a previous conviction, And that conviction doesn’t trigger Internet, publication. The registration duties there, but that particular offense isn’t listed on the Internet. So that person was able to continue that behavior and pick up another offense here. And so this is the stranger danger that we’re talking about. This person was online and apparently has has been accused of propositioning a minor here.

[26:00] Andy: Do you think that even how the story opens by framing safety as something we manage by teaching kids to avoid strangers, do you think that’s even a valid concept?

[26:10] Larry: Sure it’s valid. I think kids are safer today than they were when I was a kid. I think they’re safer today than they’ve ever been. I think stranger or danger is very minimal, but teaching kids basic safety techniques, I don’t I don’t have any problem with that. But I think scaring people beyond, kids today don’t go out and exercise. They don’t ride bicycles. They don’t do the things that kids need to do to stay healthy and happy. Yes. That’s true, Victor. And and part of it’s, this imaginary boogeyman that’s on every street corner. And parents feel the need to shuttle their kids every place. I know I know a parent in in, another state that doesn’t do that, but most parents just are so paranoid about an imaginary boogeyman that they do And and, you got people like Leonore Skanese. I believe that’s how you pronounce her name. Correct. She she says the same thing I do. It’s it’s very minimal stranger danger. Of course, if it’s your kid, it’s one too many, but it’s so exceedingly rare. What is it? About a hundred kids or less annual in a country of 330,000,000 disappear as a result of strangers that’s exceedingly small.

[27:20] 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 d.

[28:10] Andy: And to to extend on that the way that I understand it, only maybe a single or dub a a small double digit number. Anything happens to them from that. Like, all the whatever they’re called. The the, oh, god. What are they called? The something alerts? Not red alerts. The amber amber alert. Thank you. All of that then goes out and the person’s got a hitman marker on them as they’re driving around. We’re looking for a 1987 Chevy Blazer whatever bred with this license plate. It’s not gonna take long to track the person down. Well, let’s, let’s move on to an an illusion of compliance. And here’s, segment number two.

[28:57] News Announcer: Maybe Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Deputies take a list of names and pay a surprise visit Hi, sir. To every registered sex offender in the county. Hello? Hi, Eric. Just doing address verification for you. All we need. Appreciate it. They’re making sure these guys are living at their registered address. Awesome. Thank you. Detective Glenn Metzger is with the sex offender registration unit. The point is to make sure that the community has the information.

[29:24] Andy: Identify so I it is is it an illusion of compliance?

[29:33] Larry: I don’t know if I would call that an illusion of compliance. The, story proves how much a registry is out and how misleading that peace of mind can be. But if you go knock on people’s doors, I think that it would inspire folks to make sure that their information is correct. I mean, I’m just guessing that. What do you think?

[29:55] Andy: I think that the overwhelming majority of PFRs are almost scared to be they’re scared of their shadow to the point that they will be hyper compliant that this is a public relations make the public feel good situation. Yes. You’re going to find people that are not compliant, but by far and large, 99%, I betcha, remain compliant. So having them you’re you’re you’re scaring the neighbors that somebody is getting knocked on their door all the time. Why is the sheriff constantly every quarter or six months knocking on this individual’s door? They’re either friends with the cops or they’re a bad person, so we should avoid them, like, but they they never have a chance to rehabilitate from that. I don’t think that the I don’t personally think that this would be all that valuable without identifying people that are problem people to begin with. Does that make sense?

[30:52] Larry: Yeah. I never thought about it the way you put it because let’s say, I don’t have them knocking on my door, but I’ll I’m an old white guy that lives in a neighborhood where I think I’m pretty much the only one. The old the old the only old man that was like me moved out and went to a nursing home. And the cops constantly knocking on your door and me being a hundred thousand years old.

[31:19] Andy: And that would I never thought about how that would make you appear to your neighbors. I never considered that. So super patron Mike, almost every time the cops come by, he lives in a very, very, very, very upper class neighborhood. And here it is, the cops with their freaking lights on at 08:00 at night, you know, lighting up all the neighbors houses, and he shows me his ring camera footage of the guy coming up knocking on the door. And as the video showed, hey. I’m just here to do the compliance check that you’re here. Great. Have a nice day. And they move on. But meanwhile, there’s the red and blue lights flashing the wee woo wee woo there in your neighborhood. Like, come on. What is

[32:01] Larry: I’ve I’ve not even seen them do that here. Are they doing that?

[32:05] Andy: That video showed them that that they’re doing it. The video clip that I just showed has them knocking on the door. I’ve not seen them doing that. I didn’t notice that in the video. Yeah. It was, just at the very tail end of it. I don’t know if I can kind of advance what’s on the screen as the video. It’s alright. I just didn’t realize they were doing that. Yeah. If you can if you can see the actual the video that I have up on the screen, there’s the sheriff or the officer, whatever he is, the deputy standing in front of someone’s door and he was incredibly polite. I’m not trying to bash them for their their professionalism and their demeanor, But he’s standing there with his tactical vest on, with a gun at his hip, and it he they had the recording of it. Hey, I’m just here doing the compliance check. And he’s like, great. Hey, thanks. And they move on. And they also say in this clip I don’t remember if we will cover it or not, but, like, he says that the majority of the people, they just wanna comply.

[33:01] Larry: So so yeah. Well, it’s, the they’re chasing the money. And, it’s interesting that most of the people in law enforcement tend to lean politically conservative, and they say government’s too big, but they sure they sure put in every request for federal dollars they can get their paws on. And they don’t seem to think the government’s too big when it comes to money for their their agency. Amazingly hypocritical.

[33:25] Andy: And and now we’re going to take a twist. We are talking about the hidden offender.

[33:36] News Announcer: But there is a name that’s

[33:41] Andy: What happened? Talk for a minute. Let me just see if I can’t make that clip play.

[33:47] Larry: Well, it’s related to the offender we were talking about and why this whole story came into existence. He’s not listed publicly, and that’s what they’re trying to change. And I’m sure you can make it play if you just take a hammer and bang your computer or keyboard.

[34:04] News Announcer: I probably can. Let me see what happened. There is a name that’s not on their Bernalillo County list or in any public databases.

[34:13] News Announcer: How is he a sex offender, but it’s not available to public? Jessica Paul lives in Southwest Albuquerque.

[34:20] News Announcer: She says she found out about 29 year old Jonathan Giacinto.

[34:25] Larry: I didn’t stop it. Jesus. That’s good that’s good enough. Only after he assaulted her 13 year old daughter.

[34:36] Andy: So but isn’t the registry supposed to prevent this?

[34:41] Larry: Well, that’s the whole point of the story. He’s not listed on it. Alright. But he he’s not listed publicly, but he is on the registry in the state. Is that the correct way to put that? Yes. He’s listed, but that doesn’t serve any notification purpose if only the cops know that he’s registered. That’s the whole point of the story.

[35:02] Andy: And is it in the other segment that I think it’s in another segment. I don’t wanna spoil that part of it. And should he be on the public side of the registry in that state?

[35:16] Larry: Not according to our laws, but he will be after if he should be convicted of this because he’ll become a lifetime registrant and they automatically revert to publication on all lifetimes or so. If he gets convicted, he’ll he’ll she’ll she’ll get what she’s looking for. I see. Alright. Well, then let’s move over to grooming in the digital age, segment number four.

[35:39] News Announcer: After months of what Paul calls grooming Showing her a lot a lot of attention and just constant, like, reassurance.

[35:49] News Announcer: Those explicit messages turned physical. In the middle of the night, investigators say Giaquinto drove from his home in Grants, New Mexico to pick her daughter up and take her to a park where they say he raped her.

[36:05] Andy: They also showed video in there, Larry, in that particular block. I believe that she’s knocked out of the house. It wasn’t like he abducted her.

[36:12] Larry: That’s correct. But he groomed her. I mean, you you really shouldn’t give a 13 year old the the, latitude to make such a decision to go out against I’m sure her parents didn’t want her to go outside. Her mother didn’t want her to go out with him. I I was then looking up some laws. There’s something called COPPA, which is the Child Online Protection Act, I think is what it’s called. And

[36:37] Andy: you’ve gotta do you gotta you’re supposed to jump through a lot of hoops if you want your kid to have an Internet presence under the age of 13 and then she is 13. I’m sure that her parents didn’t make this account for her sometime in the last twelve months. I I’d be willing to bet that she’s been online for a while. I’m going to point the finger a lot at parents and their ability to monitor and police what their kids are doing.

[36:59] Larry: But do all parents have the sophisticated, if I happen to have a child right now, I wouldn’t have a clue what to do to keep them off. You you’re very good at keeping your minor your previous minor, who’s now an adult, but you’re very good at keeping control.

[37:13] Andy: But I wouldn’t have a clue. I’d have to call in an expert to figure out what to do. And I hear a lot of tech podcasts talk about this particular subject. Do we want the government regulating it?

[37:26] Larry: I don’t think so. We don’t think we want the government. But what do we do when when parental supervision is not adequate? And that’s always the question I always ask conservatives who say, well, everybody should wear a mask or whatever. Well, we don’t need the government telling them to. Well, they don’t do it if the government doesn’t tell them to. Parents that are not required to supervise their kids oftentimes are not good supervisors of children. So what do we do? We should put them in foster care. Yeah. But we don’t wanna pay for that. That cost an awful lot of money.

[37:57] Andy: I know I’m saying that very tongue in cheek, and I knew that you that would be your answer. I but there hasn’t that been, like, time immoral and and what is the word? Time immortal? That the kids would go out and they’re away from home and they go in the woods and they set stuff on fire just mischievous being kids. And I’m I’m I’m not trying to really make a moral equivalency to this versus that. But kids go out and do kid things.

[38:25] Larry: Well, this needs to play out in court. And unlike others, I believe that this accused is presumed innocent, mister Giacinto. And the facts will unfold either by a plea or by a trial. And the state will be forced to put on evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape. Now if it was consensual, he’s beyond the age. There’s more than four years gap, so he’s gonna still have a problem. Because He was, like, 26, I think. 29. So he’s gonna have he’s gonna have a real problem with the law. But, yeah. Don’t know if he’s given a statement or anything about the case, but he’s likely gonna be very visible very soon.

[39:10] Andy: Alright. Segment number five, registered but unsearchable.

[39:17] News Announcer: Jonathan Giacinto is a registered sex offender, but his charges went undetected. While he was current on his registration in Cibola County, his information is not searchable by the general public. He’s not listed in the national database of sex offenders.

[39:35] Andy: Can what is the national database of PFRs?

[39:40] Larry: Well, it’s a it’s a tool that has has been put in place by the federal government. It links the state registers together. But if you’re not visible in the state registry database, you’re not visible in the national database, and that’s what she’s talking about. But in this particular case, we have a fair number of people. Probably, maybe, 15% of our registrants are not visible. And other states have not the full visibility. And that’s what I was talking about, the nonsensical nature of people saying about the public the, the green notice and the purple notice and all that comes from the registry from the public database. Well, if that were the case, this guy would go undetected because he’s not on the public website.

[40:23] Andy: I see. And, segment six is, would visibility have helped?

[40:30] News Announcer: Do you think that would have changed anything? I don’t. I don’t. I’ve thought about that. I’m like, okay. So this happened, and then still, my daughter’s not gonna look up a sex offender registry. She doesn’t even know that exists. I’m sure it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but then maybe it would’ve. Maybe he would’ve been

[40:51] Andy: more afraid to Oh, Jesus. I made I made the tiniest little noise, and it and it clicked over. So if this that’s the case, then what is the registry even good for?

[41:02] Larry: I don’t understand the question. The what is the registry good for? Well, she said it might have helped had he been visible.

[41:09] Andy: Right. So I like, but she also kinda talked herself around in a circle of whether no. I don’t think it would have helped because the daughter, especially if he’s using a handle, then she you could you’re not even gonna look up, you know, John Doe four five seven because that’s not what your real name is. You’re not gonna find the person on the Internet anyway.

[41:28] Larry: Well, but she didn’t know until this happened to her daughter that the registry didn’t include everyone. And now the whole state knows about it. But it certainly gives policymakers and law enforcement a talking point. I’m not so sure that it would have made any difference, but it’s one of those things trying to prove a negative. Would he have been more timid had his picture been out for the world to see? We don’t know that. And I don’t know how he would ever answer that.

[41:57] Andy: Could couldn’t you possibly compare the level of recidivism rates of people that are public versus those that do remain hidden?

[42:07] Larry: I suppose that would be one way of doing. I don’t know if that study’s been done.

[42:13] Andy: My point would be that I don’t know that registries protect the public. They could scare the potential offender from doing it, but we also know that the vast majority of these offenses happen by people that have no exposure. They they aren’t on the registry at all. They don’t have any involvement with law enforcement at all.

[42:32] Larry: Well, that would be true. There was a former speaker of the United States House named Dennis Hastert that was sexually offended for a number of years when he coached wrestling in Illinois. And, I would dare say, I don’t know. I don’t want to be too critical of him. He’s an old, feeble man by now. But had the word been out that Hastert was doing what he was doing, he probably would have cut back on doing it. I mean, it’s hard to say that people would continue to go their behavior would go unchanged if there was constant exposure of their previous behavior. I mean, I think that’s a nonsensical stance to say that it wouldn’t have made any difference. How much difference it’ll make is very difficult to quantify.

[43:13] Andy: Now we’ll move into the, military segment of it.

[43:19] News Announcer: Army records show a military court convicted Giacinto of sending sexually enticing messages to a child near where he was stationed in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The army discharged him for bad conduct and required Giaquinto to register as a sex offender for ten years.

[43:39] Andy: Now do you think that this is a a gap in the system that should be fixed?

[43:44] Larry: Oh, boy. I didn’t know you’re gonna hit me with that. I should’ve read the script. Well, first of all, her premise is wrong. The Army didn’t require him to register. The Army doesn’t have any way to require a personal register. If The States didn’t have registries, there’s nothing the Army could do. But, New Mexico required him to register because they equated his conduct to a solicitation of a minor because there was no I’m assuming there was no actual sex. And that’s a tenure non public registry registration obligation. But, the deeper question is, does it work in any form? And I don’t think we’re gonna be able to stop them from fixing this loophole, but I don’t know that it’s gonna do anything positive.

[44:34] Andy: Let’s talk about a, built in blind spot for a minute then.

[44:41] News Announcer: There are some crimes in New Mexico that require sex offender registration but are not subject to public disclosure. Giacinto’s conviction of child solicitation by electronic communication device is one of them. And in this digital age, those types of crimes are only getting more common.

[45:01] Andy: And I I kind of rehashing things a little bit. What are we supposed to do with that though? I like, does the person never get a chance to move on with their life and they’re always gonna have this boat anchor that they’re carrying around with? So I guess we should make everyone we should register everybody, Larry. That way, nobody is able to hide.

[45:21] Larry: Well, that’s the way we’re headed with this as result of this story. I don’t know what it makes no sense to me that the registry is being held up as the cure all end all. But, if you’re going to have a registry, and if you’re going to claim it does anything, they do have a credible argument that a person who’s not listed on it is gonna diminish the effectiveness to the extent that it’s gonna be effective. But I don’t think it’s gonna be effective no matter what they do. I don’t this guy, you mentioned a second chance. He got a second chance. If he’s guilty of this, he didn’t partake of that second chance, did he? He did not appreciate that he was given that that invisibility level.

[46:08] Andy: Alright. I’m gonna skip over to segment 10 because I think this one kinda touches a a different area.

[46:16] News Announcer: Do you guys see these these people reoffending?

[46:21] Andy: We have had people reoffend. Making the war. I didn’t touch it. So the point of this little block is that they see people reoffending, but they say that by far and large, the majority of them don’t reoffend.

[46:37] Larry: And you gotta give credit. They at least admitted that the reoffense rate is very, very low. But as I’m telling have been saying for how many years we’ve been doing this? Eight? A while. Doesn’t doesn’t matter how low it is. If I put, you’re out in the middle of a football field and and point a gatling gun at you with a hundred bullets and only one of them is live, I bet you won’t let me pull the hundred, you won’t let me fire those hundred bullets in you. And only one of them could hurt you. That’s very true.

[47:05] Andy: And I’m just gonna read this final one that so the registry didn’t stop him the first time, that he didn’t have any fear of it, and it didn’t stop him the second time. And so it it’s possible that there are other victims that this individual has had.

[47:22] Larry: I would say that that it’s certainly possible, to think that people get caught every time they engage in criminality is silly. When people come to our law office, they’ll say it’s my first DWI. And I did what you would expect me to do, knowing my personality. I say, no. It’s the first time you’ve been caught. Yes. Is it possible he’s committed other offenses that have been undetected? Well, I would say if he’s committed them in this state, now that he’s been on he was highlighted that those people will come out of the woodwork. Right. And, but it’s, might be time we stop asking how to have a perfect registry and start asking if it should even exist at all.

[48:07] Andy: Gotcha. Well, that’s all I got for this segment. Alrighty. Well, what what else are we doing? We have this, last thing from Utah that should pretty much close things out. You ready for that? Utah? Yes. What who who lives in Utah? Apparently, the college that I go to is in Utah and it is the largest college in The United States, which I had no idea, but I looked that up recently. They have a 50,000 students.

[48:32] Larry: Wow.

[48:34] Andy: Alright. Here’s the clip. It’s, just about a minute long. And I’m gonna try to not make any noise and mess it up.

[48:43] News Announcer: A bill proposing changes to Utah’s sex offender registry was met with both support and criticism on Utah’s Capitol Hill today. We do have team coverage of the biggest bills going through the legislative session today. First off, new specialist, Sherra Park, join us live with the latest developments on s b one fifty five. Sherra.

[49:02] News Announcer: Yeah. Mike, when s b one fifty five was first released by senator Todd Wyler last week, it was met with a lot of harsh criticism. Talk he talked about getting call after call emails from folks who did not wanna see this bill go through. So today, a substitute bill was presented, and that bill actually passed committee in a five to three vote, and it now heads to the senate floor for full consideration. Now the full version of s b one fifty five focused on moving certain criminal offenses with a lifetime sex offender registration to the list of offenses only requiring a ten year registration stay. But now this substitute bill

[49:39] Andy: Alright. What are we doing with this?

[49:42] Larry: Well, the point I wanted to show as far as I can tell from the Utah legislative website, this bill did not make it through. And I don’t know if they’re if they’re still in session or if they’ve adjourned. But it didn’t make it through, and it it appears to be dead. If you look at that room, there are people in that room and that hearing room, which is rare for a small legislative, legislature like Utah and New Mexico. You know, the rooms are generally empty. And there’s a lot of concern and consternation about making it easier for PFRs to get off the registry. And so I suspect that this bill died, but we’ve got listeners in Utah. Hopefully, that someone will let us know what happened, and we can report back. But when you propose something, and this was since there were no Democrats in Utah, I think there’s one in the whole assembly. This, of course, came from a Republican. But even with it coming from a Republican, there’s major pushback. You can’t make life easier for PFRs. The people are just not there and willing yet for that progressive type of change.

[50:52] Andy: I understand. And what would be the what would you say that the remedy to any of that is? Is it just that we need to let me ask it in in the way that I wanna phrase it. Do we still just have to fight by keeping bills from making it through crossover and out of committee and fighting legally with court cases like what they’re doing in,

[51:15] Larry: Michigan? Is that where we are? Those are important things. But somehow or another, we’ve got a break through with public opinion and I don’t know the answer to that of how we changed public because we are twenty years behind. We’re close to thirty years behind now since their registry passed. What was it? ’96 when the, ’94 when the Jacob Wetterling Act passed. So, you know, as we’ve got a long time with hype about how bad sex crimes are and how bad these people are. And the public has been conditioned, and I don’t know how that’s gonna easily change. You know, it’s gonna take some major major work to change that.

[51:57] Andy: Doesn’t isn’t there a a movement, a motion? Isn’t there like a little subcommittee that’s putting together to raise funds to start a campaign for public opinion?

[52:10] Larry: I don’t know anything about that. Who’s doing that? Oh, it’s a

[52:13] Andy: a a a selection of affiliates from Narsal. Like, they’ve made their own little offshoot group of people and key figures, not necessarily just affiliates to do something like that, to to do media buys, to create, unified messaging across things like that. I believe. I’m not following it that close.

[52:36] Larry: I haven’t I haven’t followed at all. I’m all for it, but money is gonna be always the critical thing. You know, we can’t do media buys because we don’t, you know, we don’t have the NRA’s funding. We don’t have the, Mothers Against Drunk Driving funding. We don’t we don’t have those type of resources. It’s kinda hard. And when you approach when you approach the Ford Foundation or the Gates Foundation for money, they just don’t tend to open up their wallets to our calls.

[53:01] Andy: Right. Yep. I feel you, man. Alright. Then can you quickly cover the hilarity hilarity of this, judge in, where is this? No. I got an I got another story I wanna do. I got news from Arkansas. Oh, tell me about the news from Arkansas. I did see that you wrote that there. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to skip that. Arkansas. Yes. The,

[53:25] Larry: the, Arkansas legislature has passed two bills that are, not all that good. One is to impose the death penalty for certain, type of offenses. And I suspect that the Governor will sign it. And that’s Senate bill three seventy five. And they passed Senate bill three ninety three, which, enacts Meghan’s law. And they’re spelling it M A I G H E N. I thought it was not spelled that way, but I think it’s as simple as M E G A N, isn’t it? That’s what I thought. But this is, this act shall be known and cited as Meghan’s law. And they’re, putting a lifetime registration obligation in for anyone who’s, let’s say it says at the time the offense was more than 24 years old and the victim of the offense was less than 15 years of age. So, that would mean that a lot of folks who would be eligible for our Arkansas removal will no longer be eligible one, once the Governor signs these two bills into law. So, you people that have put off filing because you didn’t have the money filing your petition to remove Arkansas registry after fifteen years, you may have waited too long.

[54:39] Andy: Gotcha. I was, just getting the links from, our Arkansas listener. Did you have the numbers? It’s, Senate Bill three seventy five and Senate Bill three ninety three. Three 70 five and three 90 three. Well, we’re gonna move on before I can put those up on the screen. Do you wanna cover this thing then from the judge and his, the arguments?

[55:01] Larry: I didn’t read the article, but the headline was pretty funny because, the judge is supposedly alien smuggling has cited the Donald Trump defense for official acts being exempt from prosecution. And you’ve got it met that if that’s a successful defense, that that’s funny. Right? Can you admit that? That’s pretty hilarious. Alright.

[55:26] Andy: I think we can then close out this show of all the chaos and silliness that we’ve performed here tonight. Any clop parting words?

[55:34] Larry: Look forward to seeing everyone next week because we got 37 people in chat here. It is, quite a good crowd as usual.

[55:43] Andy: Well, head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and email us as some people have, registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You can also leave some voice mail. Where did the phone number go? I haven’t I didn’t even notice that that was gone. (747) 227-4477. Again, (747) 227-4477. Support us over at patreon.com/registrymatters for as little as a buck a month. It really goes a long way to to keeping our spirits up and, that we will keep making podcasts for you people. And, you could also head over to registry matters that will get some swag at fypeducation.org/shop. You can find our Kabuki Machine shirt. And, also, it’s not punishment. It’s a civil regulatory scheme. And we’ll have these, this merch at a table at the NARSAL conference that’s in Grand Rapids in, just about five weeks or so.

[56:40] Larry: Sounds fantastic.

[56:42] Andy: Yep. And, so, Larry, I hope you have a fantastic night, and I hope everything you feel better and stop looking like a, like a dot matrix printout. And we’re gonna play connect the dots on you. Sounds good. Take care. Good night.

[56:57] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, FYP.

[00:17] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 340 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. Did your air conditioning get fixed?

[00:27] Larry: It did indeed.

[00:30] Andy: Did you say the guy was literally as old as Methuselah?

[00:34] Larry: He wouldn’t have been much less than Methuselah. He was older than I am as far as his appearance, but I think in reality, he was not as old as I am. But he the years haven’t been good to him. Because no no offense, Larry. You look pretty pretty old. Yeah. But he made me look younger. Wow. That’s pretty rough.

[00:54] Andy: I think we have a a an unusual episode this evening. Do you wanna tell us what we’re doing?

[01:01] Larry: Well, we didn’t have any major cases that came up on my radar, so I picked some articles that I thought might be of interest to the PFR community. Some of them are directly on point, and some of them of the four, there’s some that are a little bit less on point. But for those who have in-depth analytical skills, they’ll be able to possibly figure out why I’ll put at least one article in here. But, yes. That’s all we have. And then, if time permits, if we don’t if we go through these too fast, we can talk about an attempt to, scam a PFR here in Albuquerque last week.

[01:41] Andy: Alright. Well, first of all, you put this one in here from courthouse news, and it says Kentucky law banning some PFRs from using aliases on social media sites does not violate the first amendment. A county attorney from the Commonwealth of Kentucky argued Wednesday before an appeals court panel. Wait. This does sound kinda familiar, though.

[02:03] Larry: It does indeed. I sound very familiar. This seems to be a fad around the country that, they don’t want PFRs having full access to to the Internet. But Kentucky Senate Bill two forty nine requires people convicted of a PFR type crime involving a minor to use their full legal names on all social media platforms. Directly from the article, the Republican legislature passed a bill which was signed into law by Democratic governor Andy Brashear in 2024.

[02:33] Andy: And what’s one such offender claim the law violates his first amendment right to anonymous speech and is overly broad? Do you think that this is a good challenge?

[02:44] Larry: I’ve learned to be more cautious after the Cornelius case out of Connecticut, but, it’s not it’s not one that would have resonated with me had the person contacted me first. But according to the argument to the article, it’s an argument that’s held significant weight. And it held weight with, The US District Judge Greg Stivers, and he was an appointee by that communist Barack Obama.

[03:14] Andy: I’ve heard people call him a communist before. I’ve heard this.

[03:17] Larry: Yes. But in addition, there are some appellate level decisions that have proclaimed the practice unconstitutional. One was, I just mentioned, James Cordelio from Connecticut. And I told him the same thing when he reached out to us. I wasn’t warned for his case, and ultimately, his case was successful. So I gotta be careful. I might be wrong. This is although the anonymous plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in federal court was denied class certification,

[03:42] Andy: Stivers granted his request, for an injunction. The narrow relief granted to plaintiff John Doe prevented enforcement of the law only in Davie’s County and did not apply to any other convicted PFRs in the state. I’m guessing that Kentucky is defending the law?

[03:59] Larry: They are indeed, and that’s their job. I would caution people not to get too mad about the law being defended, when you put your hand on the bible. You know, we criticize people. They take an oath to defend the laws of the of The United States and of the state. So, but attorney Jeff Hayburn, who’s the principal duty solicitor general of Kentucky, and I’ve never heard of principal duty, but I guess that means something, argued Wednesday before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Davies County. And what’s this? John Burlow? Where does that come from? Anyway, Haberne pointed out the challenge made by Dell was a facial one that required him to establish a burden on the speech of non parties. And that’s very legalistic, but but a facial challenge means that you’re challenging on behalf of others. You’re saying there are no set of circumstances, and that’s a heavy, heavy lift to say something is facially unconstitutional.

[04:55] Andy: I mean, it I I thought that you had a right to be anonymous, though, that you could go make your account say, you know, doomaflatch102@gmail.com, and you don’t have you don’t have to release what your real name is.

[05:11] Larry: Well,

[05:13] Andy: but maybe under narrowly tailored circumstances. You know, you’ve heard me say for years that if you narrowly tailor something, you can do almost anything. And I and I the example would be that you used that not that alias, but used an alias to then do naughty things that got you in trouble? And perhaps that’s the narrow tailoring? Well, that might be a little too narrow. But, yes, with proper tailoring, I think this might withstand constitutional muster. Based on the article, US Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee, cited the 02/2017 US Supreme Court decision in Packingham versus North Carolina in which the court struck down that the state’s social media ban for all PFRs. Is there a first amendment right to use social media? Murphy said Murphy asked.

[05:58] Larry: Well, he did ask that. But keep in mind, this situation is very easily distinguishable from Packingham. Packingham was a total ban on social media where the balance of the government’s interest and the burden on speech was way out of whack. That’s what Haybird answered. And he went on to say there’s significant interest here to protect children and this ever evolving Internet age. So this is not the same. So let’s don’t get ourselves to what is it? The Allen Green spends it overly, exuberant irrationally exuberant because this is not the same type of challenge as Buckingham was. So then, judge Murphy stated everyone agrees that’s important, but doesn’t the law need to be tailored? And he’s correct. Judge Murphy is correct, but the state agreed emphasized that the law only applies to people convicted of PFR type problems involving minors. That’s their position. That’s the narrow tailoring. He said they don’t have to use their legal name as their username and can simply include it in their user profile. So that means that there is some there’s some flexibility there. If it’s in your profile, does every who who reads the entire profile of someone?

[07:10] Andy: Probably someone like you, I would imagine. So then moving along. Attorney Guy Hamilton Smith from Washington, DC argued on behalf of John Doe and took issue with that interpretation. Senate bill two forty nine is a categorical ban on one category of protected speech. The facial analysis is very straightforward, he told the court. It simply imposes massive burdens on PFRs, and our and our overbreadth argument assumes injuries to third parties. What do you think about that? Well, are you familiar with that name, Guy Hamillah Smith? It rings a bell. I’ve heard of him. We may have had him on the show at least once, if not twice.

[07:49] Larry: So, well, what I think is he’s going further than what I would feel would have felt comfortable going had I been in that courtroom because, to say that he’s saying that the people that that are not involved in litigation that, that he’s wishing that were involved because he’s saying it’s facially unconstitutional. He’s saying that it, it, we’re assuming injuries to third parties. I don’t think that in First Amendment jurisprudence we assume article, are injuries to third parties. Now Guy has a law degree, and I don’t. But I’m not sure that we can assume injuries to non named parties. So that’s my thoughts. But anyway, Judge Murphy asked about the offender’s ability to include their legal names only within their pro user profile, but Hamilton Smith quickly dismissed that idea. It’s a distinction without difference, he said. On social media, people click through the profile and there it is. Is that true? Do you click through every profile and and see there it is? No. I do not. But I don’t I am the non social media person to begin with. I don’t really find a lot of value in it. So, Hamilton Hamilton Smith reiterated his client’s first amendment protections were spelled out in the Paggingham decision, in which the court had free speech rights supply to the modern town town square. This is like social media. The First Amendment safeguards choice. By not speaking on a certain date, PFRs don’t forfeit their First Amendment’s right to speak.

[09:20] Andy: I’m thinking he’s a little bit on thin ice, but we’ll see. Judge Stivers, the federal judge who issued the initial injunction, honed in on free speech in his opinion. Kentucky may criminalize the use of social media platforms to commit sexual and enticement crimes against minors, but may only do so consistent with the first amendment. And okay. So that’s some legal babble there. What do you what do you say about that?

[09:45] Larry: Well, I’m gonna let Hamilton Smith, answer. He he said, he argued requiring Doe and other persons on the Kentucky PFR registry to use their full names for all communications on social media platforms, it permissively infringes upon their first member rights because the law mandates the use of their full legal name for all communications on these forms, not just the targeted danger. And such conduct is also prohibited by other statutes. He’s right that it’s already against the law to do these things to minors. But that’s not what’s in the challenge here. The challenge has to do with having to disclose your name in this somewhat narrowly tailored group of PFRs who’ve committed crimes against minors. So I think he’s stretching, but we’ll see.

[10:29] Andy: Hamilton Smith asked the court to expand the scope of the injunction granted by Stivers to include all of Kentucky, pointing out that his client could be arrested if he violates the law outside of Davies County. Do you think they would extend it?

[10:43] Larry: I’m thinking that they will not. In his rebuttal, Haber and the attorney for the state requested that the injunction be vacated and defended the law as exceptionally important and narrowly tailored. I don’t agree that it’s exceptionally important part and I don’t agree that it’s really narrowly tailored, but it’s somewhat tailored. So I think he kind of overplayed his cards his hand as well. The article states senior US circuit judge Julia Smith Gibbons and senior US circuit judge Helene White, both George w Bush appointees, also sat on the panel. How large was this panel? It’s it’s a three judge panel. When you go up on on appellate review at at the first level, it’s usually a three judge panel. And then if you don’t like what the panel decides, then you ask for a blank review, which gets the entire, circuit if they grant full court review. And then the next step is the the, cert petition to US Supreme Court. When do you think that we will hear back on this?

[11:42] Andy: Well, the court, of course, didn’t set a timetable, but there is no timetable. They’ll decide when they decide, and it could linger for some time. Do can we can we dig around for this in this just a minute? So you you can make up mister Jingles whatever username you want to, but somewhere in your profile, you have to say, I am mister Jingles, and I am Andy whatever?

[12:03] Larry: That’s what it appears to said in the article.

[12:08] Andy: Just I I mean, does that does that make it sufficiently like, I mean, can you run around and then go bash your your favorite hated politician, be it Marjorie Taylor Greene or, I don’t know, Nancy Pelosi, take your pick. They can then still fairly easily track you down and you don’t have the ability to just remain anonymous.

[12:26] Larry: Oh, I totally understand where you’re coming from. And I think additional narrow narrow tailoring would have been preferable than than no more tailoring that they did. But, the fact that they did some narrow tailoring by not applying it to everybody like what started packing him, I think there’s a strong risk that that may be sufficient.

[12:47] Andy: But, you know, time will tell. Tell me what the negative impact is. Is there since this is already in place, if they lose, it just sets precedent that you can’t challenge this for some period of time without something new and earth shattering.

[13:00] Larry: Well, it was certainly for the that would green light every state in the Sixth Circuit that they can expand their Internet limitations. But it would also set up a cert petition to the Supreme Court because there’s conflicting, decisions amongst the circuits. And, so this would be one where we would very carefully look at on the Narsal side whether we’d wanna get involved in it because this would be contrary to, like, the Cordelio case. I see.

[13:27] Andy: Do you wanna even speculate what the Supreme Court would you would say?

[13:32] Larry: Gosh. That would be a long, hard one to do, but they’ve been fairly consistent on, protection of speech. I’d like to think they would, come down on the side of PFRs, but I’m not convinced that they would.

[13:45] Andy: Well, very well. Let’s move over to the very ultra liberal rag called the Associated Press. Just for the record, the Associated Press is like just a smidge left of center and listed as like one of the most accurate source of information available. And then, so what do we got? We have this article from the left coast and it says a debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying naughty behavior from 16 and 17 year olds exploded in the California legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who sold older minors for naughty behavior. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ relationships to target older teens teens involved in relationships. I know how you feel about this. Now have you referred, to such laws as solicitation in search of a problem?

[14:44] Larry: Yes. And I think you meant solicit older minors not sold, above there. But, yes, I have referred to this as a solution in search of a problem because there are very few incidents of adults acts, actually soliciting real minors for sex online. It’s just such a rarity. But the issue came to head Thursday after Republicans in the assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the imaginary issue.

[15:19] Andy: Now there is some merit to your argument. The article states, under current law, contacting a person 18 to engage in naughty behavior in California is already a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor, engaging in sex with a minor, if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. That’s like Romeo and Juliet kind of laws. Right?

[15:43] Larry: Right. Precisely. And as the article points out, it’s also a serious crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three serious felonies in California places a sentence of between twenty five years in life under their three strikes law. In addition, California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking. This was quoted from Assembly speaker Robert Rivas, a liberal pointy headed, communist sympathizer.

[16:12] Andy: We need McCarthy back for those guys. Now do you have any idea what the actual problem is?

[16:18] Larry: Well, according to the article, those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in a bipartisan legislation, signed last year by governor Newsom, dealing with, sexual trafficking. The law which took effect this year allows prosecutors to charge those of solicitor bisexual minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place the existing law that permits penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Apparently, the issue is that we can’t have any PRFR offense that is only a misdemeanor. That that is apparently the issue. I see. So assembly member Maggie Krell, another pointy headed person

[16:55] Andy: looking looking for the McCarthy era issues, With a background as a prosecutor wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children 18 who are are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. Hardwatch.

[17:15] Larry: That’s what she went on to say. If you’re 70 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that’s rape. That is so ridiculously absurd. Just listen to what she said. If an old man comes up to you on the corner and purchase you for sex, that’s rape. Now how can that be?

[17:35] Andy: Because you’re not 18 and you cannot consent to some kind of exchange in a contract and shake hands and all that.

[17:41] Larry: And and she says that should be treated as a felon. Now this is coming from the person who identified as a liberal pointy head, but she’s a pros former prosecutor. So keep in mind, the Democrat party is not monolithic as people believe it is. Here’s a example of extremely divergent views within the Democrat party.

[17:57] Andy: Why do you think that some Democrats oppose the change?

[18:01] Larry: Well, Democrats on the bus Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell’s bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit sexual malarities. They agreed with Krell’s goal, but worried that their approach would have unintended consequences. Lee La Chapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16 and 17 year olds who are in relationships with other minors. I don’t quite understand that, how that would be used to target them, but that was a direct quote. If they’re target if with if they’re targeting other minors, wouldn’t that be illegal? I mean, what does she mean by that? Yeah. I don’t even know. And I did see that. So then it says, LaChapelle says they are worried about the ways the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial

[18:53] Andy: interracial? Interracial and LGBTQ relationships.

[18:59] Larry: Now wait a minute. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Now you’re telling me that in a state like California, there would be a single person upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships in California, the paradise of of perfection?

[19:11] Andy: I have to think, Larry, that while California is considered this blue bastion, once you move outside of your major population centers, as is the regular rest of the country, It’s gotta be very rural. It’s very farmy. And I bet you, you know, a lot of very conservative kind of mindsets kick in. Granted, I’m gonna tell you a story from when I moved to Georgia, and this is a very racist story, but I would like, a friend of the guy I was sharing with an office with, he was very upset that his daughter was interested in dating a black kid. And he’s like, zebras date zebras? Horses date horses? I was like, are you serious, man? And this is just before the year February. Granted, that’s Georgia, but that mindset is not that far removed.

[20:00] Larry: Well, I agree with California does have a lot of conservative areas, in particular in the in the more rural parts of the state and where a lot of agriculture is dominant. So, yes, that would be true. But the proponents argue the law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same as a felony regardless of the intended victim’s age. That again is hogwash because a 17 year old is much better equipped to evaluate what he or she wants to do with his or her body.

[20:32] Andy: Hey, Larry. A hypothetical, like, some little, brain exercise. People don’t mentally mature at the same rate. Do you see a world where there is ever a way to more objectively measure someone’s maturity and give them autonomy. I guess it’s the, a word that we could use to describe that. Just because you turn 18, you are literally only one day older than you were yesterday when you were 17. And all of a sudden, all these rights and privileges are are bestowed upon you just because of that one day difference. Whereas, you could have a very, very, very young emotionally, intellectually individual who will not become, quote unquote, of age until they’re well into their twenties and be cognizant of their actions. Do you ever see a world where we could figure out a different way to do it than just say, 18, you’re legit? Because you could be 15 and be very, very savvy about the world.

[21:25] Larry: I I get your argument. I don’t see that happening because we have to it would be highly subjective. It’s like this guy that, used to be a a leading advocate in New Mexico. He wanted to us to have a speed limit that was speed would be, judged by conditions. I said, you realize how subjective that would be? Sure. Conditions are variable. And each driver’s skills and the safety of their vehicle and how it handles those conditions is variable. So to say that one driver is driving a vehicle that handles much better than another and the driver is more experienced and got better operational skills, 50 might be okay. The same street might might be safe for another driver with 50. I think you’d run-in the same problem trying to figure out who would make that subjective determination on how we would how we would do it. I don’t think that ever happens. Everyone else in the audience will get the reference. But uncle Buck in a in this character in a movie, his car was very bouncy. He had terrible, terrible shocks. You could see him driving down the road and the car is just, like like, riding on a cloud like on a sponge. And, you would not be able to drive that car very fast

[22:30] Andy: to support your claim. Alright. Well, then what happens next?

[22:37] Larry: Well, several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party. So folks listen. I had a listener here a few months ago say that I wish the Republicans stick stick together like Democrats do. The Democrats don’t stick together. But they vote broke with their party to vote with the Republicans, and they did that because of political necessity. Their districts probably are swing districts, as we referred them, and it could easily elect a Republican the next time around. So they did what they felt they needed to do. But Democrats instead backed an amendment saying that they plan to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16 and 17 year old victims. Assembly member Nick Schultz, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, said he’s committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue for, forward sometime this year.

[23:22] Andy: And what do you imagine will happen in this particular situation?

[23:27] Larry: The proponents and the victim’s apparatus will ultimately win. They will get their felony. We will have more felony sexual offend offenders in prison for behavior that just a few years ago was considered very minor, criminal behavior. And we will have more dysfunctional people. We will have more people who are tax burden on society, and we won’t have a clue why why this is happening. But but that’s what I predict. You know, we don’t seem to get a clue about things we do and the unintended consequences. The more people we put a felony jacket on, in particular a PFR felony, we diminish their earnings capacity dramatically.

[24:02] Andy: You you might be referring to a a do you know the the website The Onion? Yes. I’ve heard of it. Well, there’s a an article that they keep running every time there’s some kind of mass shooting. The only country in the world that can’t figure out how these mass shootings are happening. Has it happened to it again? They just keep running the exact same article and they scratch out the last date that it happened and they post the new date.

[24:26] Larry: Well, it’s it’s mind boggling to me because I have very little formal education and things that seem simple to me seem very complicated to people who have far superior educations. If we run a government where our tax system, revenue system is geared around the individual, then we want every individual to be able to produce at their maximum capacity, so they can pump as much money into that system as possible. And anything you do that will diminish their ability to pay taxes, you’re cutting down what goes into the common good pot and you’re diminishing how effectively we can pay for our wants and wishes if you put people earning one third or one half of what they would be truly capable of earning had they not have a felony conviction. I mean, that is not hard to understand, is it? Not really. I know there’s two people with us tonight that are earning less than they would three including me earning less than we would have otherwise.

[25:17] Andy: So I guess it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Well, you also then put this article, got another freaking liberal rag here, Larry, ABC News. And it says, Iowa’s top prosecutor is proposing an amendment to the state’s constitution to solve what one lawmaker called an interesting conundrum, weighing a person’s constitutional right to confront their accuser in the courtroom against the desire to protect traumatize traumatized children and vulnerable people. Is this related to the confrontation clause? Yes. It is. Your favorite Supreme Court justice named just Antonin Scalia was very, a big proponent of the right to, confront your accuser. The article says, some worry the proposal could hinder a defendant’s right in court.

[26:06] Larry: Now it’s the radical left pushing back. The funny thing is the radical left is in alignment with the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia that you just mentioned, who staunchly protected the confrontation clause and defended it through his entire judicial career. So maybe sometimes the liberals and the, right wingers are in alignment.

[26:26] Andy: The Iowa House approved the measure last week and it passed the Senate in March, though it would take years and several more votes by lawmakers and the public before the state constitution could be changed. Why is this an issue now?

[26:40] Larry: Well, apparently, the issue stems from a state Supreme Court decision last year that said Iowa Constitution requires people accused of a crime, and the trial witness testified and gives them to see each other. What a concept. That’s kind of what the constitution says. Holy mackerel.

[26:56] Andy: When now does that literally mean see as in in the exact same room? You couldn’t do this, by what’s, what would be the word? Were you under oath, but you’re just being interrogated by the attorney? What was that called?

[27:11] Larry: Well, I get what you’re saying, but we have to interpret things the way it would have been understood at the time. Remember? This is the Scalia doctrine. There would not have been any closed circuit video. There would not have been that. So when they composed this language, they never would have thought of you not being anything but coming into court and testifying in person. No one would have ever fathomed this. So, magically, I’m in alignment with Scalia. I magically think that we should interpret these words as they would have been understood at that time. I’m magically, a hypocrite when it comes to something that suits my purposes.

[27:47] Andy: Yeah. Someone tell me. It’s called a deposition. And, so all all of a sudden you’re a textualist and not you don’t wanna have the law and the situation evolve?

[27:57] Larry: I’m what it takes to win. And this I want to win the protection and confrontation clause. Whatever it I can latch my arguments around to secure the continuation of you being able to confront your accuser in court directly.

[28:11] Coach Bear Bryant: I’m trying to win the game.

[28:13] 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 register matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

[29:02] Andy: Alright. Iowa attorney general Brenna Byrd argued we are the only state that has come to that conclusion, said Byrd, a Republican. It’s really important that we can protect kids in court. The that kids who have been traumatized can have the opportunity to testify outside the presence of the person that may be very that they may be very, very afraid of.

[29:24] Larry: I can sympathize with that. But don’t you think, for example, just say you’re not a kid. This is off script, but let’s just say hypothetically, you’re not a kid. Say you’re an adult and you’ve got, you’re testifying against a gang member. Don’t you think that maybe that gang or other members of that gang can come back after you? Don’t you think that they’re afraid as well? I mean, this is a part of our system. This is a part of our system. If you’re trying to put someone in a cage, you have to go testify against them. But the But this is also a significant burden as we’ve all seen in every mafia movie that if you go testify, then they’re gonna go put the meat, the muscle on you. And maybe your family gets hurt and you wouldn’t want your family to get hurt, would you? So then you don’t go testify. That’s correct. But the member would say that constitutional right may be limited by law for certain witnesses, those 18, and those with mental illness, including intellectual disability or other developmental disability. Both legislative chambers would need to approve this measure again in 2027 and again in 2028 to put put it before the voters in November 2028. So it has a lot of hoops to jump through. You people in Iowa, if you don’t like what you’re seeing here, you better get to work because this is gonna become a part of your constitution very soon in the next three years.

[30:42] Andy: The sixth amendment of the US constitution lays out the right of the accused in criminal prosecutions specifying the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and among other things, to be confronted with the witnesses against the against him. Them. I pick them, Larry.

[31:01] Larry: Well, except that’s what they what it said. That’s the way they wrote it in 1857 or wherever it was. Like, women didn’t even have the right to think back then. So our Constitution was adopted in 1857, also defines the rights of persons accused, including the same confrontation clause. But the US Supreme Court held in ‘9 a ’99 decision, Maryland v Craig, which I didn’t know anything about this, that the right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent of physical face to face confrontation when remote testimony is necessary and can be provided reliably. And that’s what we’ve heard Scalia criticized. Maryland’s interest in protecting child witnesses from trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of special procedures that decision said. And, the majority of courts across the country have aligned with the Supreme Court decision according to Colin Miller, a University of South Carolina law professor.

[31:56] Andy: The most common exception is when the state’s confrontation clause includes the words face to face. That explicit text led, the New York New Hampshire Supreme Court this year, for example, to say a nine year old girl’s remote testimony violated the defendant’s constitutional rights? Because, I mean, ultimately, don’t the accused and the accuser have constitutional rights and we shouldn’t necessarily put one above the other?

[32:21] Larry: The the accuser has very few constitutional rights. Oh, okay. Those were those were invented rights. You know? Fair enough. Passed with with with statutory, changes. We the constitution of forefathers put all the emphasis on protecting the accused because we don’t wanna put people in cages without a robust process. But anyway, a nineteen eighty ninety eight state law carved out the that exception for a minor needing protection from trauma caused by testifying and physical presence of the defendant, where it would impair the minor’s ability to communicate. Now, I’m not too stupid to understand that if you have a nine year old on a witness stand, there will be some communication issues. I get that. But if a judge allows a minor’s test if a judge allows a minor’s test where it could be televised to the jury and defendant in the courtroom, the only problem is that’s not what they would have thought about back in colonial times. Iowa’s confrontation claw clause does not specify face to face, but the court said still that it violated the constitutional right to confrontation, declaring that the state’s constitution affords more protection to criminal defendants than the federal constitution.

[33:30] Andy: The article points out that the amendment is supported by law enforcement and county attorneys, duh, as well as various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom told lawmakers that justice isn’t being served in Iowa if children are forced to face an abuser again and are too afraid to tell their stories. The thing that I sit almost daily, definitely weekly, and grapple with parents is when they have to decide, is the price of justice worth it for my child? Wendy Berkeley, a family advocate at Des Moines Area Child Protection Center told lawmakers in January, unfortunately, right now in Iowa, the answer is they often have is no.

[34:06] Larry: Well, that’s unfortunately one of the things that goes to our system. The opposition to the proposal has been concentrated, according to this article, among defense attorneys who cite examples of people people wrongfully accused and say these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jury that the defendant is guilty. That is a true statement. That’s what jurors think. The existing law looks similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Welborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Welborn suggested that changing the Constitution is a slippery slope. They’re basically futzing around with the Sixth Amendment, he said. I would argue that it’s dangerous, dangerous road to go down because when you start saying we carve out exceptions for someone’s confrontational rights, do we also carve out exceptions for the right to present a defense? I mean, that’s what’s gonna be said said next. They’re gonna say, well, you know, all this stuff is really traumatizing the victim that the defense is putting on. So we need to shut this down and short shorten the defense process. You know, that that’s what’s coming next.

[35:08] Andy: And Welburn’s concern was echoed by Republican state representative Charlie Thompson, who said the provisions open the door wide to mischief by future legislatures.

[35:18] Larry: And let’s give some bipartisan, kudos because, this says that he’s a Republican. But State Representative Stephen Holt acknowledged that the constitutionality concerns but said the Iowa Supreme Court didn’t offer any options. They struck it down but didn’t really give us any guidance on what to do, said, Holt. They left us an interest conundrum as we try to protect, children in the course, from against having been having them traumatized again. But they didn’t give you the guidance because it’s not their job.

[35:51] Andy: They tell you what you can’t do, but they don’t tell you what you should do. And there is something to be said. Forget the nine year old part, but someone that is has some level of of more maturity and faculties that you you you’re able to challenge them to the the cross examine and hold up on their story and try to poke holes in anything that’s available that might be an inconsistency.

[36:15] Larry: Absolutely.

[36:18] Andy: So I win? You win. Alright. Cool. Let’s go along. Now you have this thing in here from the Marshall Project. What a bunch of liberal radicals. And it’s from New York. It says, when New York corrections officers attack prisons and infirmaries, as has happened dozens of times in the past fifteen years, I think we’ve even played some videos here about that, it is nurses who must document and treat the resulting injuries because you know for sure there’s not a doctor in there. Their choices can save lives or cover up abuse.

[36:47] Larry: Now are you telling me that in a progressive paradise such as New York that prisoners get abused by guards?

[36:53] Andy: There’s no way that could be true. It would appear that they do. A prisoner at Green Haven Correctional Facility in the Hudson Valley accused a nurse of medically clearing him to be sent to solitary confinement to cover up a beating by guards that left him with life threatening injuries. A punctured lung, broken ribs, and a fractured hand. And you’re just gonna go then go sit in the hole? Come on, man.

[37:18] Larry: Well, I don’t see the problem with it. He should have thought about that before he got put in prison. About that before he went to prison. Right. But but but all the nurses are not like that. Like, contrast that in nearby sings thing, a man credited a nurse was saving his life by yelling at an officer to stop beating him.

[37:36] Andy: The article states how nurses handle instances of violence. Infirmaries gained wider attention in December when state officials released a body camera footage showing nurses peering into an exam room from a hallway while guards fatally beat and choked Robert Brooks at Marcy Prison. Nurse oh, boy. A bed in? Oh, come on, man. Really? What in the world? Nurse, a b e d I n, and then m e h m e d med oh god. Whatever. I’m sorry. I cannot say this name. Sorry. The nurse who works for a private nursing agency stands outside an infirmary while corrections officers beat Robert Brooks at Marcy Correctional Facility in December.

[38:17] Larry: And the photo shows nurses looking on as guards beat Robert Brooks. Brooks died from his injuries the following morning. Such situations put nurses in a tough position. Those who witness abuse may stay silent about the abused witness to avoid angering the officers who protect them as well as supposedly the inmates. Yet ignoring or covering up the assaults violates the nurses professional code of ethics, prison policy, and the law. Now isn’t that a conundrum? That would be

[38:47] Andy: they probably don’t make a super a lot of money either. And then if they go rat on the guards, then they could put their job in jeopardy too. And next thing you know, then they’re fired because they ratted out that someone was getting the shit beat out of them. The article states that in dozens of cases, nurses have been accused of helping to cover up beatings in New York prisons according to the Marshall Project review of court settlements, disciplinary records, and pending lawsuits. The Marshall Project reporters identified 61 allegations from 02/2010 through 02/2024 of medical staff concealing evidence of guards’ abuse, usually by foregoing examinations or not documenting injuries. During that period, the document fired just one nurse for neglecting these duties after a force of, use of force according to our view of state disciplinary data. Did you say document or department fired just one? Well, I probably misread it during that period. The department

[39:40] Larry: fired. How would a document fire you? There’s a, well, that there was one documented fire. Maybe that’s what you meant to say. Medical, staff’s propensity to cover up officers’ violence happens more frequently than these numbers reflect, experts say. Men are prisoners do not file complaints because they fear retaliation or not believed. Now, you’ve been in these settings. I’ve only been in county correctional settings.

[40:02] Andy: Would that be accurate in terms of prisoners don’t file this I would think it would be but but that comport with your experience. I I depending on yes. I would say that depending on the person and how much noise they wanna make, they might just kinda take it and just accept what they can get and move on. As in not filing a complaint because, you know, maybe maybe you were just maybe you’re just lightly beat or maybe they were just maybe they put you in the chains. I did watch this happen, Larry. That’s this wasn’t somebody being beat. But it was an old guy, and he was being put on a bus to get transferred to a new prison. And he’s got the leg, ankle irons on, and he freaking, like, face plants off the bus. Wow. And he’s like I mean, the cat was, like, 70. And, his glasses are then broken. So when you see him later, he’s got, like, a black eye and and I can’t it’s just it’s just shitty. The commissioner Daniel

[40:58] Larry: really? Another one? I did this to you I did this to you because I couldn’t figure out how to pronounce it. So that’s that’s Mar Martucello, I guess. Martucello? I

[41:08] Andy: don’t know. Martucello? I don’t know. Has pledged to reform the culture in New York prisons. In a statement, he said he is working with the people and organizations inside and outside the department to make impactful change to end this violence.

[41:22] Larry: Well, there is a violent culture in prisons and it puts nurses in a bind. Experts say the primary duty of nurses is to support the health and well-being of their patients according to New York Nursing Board, and that doesn’t change that because it’s a prison setting. Yet prison nurses also feel they do a loyalty to the guards to ensure their safety, several former corrections nurses and staffers said. In this way, it’s a blue wall that extends to prison life to the prison clinic. That that is similar to the blue wall. Medical staff go along. These cover us all the time, said Kevin Ryan, a retired internal investigator in the state prison system. If they wanna keep their jobs, they have to go along. Now that sounds, somewhat eerily familiar to things that happened back in World War two when people did things that they did because they had to do them, and yet we think that they that would never happen here. Absolutely.

[42:17] Andy: So then in 02/2013, officers at Green Haven Prison brought an incarcerated man experiencing psychosis to the medical unit to give him meds and draw blood. Video showed the handcuffed man talkative and standing normally according to state records. Then the prisoner strapped in a restraint chair, appeared to choke on water and pills and spit out spit some out. Officers pushed his head down on his chest to put on a spit hood and severed his spine. Goddamn, dude. Like, how hard do you have to push someone’s head down to sever his spinal cord? According to the report from the state commission of correction, video showed that his demeanor changed. Of course his demeanor changed. He was no longer babbling about in an almost listless state according to arbitration records. Seriously, if you severed his spinal cord, I bet she was like borderline like, well, dead. Maybe not fully dead, but very dead.

[43:09] Larry: I would think so. An officer’s carried the man back to his cell. Now this is this is God. This is this is so appalling to me. And video shows a nurse asking, are you hurting anywhere? Nothing hurts you. Okay? So apparently she answered for him. Nothing hurts you. Oh, okay. Before leaving the cell, according to state records. The nurse did do a physical examination or take his vital signs. The man soon slid off the cot onto the floor and complained that his bones were killing him. I imagine he would have been complaining about that. He lay motionless and unattended for more than twenty four hours before being brought to a local hospital. He died three weeks later.

[43:48] Andy: The article states that the department fired the nurse for not examining the mail and then telling investigators that he did. The state also fired a correction officer trainee who’d been observing the prisoner. The department did not attempt to discipline the officer or other medical staff involved. A prison spokesperson said the use of force was deemed to be appropriate. The nurse later testified at an arbitration hearing that it was Green Haven policy to forego physical exams and and assess an incarcerated person’s injuries by asking him if he is not injured. And that’s pretty much what we do. Other witness also testified that those actions were the norm at Greenhaven. Nobody speaks up for the abused.

[44:28] Larry: That is that is so realistic, to me, having not been there. But you’re so powerless. You know, the fear of speaking honestly about assaults is widespread. And at Wynn Prison, a nurse who witnessed a guard beating a prisoner in a wheelchair told investigators that an officer told her to say she saw nothing. She refused to identify the officer. In another case, investigators interviewed a nurse at Franklin Prison about an incident in which a guard broke a prisoner’s jaw in the infirmary. She later testified that she re she she received a call at work from someone calling her a rat. When she appeared at the arbitration hearing, she explained she was not testifying voluntarily but was being forced by subpoena.

[45:12] Andy: And I I’m sure in your breadth of knowledge, you have a solution for us here.

[45:18] Larry: Well, I really don’t. There isn’t one. This is the human behavior and the condition that we have. If we could be very selective about who we put in prisons, your job is only to confine these people. You’re not the judge. You’re not the jury. You’re not all these things that you wanna be. Your job is to keep them confined until they’re allowed to be released. And if you think your job is greater than that, if you think you should be the one who administers justice, you should run for district attorney, you should become a prosecutor, you should run for judge, you should do any number of things. But your job as a prison guard is not to decide what you think is appropriate and what these people deserve. Your job is to confine

[46:01] Andy: them. Just to play devil’s advocate, I have seen some insanely large humans and very violent people in prison. And guards come in all shapes and sizes. They’re not all donut eating four hundred pounders. Some of them are pretty narrow dudes or and and certainly many of them are women. How you would have you would have to employ some extreme measures to potentially restrain someone that has decided that they don’t want to be restrained and rational. I I mean, I can think of 25 different ways that you could handle this, but at the end of the day, somebody might not have all those resources available to them, and they decide to start while punching you in the face and breaking your jaw, as we just read.

[46:48] Larry: Well, I would tend to agree with you on that, that Prisoners have various levels of mental instability. They’re hooked on drugs that are being smuggled into the prison, some by guards and there’s all sorts of volatility in prison. So, I would never want to stop a guard from being able to defend him or herself. But, on the other hand, self defense is one thing. Learning how, I worked in my property management career in some of the most ghetto ish areas that, that we have in the city. And I never had any problem to speak of because I always treated people with the utmost respect even when they were losers. If I was evicting you, you never had any maltreatment from me because it was not personal. And I tried my best to shield the uncomfortable situation that was happening to you from anyone else knowing about it and treated people with dignity. When I was in the Boulder County Jail, I saw virtually no violence in the Boulder County Jail because that was their operating procedure. They treated everybody with respect and dignity. And violence was so rare, you know, that when someone needed to be restrained, it was a very odd thing that happened in that county jail. So I I don’t say that I have the all the answers, but I think having people that are heavily relying on their testosterone instincts to show that they’re manly is not the answer.

[48:19] Andy: I watched some cat. He was very mentally unstable when I first got locked up at the county jail. And he was just adamant that he wanted to drink the cleaning solutions like the Windex. And he just wouldn’t listen to the guards saying stop drinking the the Windex. So they tased him. So then you hear the the, you know, the the and then thump, and they carry the guy out.

[48:42] Larry: Well, see again, I don’t know that I would have reacted that way. I don’t know that I wouldn’t have because I had to be in the situation, but he’s only hurting him himself at that point.

[48:53] Andy: But isn’t it still the responsibility to keep him from doing that too?

[48:57] Larry: Yes. It is. If

[49:01] Andy: if you are trying to find a way to stop him from doing it, it might be that just getting the the object the substance away from him would be sufficient to stop doing it. Yeah. He shouldn’t be able to get gain access to it to begin with. When they brought in the cleaning carts, he goes over to a new guard or something like that and ask him sort of like, man, you wanna clean the windows? Great. Here’s the cleaner. Go clean the windows. And they glug glug glug glug glug. No. No. No. No. That’s not what I meant. Boy, do we have a fabulous, incarceration system here. Hey. Tell me about this thing with Harvey Weinstein standing a new trial. Is this, like, anything worthwhile?

[49:38] Larry: Yeah. Well, it’s it hasn’t been developed yet. I don’t have anyone been following it, but, they are gonna put him on new trial. It’s it’s not already underway, but this is the article I put in for a couple weeks ago. I know. So he may already be be on trial. I don’t know what the status of that is. And then he’s still convicted in California, I think. So even if he somehow wins this case, he still has to deal with whatever happened in California, I believe. Yeah. I think it’s the other way around. I think he was convicted in New York, and then it was overturned. In California. He’s waiting for him. They haven’t convicted him yet. Have they in California? Oh, I thought that well, okay. Something we need to cover then because I thought that that’s what what the deal was. Yeah. We’re eventually gonna get to it, but, he’s gonna die in prison. He’s already but ancient as hell and and the prison’s not gonna be good to him as far as, any medical care. I think you kinda heard that in the segment above. Yeah. They don’t they don’t treat you well there. Well, very good. He’s not he’s he’s not gonna make it. And we we threw this together because there’s a good chance I won’t be available next week. I’m getting a root canal Friday, and depending on how I feel, I may not be available. But there’s five Saturdays in the month of May. So the patrons will still get their four episodes even if I miss next week. Is it five? I thought we talked about there aren’t five. Let’s see. One, two hey. There are five oh, the thirty first coming into the last oh, gotcha. Alright then. So so

[51:02] Andy: Alrighty. Well, make sure that you head over to registrymatters.c0 and you can find the show notes and make sure that you email any questions. Any questions at all. And I will send them over to Larry. Registry matters you know, we didn’t cover that voice mail again. Registrymatterscast@gmail.com. And for those that are listening tonight, thank you very much. Thank you very much for being a patron. That can happen over at patreon.com. Oh, you know what? We did get a new patron. I gotta grab that real quick. Head over to patreon.com/registrymatters, and then I will thank the new patron who was super generous. And what is that individual’s name? I sent it to you, Larry. You should know.

[51:40] Larry: Do you expect me to remember at 83?

[51:42] Andy: I expect you to remember all of the things.

[51:45] Larry: I will tell you because it should be in my text messages.

[51:49] Andy: I believe it is.

[51:51] Larry: Saddam Hussein.

[51:53] Andy: I don’t believe so. I believe that that was, Sammy. So Well, thank you very much, Sammy, for becoming a patron. Thank you very much. It it came in at the,

[52:05] Larry: at the, what was it, the pandemic,

[52:08] Andy: stimulus rate? Yes. Stimulus was 14 and change. Right? Yep. And that’s what said maybe it did was 1,400 a month. And then we also have swag over at registry mad excuse me. That’s f0ipeducation.org/shop. You can go find t shirts and some cool things there, particularly the one of Larry and then there’s the one of the Kabuki machine. And without further ado, Larry, I bid you all ado. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and that you have a nice cool air conditioner now. And boy, do I hope that root canal goes well because that does not sound fun.

[52:39] Larry: Well, the whole story is not fun either because I may have brought it on myself by being stubborn, but we’ll talk about that another time. You brought it on because you’re stubborn? Never. I waited and waited because I had pain and I thought it was gonna fix itself and it fixed itself, alright, to a big old abscess. I bet.

[52:56] Andy: Well, I hope that goes well and I will talk to you soon. Good night, everybody. Have a great night. Good night.

[53:04] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

---

Introduction

The U.S. criminal justice system is no stranger to controversy, but a recent proposal reportedly floated by former President Donald Trump has set off alarm bells among legal experts, advocacy groups, and concerned citizens alike. The idea—suggesting that “homegrown criminals” convicted of violent crimes could be relocated to foreign prisons, specifically to facilities built in El Salvador—poses deep constitutional, ethical, and logistical questions. The scenario becomes even more concerning when viewed through the eyes of people with criminal records or marginalized backgrounds, who often bear the brunt of experimentations in policy.

Highly publicized by major news outlets, the proposed plan involves U.S. citizens being sent to El Salvador to serve their sentences for violent crimes, potentially on the basis that housing prisoners would be cheaper abroad. Legal experts have immediately decried the concept as both unconstitutional and deeply problematic for a host of other reasons. And for families of those incarcerated, the potential ramifications are devastating: how do you visit a loved one when their prison cell is thousands of miles away, under a foreign justice system? In this article, we break down what these proposals mean, examine the risks, and answer the central question: should Americans, particularly those labeled as “homegrown criminals,” be worried?

---

The Proposal: Sending U.S. Citizens to Foreign Prisons

The controversy centers around claims that President Trump, in conversations with El Salvador’s president, considered a plan in which Americans convicted of violent crimes would serve their sentences in facilities outside U.S. borders. While the term “deporting” was initially bandied about, more accurate descriptions use “relocation” or “transferring” prisoners.

Key Points from the Discussion:
– U.S. would pay El Salvador to build and maintain prisons for American citizens.
– The program would target those labeled as “homegrown criminals.”
– Legal experts immediately responded, calling the idea unconstitutional.

This proposal echoes a longstanding practice in some U.S. states, where prisoners are sent to out-of-state facilities due to overcrowding. For instance, Vermont’s overcrowded prisons have led to inmates being housed in Idaho. However, relocating prisoners to another country—especially U.S. citizens—raises a host of new challenges.

---

Constitutional and Legal Considerations

Can the U.S. Legally Relocate Its Own Citizens to Foreign Prisons?

At the heart of the debate is a constitutional question: can the United States government send its own citizens—born and raised on American soil—to serve prison time abroad? The U.S. Constitution and case law provide strong protections against involuntary expatriation or deportation of citizens. As legal analyst Larry points out, “You can’t deport your own citizens that were born in the United States.”

Key Legal Obstacles:
– Citizens’ Rights: U.S. citizens cannot be involuntarily banished from their country (see Supreme Court case Trop v. Dulles).
– Due Process: Any relocation would require due process and an opportunity for judicial review.
– International Law: Housing citizens abroad could violate treaties or human rights conventions.

Andy, acting as moderator in the original discussion, raises concerns about the speed with which such relocations could happen and the possibility that government officials might act before courts can intervene.

“I’m puzzled, curious, concerned that they could act so fast on this that you might not be able to get through a court system fast enough to get a judge to make them stop.” – Andy

Moreover, if the U.S. government were to ignore a judge’s order—such as in the real example where a person with legal U.S. status was deported against a judicial order—this could undermine the entire basis of legal and constitutional protections afforded to all Americans.

---

Precedents and Analogies: U.S. Prisoners in Other Jurisdictions

To further clarify, the U.S. already has a precedent for transferring inmates between states due to overcrowding. Prisoners remain under their home state’s jurisdiction, even if they are housed elsewhere. Theoretically, the federal government could adapt this model for international transfers:

• Custodial Responsibility: The prisoner stays in U.S. custody, even when housed in El Salvador.
• Prosecution Risk: If an American prisoner commits a crime while in a foreign prison, they would be subject to the host country’s laws as well as U.S. oversight.
• Logistical Questions: Who provides legal, medical, and social services? How do families stay in touch, and what rights do inmates retain?

Legal experts, including those in the original transcript, doubt the practicality or legality of this analogy on an international scale.

---

The Human Impact: Families, Access, and Dignity

Perhaps the most immediate concern is the impact on prisoners and their families. If a loved one is sent to El Salvador, what does that mean for visitation, support, and rehabilitation prospects?

“When you have to go to San Salvador to visit your loved one, I’m betting you won’t think it’s nearly as funny as you do right now.” – Larry

• Family Separation: Travel to El Salvador is costly, dangerous, and impractical for most families.
• Access to Counsel: Prisoners lose easy access to U.S.-based lawyers, advocates, and court systems.
• Rights and Protections: U.S. constitutional rights may not be enforceable in a foreign prison.

The idea is likely to disproportionally impact marginalized communities—people of color, immigrants, and low-income individuals—further entrenching existing inequalities. As Andy notes, it’s essential to recognize who is most at risk:

“I would worry more about the people that are less white… it seems that they’re more easily identifiable that way.”

---

Conditions in Foreign Prisons: Medical Care and Treatment

Even if modern facilities were constructed in El Salvador, there are significant concerns about the level of care and professionalism compared to U.S. standards.

• Medical Care: U.S. prison medical care is often criticized, but experts suggest conditions abroad could be even worse.
• Professionalism: Correctional officers abroad may be less trained or held to lower standards.
• Human Rights Oversight: International transparency and inspection of prison conditions are less robust.

Supporting data: According to the U.S. State Department’s 2022 Human Rights Report, Salvadoran prisons are frequently criticized for overcrowding and inadequate medical care.

“I would imagine that the care that you get in most U.S. prisons would be better than what you would get [in El Salvador].” – Larry

---

The Ethical and Political Fallout

The bigger question is: What are the broader implications of a U.S. administration ignoring the Constitution, court orders, and basic human rights? If such a policy were enacted, it could erode trust in the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent.

• Ignoring Courts: The original transcript references cases where the administration allegedly ignored judicial orders.
• Rule of Law: Flouting constitutional limits weakens the fabric of American democracy.
• Potential for Abuse: If the government can relocate prisoners abroad, what other rights might erode?

As Larry warns, those who support tough-on-crime policies now may feel differently if a family member is targeted:

“How are you gonna feel when… they flip the middle finger at the court and say, what are you gonna do about it? Are you gonna be okay with that?”

---

Conclusion: Should Americans Be Worried?

The proposal to send American citizens to foreign prisons is, at present, more of a thought experiment or political talking point than an imminent threat. However, the legal, ethical, and human harms are clear:

• It would likely violate the Constitution and established legal precedent.
• It would devastate prisoner families and worsen existing inequalities.
• It would represent a serious degradation of the U.S. commitment to rule of law.

While unlikely to pass constitutional muster, the very suggestion signifies a concerning authoritarian trend—one which all Americans, not just those with criminal convictions, should watch with vigilance.

---

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Follow reliable legal analysis on developments in criminal justice policy, not just headlines or political statements.
2. Engage with Advocacy: Support organizations working to defend prisoner rights and uphold constitutional protections.
3. Contact Elected Officials: Express your concerns about proposals to export American prisoners and demand respect for judicial rulings and human rights.

---

References

• U.S. Supreme Court – Trop v. Dulles (1958)
• U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: El Salvador 2022
• AP News Story on El Salvador’s Prisons
• Prison Policy Initiative: Prison Conditions and Transfers

---

Final Thought:
Even if the prospect of American citizens being sent to El Salvadoran prisons seems far-fetched, the conversation highlights the fragility of constitutional protections when faced with fear-driven policies. Remaining vigilant, informed, and engaged is essential to safeguarding everyone’s rights.

In the realm of American criminal justice, few topics spur as much contention and curiosity as plea bargaining. Often described as a “necessary evil,” this widespread practice forms the backbone of how most criminal cases are resolved in the United States—yet, it’s routinely misunderstood by the general public and sharply debated by legal professionals, reformers, and everyday citizens caught in its web. Is plea bargaining truly a “bargain” for those accused? Does it uphold or undermine the ideals of justice? And why do the outcomes in similar cases diverge so drastically, varying not only between individuals but across states and jurisdictions?

In this comprehensive article, we dive deep into the nitty-gritty of plea bargaining. Leveraging insights from a detailed conversation between Andy and Larry (hosts of the Registry Matters Podcast), we’ll unpack the realities, misconceptions, and moral conundrums of this pivotal institution. You’ll learn what plea bargaining really is, why it dominates our justice system, how it contributes to massive sentencing disparities, and where both the pitfalls and opportunities for reform lie.

What Is Plea Bargaining, and Is It Really a “Bargain”?

At its core, a plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecution and the defendant. In exchange for pleading guilty to a lesser charge, or only some of the charges, the accused receives a lighter sentence or reduced charges than if they risked a full trial—potentially facing far more severe penalties.

According to Larry, a legal practitioner, plea bargaining—when done as intended—can look like a lifeline for defendants facing overwhelming odds. “People are often facing decades or even life in prison,” he points out. “The plea process reduces their exposure, if it’s done correctly, and provides some level of certainty to the outcome.” The critical caveat is “if it’s done correctly”—an ideal not always met in the real world.

The Stakes: What’s on the Table?

To understand the stakes, consider this: Defendants are regularly charged with multiple counts for a single incident, each carrying hefty potential sentences. Prosecutors often “stack” charges, sometimes threatening cumulative sentences in the hundreds of years. As Larry explains, “If you have 45 counts, each carrying a maximum of ten years and can be stacked consecutively, that’s 450 years in prison. If I can cut that risk down to ten years, it is definitely a bargain.”

The logic is starkly pragmatic: reduce risk, gain predictability, and avoid life-derailing uncertainty. But critics argue this dynamic is ripe for abuse.

The Mechanics of Power: Charging Practices and Leverage

Prosecutorial Power in Charge Stacking

It’s no secret that prosecutors possess significant power to influence plea negotiations. By stacking charges, they can present defendants with a devastating “trial penalty”—the difference between the sentence offered in a plea and the sentence they’d face if convicted at trial. As Andy points out, this can feel coercive, leaving defendants little real choice.

Larry concedes that prosecutors often “embellish” charges, ramping up their negotiating leverage, though he draws the line at outright invention. “If they do [invent charges] and you can prove it, that’s a breach of ethics subject to sanctions,” he says. Still, the reality remains: The system incentivizes guilty pleas, even for individuals who may have credible defenses or have been overcharged.

The Role of Sentencing Guidelines, Community Norms, and Political Climate

In addition to charging strategies, a patchwork of sentencing laws and practices dramatically shapes plea outcomes. Sentencing practices vary not only between states but within them. Larry gives the example of a statutory charge for criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen. A seventeen-year-old who is two days short of adulthood can be charged and sentenced identically to a forty-five-year-old who assaults a much younger child. The statute doesn’t distinguish, despite the radically different facts.

Furthermore, community values color every aspect of the process. A defendant in a rural, conservative district may face far harsher penalties than one in a metropolitan area, even for identical crimes. As Larry observes, “People are different from state to state, and even within the same state.”

Why Do Non-Contact Offenders Sometimes Receive Harsher Penalties Than Violent Offenders?

One of the most controversial disparities in sentencing arises with non-contact offenses, such as child pornography possession. In many instances, non-contact offenders can receive lengthier sentences than those handed to violent or contact offenders. Why?

Larry’s explanation is blunt: “It’s what the people want. The citizenry is frightened by non-contact offenders, and we have made tough laws for those who commit such heinous offenses.” Lengthy, consecutive sentences result when each image or piece of evidence is charged separately. Sometimes, as Andy notes, authorities count individual frames from a single video as separate “images,” rapidly multiplying the counts and potential years of incarceration—leading, in one notorious Texas case, to a 300-year sentence compared to a far shorter term for a homicide.

Societal Fears and Legislative Responses

Public perception, shaped by media coverage and advocacy groups, plays an enormous role. Larry points out that, especially since the advent of the Internet, laws have grown stricter, fueled by a sense of urgency to protect society’s most vulnerable. Scarcity of legislative nuance means statutes often don’t account for level of harm or intent, resulting in harsh, sometimes unjust, outcomes.

State vs. Federal Court: Two Systems, Two Worlds

Federal Courts

Federal courts are widely regarded as more severe in both charging and sentencing. Congress, Larry notes, has all but eliminated parole and sharply restricted “good time” credits, with most federal prisoners serving at least 85% of their sentence. Federal sentencing is determined by a complex grid system that calculates “offense levels” and “criminal history,” piling on “enhancements” (aggravating factors) and rarely offering “reductions.” As a result, federal defendants have less negotiating room in plea bargains—the judge often cannot accept a deal that binds them to a particular sentence.

State Courts

In contrast, state courts have somewhat more flexibility. It’s not uncommon for state plea deals to be more tailored, sometimes specifying exact sentences or ranges, especially in busy, overburdened jurisdictions. However, latitude varies enormously from state to state, sometimes even county to county.

Is There a Folk Solution? Why the System Doesn’t Change

A frequently suggested “fix” is for all defendants to reject plea bargains and demand trials, gumming up the system so thoroughly that reform becomes inevitable. While logically appealing, Larry dismisses this as impossible. “Defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to seek the outcome that’s in the best interest of the client,” not to use cases as sacrificial pawns in the service of systemic change. Further, the American justice system—unlike some collectivist societies—revolves around individual, not collective, interests.

The Power of Political and Public Will

Ultimately, sentencing laws and justice policy reflect the priorities of lawmakers and, by extension, their constituents. According to Larry, most people do pay attention to criminal justice issues, especially around election time, and politicians have long competed to appear “tough on crime.” Efforts at sentencing reform, such as the bipartisan push in Congress in 2016, often wither in the face of political rhetoric and public fear-mongering.

Defending the System—With Reservations

Despite its flaws, Larry professes a degree of faith in the system. The core processes—proof beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, neutrality of judges and juries—remain sound on paper, even though they’re endangered by external pressures. He’s acutely aware, however, that a powerful “victim advocacy industrial complex” wields enormous influence through media, legislation, and fundraising, making reform especially challenging.

When asked how to “claw back” justice from this imbalance, Larry concedes the difficulty: “Victims’ advocates have a lot of organizations. They outmatch our advocacy maybe 20 to one, a hundred to one in terms of fundraising… [and] easy access to the media in a favorable setting. I don’t know how we take away the hijacking because they’re extremely influential through the legislative process.”

---

Key Insights and Takeaways

1. Plea bargaining is the backbone of the American criminal justice system—resolving more than 90% of cases—but often operates in a gray area between justice, efficiency, and coercion.
2. Prosecutors wield enormous leverage through strategic charge stacking and the looming threat of severe sentences, compelling most defendants to take plea deals, sometimes regardless of actual culpability or fairness.
3. Sentencing disparities are systemic, influenced by legislative design, community sentiment, political climate, and technical quirks (like how offenses are charged per “image”), leading to wildly different outcomes for similar conduct.
4. Reform is politically difficult. Public fear and victim advocacy groups exert strong influence, making sentencing policy “tough on crime” and resistant to nuanced change.
5. While the ideals of justice remain intact on paper, their application is threatened by external pressures and a culture that often presumes guilt and favors punishment over rehabilitation or fairness.

---

Actionable Takeaways

• For Concerned Citizens: Stay informed about legislative changes and support organizations advocating for fair, evidence-based sentencing reform.
• For Legal Professionals: Advocate vigorously for clients within the existing framework, but also participate in broader advocacy to educate the public on the realities and ethics of plea bargaining.
• For Policymakers: Engage with diverse stakeholders—including victims, defendants, experts, and the public—to craft nuanced laws that reflect both public safety and proportional justice.

---

Conclusion

Plea bargaining remains an indispensable component of the U.S. criminal justice system, a product of pragmatism, expediency, and the realities of courtroom pressures and limited resources. Yet, its routine practice raises profound moral questions about fairness, equality, and the true nature of justice. As sentencing disparities persist and public trust in the system wavers, the need for thoughtful conversation and structural reform grows ever more urgent. The challenge lies not in dismantling the entire system but in recalibrating its priorities—balancing efficiency with equity, accountability with compassion, and safety with justice.

If you found this analysis helpful, consider listening to the Registry Matters Podcast for more in-depth discussions on criminal justice reform and related topics.

---

Further Reading:
– “Why Plea Bargains Are Even More Unjust Than People Think,” The Atlantic, 2017
– “Sentencing Disparities and the ‘Trial Penalty’,” National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2021
– “The Sentencing Project: The State of Sentencing 2023”

Introduction

When state governments consider changes to the management of people forced to register (PFRs)—often known as sex offender registrants—the implications ripple far beyond the text of a proposed bill. In Maine, Legislative Document 1215 (LD 1215) became a focal point for advocacy, discussion, and concern about local versus state control. While LD 1215 ultimately did not pass, the debate reveals much about the balance of power, the vigilance needed to protect the rights of marginalized groups, and how states approach public safety policy.

In this article, we’ll break down what LD 1215 was, why it generated so much attention, what it says about Maine’s legal structure, and what advocates learned from this legislative episode. Along the way, we’ll touch on comparisons to other states, the importance of state-level preemption, and actionable steps for anyone invested in fair registrant policies.

---

What Is LD 1215? Decoding Legislative Jargon

Understanding the “LD” Designation

Legislative jargon can baffle even invested citizens. In Maine, “LD” stands for “Legislative Document”—essentially, a formal bill or proposal submitted to the state legislature for consideration. While other states use designations like HB (House Bill) or SB (Senate Bill), Maine sticks with LD, emphasizing the document’s role in the legislative process.

Key Point: LD 1215 refers to the 1,215th legislative document introduced in a session—not a cryptic code, but an official designation unique to Maine’s process.

The Purpose of LD 1215

At its core, LD 1215 proposed allowing local governments in Maine to enact their own restrictions and regulations pertaining to individuals required to register under sex offense laws (PFRs). Currently, Maine maintains strict state-level preemption: only the state can set such rules, preventing a patchwork of local ordinances.

Why does this matter? Local control often leads to inconsistent, sometimes more punitive laws, making life unpredictable and challenging for PFRs and complicating enforcement.

---

Advocacy in Action: Community Response to LD 1215

Recognizing the “Sort-of Win”

Andy, a local NARSOL (National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws) contact in Maine, called attention to the proposal, highlighting a not-quite-victory, but a positive outcome: LD 1215 did not pass. The bill’s defeat is a relief for those worried about overreaching local regulations, but as he notes, “it’s definitely a sort of win […] and one worth taking note of.”

Even more remarkable was the active opposition documented in a letter from the Sex Offender Management and Risk Assessment Advisory Commission (SOMRAAC). The committee, led by Kent Avery, openly argued against LD 1215, asserting that it offered no benefits and posed serious risks of confusion and potential unfairness.

The Value of State-Level Preemption

Larry, another advocate and commentator, notes that Maine’s strong state-level control over PFR laws sets an important precedent. Many states, he adds, only established similar preemption after court challenges—not through legislation directly.

Why is this important?
– Consistency: Uniform rules ensure clarity for both registrants and law enforcement.
– Protection: Preventing localities from imposing harsher penalties shields already marginalized populations.
– Responsibility: State preemption centralizes legal responsibility, making advocacy and reform more manageable.

Larry underscores that “for so many states that have all these restrictions, the fact that Maine has a PFR board that advocates against this and is willing to put that in writing […] is fantastic.”

---

Lessons From Other States: The Case of Texas

To better understand the significance of Maine’s approach, Andy and Larry compare it to Texas’s experience—a state where local control has led to a constant push-pull over jurisdiction.

Home Rule vs. State Oversight

Texas permits “Home Rule” for cities over a certain population threshold (historically 5,000), allowing them to enact their own PFR restrictions. However, even in Texas, the tension between state and local authority led to frequent legislative updates, especially following court rulings. As Larry points out, after a pivotal change related to COVID-era legislation, Texas standardized authority, dissolving the exclusive right previously held only by larger cities.

Maine stands out for preserving state control from the outset—a function of legislative action, backed by engaged advocacy.

---

The Crucial Role of Advocacy: “Watching” Is Not Enough

The Need for an Action Plan

Advocacy doesn’t end at monitoring bills—an insight Larry stresses passionately. While volunteers in Maine—and elsewhere—play a vital part by staying informed (“watching”), real impact comes when monitoring is paired with a concrete plan of action.

Questions every advocacy group should consider:
– What steps will we take if a bill gains traction?
– Who will contact legislators?
– Are there prepared statements or testimony?
– What networks can we mobilize?

As Larry puts it: “Watching won’t stop [a bill] from passing if you don’t have a plan. You could just watch the train wreck—or you can try to stop it.”

A Model for Other States

Maine’s advocates, with support from SOMRAAC, moved quickly to organize and voice their opposition to LD 1215. This not only contributed to the proposal’s defeat but also showcased an effective model for others: rapid response, collaboration with official commissions, and ongoing vigilance.

---

What’s Next? The Ongoing Battle Over Local Control

Status of LD 1215

At time of discussion, LD 1215 was considered dead—meaning it was not advancing through the Maine legislature. However, advocates know the issues are perennial; similar bills can reappear, particularly if local officials seek more autonomy in shaping residency or employment rules for PFRs.

Why Local Control Remains Controversial

Allowing local governments to enact their own registrant laws often leads to:
– Legal Confusion: Differing restrictions city by city.
– Unintended Consequences: Registrants may be forced out of housing or employment, heightening instability and risk.
– Possible Constitutional Challenges: Federal courts have sometimes struck down overly punitive local ordinances.

Maintaining centralized, evidence-based policy remains a best practice recommended by legal advocates, social scientists, and organizations like NARSOL.

---

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

For Advocates, Legislators, and Concerned Citizens:

1. Stay Informed, But Prepare Action Plans
   – “Watching” legislative proposals isn’t enough. Design a step-by-step response if problematic bills advance.
2. Champion State-Level Preemption
   – Use Maine as a case study to promote clarity, fairness, and effectiveness in PFR policies across other states.
3. Build Partnerships With Official Commissions
   – Collaborate with advisory boards and experts for powerful joint opposition or support on critical issues.

---

Conclusion

The saga of Maine’s LD 1215 offers more than just a local victory; it’s a lesson on vigilance, effective advocacy, and the potential perils of fragmented public safety laws. Through committed advocacy and clear legal structure, Maine avoided the pitfalls experienced elsewhere—and set a benchmark for sensible, rights-focused policy.

Advocates nationwide can glean lessons from Maine: combine monitoring with action, engage official bodies, and defend sensible, centralized lawmaking. While LD 1215 may be dead, its legacy is a stronger, more connected movement for rational public safety policy.

---

Actionable Takeaways

• Join or support state advocacy groups (like NARSOL) to monitor and respond to bills swiftly.
• Search for and read your state’s legal codes: Know where authority lies—state, local, or a mix.
• Educate your community and legislators about the risks of fragmented local ordinances and the benefits of unified state preemption.

Want to stay updated or get involved? Reach out to local advocacy coalitions, subscribe to legislative alerts, and share credible analysis like this with your network.

Introduction

Navigating the criminal justice system is a daunting task for anyone, especially when the charges are complex and the legal process is anything but transparent. The interplay between law enforcement, prosecutors, and defendants often confounds outsiders and leaves even those directly involved scratching their heads. In a recent listener submission to a legal advice podcast, a South Carolina resident recounted his cousin’s journey through such a convoluted process—a scenario that shines a light on the critical role of procedural clarity, statutory language, and the sometimes blurred lines of accountability among legal actors.

In this in-depth blog post, we dissect the layers of this listener’s story: from misunderstandings about who initiates prosecutions, to how nuanced statutory language can determine guilt or innocence. We will walk through the real-world case, clarify common misconceptions, and highlight takeaways that anyone facing a similar situation—or simply interested in the workings of our justice system—should know. By the end, you’ll better understand the importance of knowing your rights, how statutes are interpreted, and the significance of having a vigilant legal defense.

---

Section 1: The Listener’s Story—A Case Study of Process Confusion

The story kicks off with a common scenario: a listener’s cousin is facing prosecution in South Carolina, with the trial looming just days away. The defense attorney, meanwhile, appears uncertain about whether any actual laws were violated. To further muddy the waters, the state law enforcement division claims reporting wasn’t necessary—despite not being the actual prosecuting agency.

This confusion is far from unique. Many people grapple with similar uncertainties when interacting with the criminal justice system. Is law enforcement responsible for pressing charges, or is it the prosecutors? What obligation do agencies have once an investigation begins? These are questions at the heart of this case—and many others like it.

Key Questions Raised:

• Who actually initiates a criminal case?
• How is statutory ambiguity handled by law enforcement and prosecutors?
• What roles do different agencies play in pushing a prosecution forward?

The podcast hosts provide a candid look at how these processes can play out in practice. Andy, the host, reads the listener’s submission and fumbles to make sense of the process, while Larry, his co-host with legal expertise, cuts to the chase—a situation he finds both amusing and revealing about the justice system’s inner workings.

---

Section 2: Who’s Responsible? The Blame Game in Prosecution

Larry points out a critical observation: law enforcement often distances itself from the prosecution, suggesting that it’s not responsible once a case moves to the prosecutor’s office. In reality, he explains, the process is far more intertwined.

Behind the Scenes:

• Initiation: Law enforcement investigates the case, gathers evidence, and, if they believe a statute has been violated, drafts affidavits and requests for prosecution.
• Handoff: These materials are then passed to the prosecutor’s office, which technically files formal charges.
• Deflection: Should things go awry, law enforcement might imply their hands are clean, blaming the prosecution for any negative outcomes.

Larry illustrates this with an analogy: if someone fails to register with the Police Force Registration (PFR) office, it’s law enforcement that drafts an arrest affidavit and requests a warrant—not the judge, not the prosecutor out of the blue. Yet when the paperwork is complete and a warrant is issued, officials may act as though responsibility lies elsewhere.

Why This Matters:

Understanding this interplay is crucial for defendants and their families. Knowing who actually sets the prosecution process in motion empowers defendants to ask pointed questions and address the right parties. This knowledge can also prevent misunderstandings that may impact the defense strategy.

---

Section 3: Misunderstandings and the Importance of Legal Literacy

Andy, attempting to clarify, wonders aloud if the listener simply doesn’t understand the process. Larry pushes back, suggesting that law enforcement sometimes intentionally obfuscates their role to avoid blame. This recurring theme—passing the buck—creates confusion for defendants and their supporters.

Common Points of Confusion:

• The assumption that only prosecutors are responsible for legal actions
• Underestimating the influence and initiative of law enforcement agencies
• Unclear communication from officials, leading to misinterpretations

This blend of procedural complexity and occasional opacity can leave those entangled in the system feeling powerless and frustrated. Therefore, it is essential to demystify the stages of criminal prosecution, which typically follow this trajectory:

1. Investigation: Conducted by law enforcement, determining whether sufficient evidence exists.
2. Referral: Law enforcement prepares affidavits and requests prosecution from the DA or prosecutor.
3. Charging Decision: Prosecutors review the case and decide whether to proceed.
4. Prosecution: If charges are filed, the case proceeds to arraignment, pre-trial motions, and potentially trial.

By understanding each phase, both defendants and the public can better navigate the system and advocate effectively.

---

Section 4: The Power of Statutory Language—and Finding Loopholes

The case takes a dramatic turn with the judge’s decision. The judge finds the cousin not guilty, citing a lack of evidence that he “owned” the online account in question; the law specifically references the offender’s account, not that of another person.

Legal Nuance in Action:

• Statutory Specificity: The statute required ownership of the account, not mere use.
• Burden of Proof: With no concrete evidence of ownership, the prosecution’s case falls apart.
• Role of the Defense: The defense attorney identifies the absence of this key proof and builds an argument accordingly.

Larry explains this elegantly: The crux wasn’t whether the defendant benefited from the account, but whether he owned it, as per the explicit language of the law. If statutes refer to ownership, and prosecution can’t demonstrate it, a not guilty verdict must follow. Defense attorneys are trained to spot these details, and in this case, it was a game-changer.

Why These Details Matter

This scenario highlights two pivotal legal principles:

• Precision in Statutory Language: Laws mean what they say—no more, no less. Courts cannot convict individuals based on what a statute should have covered, only on what it does.
• Strategic Defense: A vigilant attorney who scrutinizes these details can make all the difference, potentially even securing a complete dismissal of charges.

---

Section 5: Celebrating (and Understanding) Defense Wins

As the story closes, Larry emphasizes his satisfaction with the outcome, irrespective of personal beliefs about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. For defense attorneys, a win is a win—especially when the prosecution falters due to lack of evidence or statutory precision.

Why Defense Victories Matter:

• They uphold the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
• They ensure the prosecution meets its full burden of proof.
• They act as a check on overzealous law enforcement or prosecutorial action.
• They reinforce the necessity of legal accuracy and fairness.

Even seasoned legal professionals like Larry take pride in outcomes where the state’s case collapses under proper scrutiny—a vital part of a balanced justice system.

---

Actionable Takeaways and Next Steps

Whether you’re navigating the criminal justice system yourself, supporting a loved one, or simply aiming to be an informed citizen, here are key lessons you can apply:

1. Learn the Process: Understand each agency’s role in criminal prosecutions to better advocate for your (or your loved one’s) rights.
2. Read the Statute Closely: Statutory language is crucial. Ensure your attorney combs through the law for any defenses or loopholes.
3. Ask Questions: Don’t accept vague answers from law enforcement or prosecutors. Push for clarity on who initiated proceedings and why.
4. Prioritize Legal Representation: Competent legal counsel can spot and leverage critical details that might escape untrained eyes.

---

Conclusion

The criminal justice system is a world of nuance, where procedural details and statutory language can dictate destinies. This real-world South Carolina case powerfully illustrates the importance of diligently unpacking the charge initiation process, demanding precise language adherence, and securing robust legal defense. Whether you find the system’s machinations amusing or frustrating, one thing is certain: understanding the interplay of all actors—and the specifics of the law—can make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Stay informed, stay vigilant, and always insist on clarity.

---

If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges, consult with a qualified defense attorney. Legal outcomes often hinge not just on facts, but on understanding the process and the letter of the law.

Introduction: The Heated Debate Surrounding Cell Phones in Prisons

The use of contraband cell phones in prisons has ignited a fierce debate in recent years, with lawmakers and correctional facilities grappling to address the growing risk these devices pose. Some argue that these phones enable incarcerated individuals to facilitate crimes, threaten public safety, and circumvent traditional prison regulations. Others counter that the exorbitant cost of prison phone calls—which can run as high as $50 per call—leaves prisoners with no alternative but to smuggle in phones to maintain critical contact with loved ones.

Recently, Republican lawmakers, led by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Representative David Kustoff of Tennessee, reintroduced a bill to allow state and federal correctional facilities to use cell phone-jamming technology. The proposed legislation has reignited debates about public safety, the ethics of prison phone costs, and whether such measures truly address the root cause of the issue.

In this blog, we’ll dive into the specifics of the proposal, the controversies surrounding it, the broader implications for prisoners and their families, and the deeper systemic issues that are often ignored in such debates. By the end, you’ll have a clearer understanding of whether this solution tackles the real problems or merely skirts around them.

---

What Is Cell Phone Jamming, and Why Is It Being Proposed?

Cell phone jamming refers to the use of technology that blocks or disrupts wireless communications within a specific area. The goal of the proposed legislation is to prevent incarcerated individuals from using contraband cellphones, which have been linked to criminal activity both inside and outside prison walls.

At a press conference, Senator Cotton emphasized the danger these devices pose, noting that “crimes are planned, facilitated, and ordered by convicted criminals already serving prison sentences.” According to an Urban Institute survey, correctional administrators reported recovering over 25,000 contraband phones across 20 states in 2020 alone—a staggering statistic that highlights the scale of the problem.

Proponents of the measure argue that jamming systems would give correctional facilities a much-needed tool to clamp down on contraband phones and enhance public safety. However, critics raise legitimate concerns about the unintended consequences of such technology. Federal law currently bans the use of cell phone jammers due to their potential to interfere with emergency 911 calls, public communications, and even authorized prison communications.

---

The Hidden Costs of Prison Phone Systems

One glaring omission in discussions about contraband phones is the high cost of prison phone calls, which plays a significant role in the contraband phone epidemic. For incarcerated individuals, staying connected with family and friends is critical for emotional well-being and successful reintegration into society. However, these calls come at a steep price.

In many prisons, making a single phone call can cost upwards of $25 to $50, making it financially prohibitive for many inmates and their families. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has attempted to cap these rates in the past—most notably during the Obama administration when FCC commissioners sought to reduce the financial burden of prison communication rates. However, these efforts were rolled back during the Trump administration under FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who was a former Verizon executive. Critics argue that the reversal of these reforms prioritized corporate profits over basic human rights.

For many prisoners, smuggled cell phones provide a much cheaper alternative to staying in touch with loved ones. While these phones may be considered contraband, they also serve as a lifeline for families torn apart by incarceration. As one observer noted, the narrative seldom highlights the fact that prisoners often resort to cell phones out of necessity rather than malicious intent.

---

Smuggling Contraband Phones: The How and Why

The prevalence of contraband phones in prisons raises an obvious question: how do these devices make it behind bars? According to corrections officials, many contraband phones are smuggled in by prison staff. Staff members may sneak phones into facilities directly or pass them to inmates who work in roles that allow them to leave and re-enter certain areas of the prison.

Another method, albeit uncomfortable to discuss, involves “suitcasing,” where individuals smuggle phones into facilities by concealing them in their bodies. While this method is less common than staff smuggling, it underscores the lengths people will go to ensure access to communication in a system that makes phone calls so costly.

Addressing the supply chain for contraband cell phones is undoubtedly a challenge. However, experts agree that jamming technology alone will not solve the issue. Instead, re-examining the systemic flaws that make contraband phones attractive to inmates in the first place is crucial.

---

Understanding the Broader Implications

While the proposed cell phone-jamming legislation seeks to address immediate safety concerns, its broader implications warrant careful consideration. Critics argue that jamming devices could have serious unintended consequences. For instance:

1. Interference with Emergency Services
   Cell phone jammers disrupt all wireless signals within their range, which could interfere with critical 911 calls. This poses a risk not just to inmates but to everyone in the surrounding area, especially in rural areas where prisons are located near small communities.
2. Impact on Rehabilitation and Family Ties
   Communication with family members plays a vital role in reducing recidivism. Limiting access to communication—either by driving up costs or restricting cell phone usage—could alienate inmates from their loved ones, making reintegration into society even more difficult. Instead of promoting rehabilitation, these measures risk creating a more disconnected and disenfranchised prison population.
3. Costs and Resource Allocation
   Implementing jamming systems would require significant investment in monitoring and maintenance. Critics question whether these funds could be better spent addressing underlying issues, such as reducing phone call costs, improving prison security, or enhancing rehabilitation programs.
4. Erosion of Accountability
   Some argue that introducing jamming technology could embolden prison facilities to continue exploiting incarcerated individuals through overpriced phone systems. Without addressing the root causes of the contraband phone problem, prioritizing jamming technology may only serve as a stopgap measure.

---

A Better Path Forward? A Case for Reform

The cell phone-jamming debate touches on larger issues within the American prison system, including privatization, economic inequality, and over-incarceration. To truly address the issue of contraband phones, a more holistic approach is needed—one that goes beyond technology and tackles the systemic issues at play.

Some potential solutions include:

• Lowering Phone Call Costs: Implementing reasonable caps on prison call rates could reduce the need for contraband phones while maintaining transparency and accountability in the correctional telecommunications industry.
• Investing in Security Measures: Improving staff training and monitoring programs could help deter employees from smuggling contraband into facilities.
• Prioritizing Rehabilitation: Programs that focus on skill-building, education, and family reunification have been shown to reduce recidivism and improve public safety over time.

---

Conclusion: Addressing the Core Issues

The push to jam cell phone signals in prisons is rooted in valid concerns about public safety, but it risks addressing the symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem. The exorbitant costs of prison phone calls, the underinvestment in prison security and rehabilitation, and the lack of systemic reform are issues that must be addressed alongside any efforts to combat contraband phones.

As this issue continues to evolve, it remains vital to strike a balance between ensuring safety, protecting communication rights, and fostering rehabilitation. Without that balance, attempts to clamp down on contraband phones may only exacerbate the deeper flaws in the prison system.

Sweltering temperatures, uncooled prison cells, tragic inmate deaths, and steadfast resistance from lawmakers—these are the hallmarks of a fiery debate that has been heating up in Texas for years. At the center is a federal ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman, who declared that the conditions in unairconditioned Texas prisons are “plainly unconstitutional.” Now, the state’s correctional system and government officials face mounting pressure to address what some are calling a humanitarian crisis. But is relief on the horizon, or will bureaucratic and cultural resistance continue to leave Texas prisoners in dangerous, oppressive heat?

This debate is far more than a question of temperature regulation; it delves into morality, constitutional law, and fiscal responsibility. Let’s unravel the controversy, discuss the stakes involved, and explore the broader implications for prison conditions nationwide.

---

The Legal Landscape: A Groundbreaking Ruling with Lingering Uncertainty

The saga began with a pivotal decision by Judge Robert Pittman, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who stated unequivocally that housing inmates in dangerously hot facilities violated their constitutional rights. Pittman’s 91-page ruling, which highlighted the dangers of excessive heat in Texas prisons, was significant but far from the final word—with the judge declining an immediate mandate to install temporary or permanent air conditioning.

Instead, Pittman announced that the case would likely proceed to a bench trial, leaving the ultimate outcome uncertain. This ruling follows decades of advocacy for better prison conditions and multiple lawsuits asserting that the extreme heat in correctional facilities amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For the plaintiffs, including formerly incarcerated individuals like Marcy Marie Simmons, progress, no matter how incremental, is cause for optimism. Simmons referred to the judge’s ruling as a win, expressing a hope that Texas lawmakers might finally act to fund air conditioning in state prisons. “I cried,” she said, “for my people on the inside.”

Yet, skepticism remains widespread—both inside and outside the courtroom—as many Texas officials and advocates believe the road to reform will be long and contentious.

---

A Deadly Reality: The Heat Crisis in Texas Prisons

The danger of extreme heat in Texas prisons cannot be overstated. With record-breaking temperatures becoming increasingly common due to climate change, the risks to inmates in facilities without air conditioning are mounting. As of 2022, approximately 85,000 inmates in Texas resided in facilities without air conditioning in most living areas. In just the summer of 2022, a Texas Tribune investigation found at least 41 heat-related deaths in uncooled prisons.

These figures add to years of grim statistics. Between 1998 and 2012, at least 23 people died from heat exposure in Texas prisons, with many more suffering severe heat-related illnesses. Advocacy groups argue that these deaths are preventable, often referring to the practice of housing inmates in extreme temperatures as “cooking” them alive.

Texas prisoners are often housed in facilities that can reach oven-like conditions during the summer, with temperatures inside rarely dipping below 100°F (38°C). Autopsies of inmates who died from heat exposure frequently note contributing medical conditions, but even prison officials have admitted that extreme heat exacerbated these deaths. Yet, critics argue that the official narrative often downplays the dangers, attributing tragedies to “underlying conditions.”

---

The Cost of Reform: Funding Crises or Policy Priorities?

Opponents of air conditioning prisons often point to the cost as a reason for inaction. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), retrofitting all prisons across the state with permanent air conditioning would exceed $1.1 billion in upfront costs, with an additional $20 million annually for maintenance and operation.

While these figures are substantial, critics note that Texas had a $32.7 billion budget surplus in 2022—more than enough to cover the cost of installing air conditioning. However, no significant funding was allocated for prison cooling systems during that period. In fact, while the Texas House of Representatives approved $545 million for prison air conditioning, the more conservative state Senate countered with zero funding for such measures.

Advocates argue that this lack of funding isn’t a reflection of financial limitations, but rather political priorities. And they’re not wrong: Texas has consistently resisted efforts to reduce inmate populations, invest in rehabilitation, or improve prison conditions despite repeated legal challenges and media scrutiny. Even when presented with evidence that air-conditioned prisons could mitigate health risks and ultimately save lives, lawmakers have balked, citing cost concerns.

---

Resistance and Controversy: Why Texas Won’t Budge

At its core, the debate over air conditioning in Texas prisons is as much about cultural values and political identity as it is about money. Many Texans—lawmakers and voters alike—bristle at the idea of federal judges or outside advocates dictating how the state should run its correctional facilities. This defiance is part of a broader “Don’t Mess with Texas” ethos that views such mandates as an affront to state sovereignty.

As one commentator put it, “Many Texans are happy to defy an unelected federal judge. Who the hell does he think he is coming in here wearing that black robe to tell us how to run our state?” Such sentiments underscore a widespread belief that prisoners—many of whom are serving time for violent or serious offenses—do not deserve “comforts” like air conditioning.

Others argue that failing to provide humane living conditions stands at odds with constitutional protections. Critics contend that ignoring the health risks of extreme heat while funneling billions into other areas of the budget reveals the state’s indifference to prisoner welfare.

---

Alternative Solutions: Mitigating the Heat Without A/C?

While air conditioning seems the most obvious solution, TDCJ has attempted several stopgap measures to address the heat issue. These include “respite areas,” where inmates can cool off, providing ice and electrolytes, and training correctional officers to recognize signs of heat-related illness. Inmates with medical vulnerabilities linked to heat sensitivity are theoretically given priority placement in air-conditioned cells.

However, these measures come across as half-hearted to many critics. As of August 2023, only 12,000 of the state’s 85,000 inmates housed in scorching conditions had been screened for heat sensitivity. And while TDCJ highlights ongoing efforts to install air conditioning with an $85 million allocation, progress remains slow—with only a fraction of those funds spent so far.

The truth is simple: these interim solutions fail to address the systemic issue. They’re seen as band-aids on a gaping wound, barely scratching the surface of what is needed to ensure the safety and dignity of Texas prisoners.

---

Broader Implications: Extending the Conversation Beyond Texas

The prison heat crisis isn’t unique to Texas. Across the Southern U.S.—states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida—prison systems face similar lawsuits over extreme heat in correctional facilities. The debates often mirror those in Texas, with advocates framing the issue as one of basic human rights, and opponents citing costs, practicality, and “tough-on-crime” policies as reasons not to act.

These cases collectively raise larger questions about prison reform in America. How much weight should we give to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? At what point does the lack of basic accommodations breach constitutional boundaries—and, more importantly, moral ones?

---

The Path Forward: Action is Long Overdue

The heated debate over Texas prisons clearly illustrates the tension between fiscal conservatism, state sovereignty, and human rights. But as temperatures rise alongside inmate death tolls, one fact remains indisputable: change is long overdue. Whether through federal mandates or state-driven reforms, Texas must reckon with its responsibility to provide humane conditions for its incarcerated population. Ignoring the issue, or resorting to stopgap measures, risks not only more lawsuits but also more lives lost.

Key Takeaways:

1. Constitutional Debate: Judge Pittman’s ruling highlights the complexity of applying the Eighth Amendment to modern standards of humane treatment.
2. Policy vs. Priorities: The financial costs of air conditioning are dwarfed by Texas’s budget surplus—a sign that this is more about priorities than money.
3. Larger Implications: The issue in Texas is part of a broader national conversation about prison conditions in the U.S., particularly in the South.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to install air conditioning in Texas prisons—it’s whether we can afford not to.

Introduction:
The legal landscape for those impacted by Michigan’s sex offender registration laws has experienced a tectonic shift thanks to a pivotal class-action case that challenges the constitutionality of the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry Act (SOR). This decision, handed down as part of John Doe et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer et al., wasn’t the product of a dramatic jury trial but rather a summary judgment—essentially a legal decision made based on the presented evidence before the trial stage could even begin. Here’s a deep dive into the major takeaways, what this means for registrants, and what to anticipate in the coming months. If you’ve been affected by SOR laws or are fascinated by how constitutional challenges play out in real-time, this is a groundbreaking case worth following.

---

Summary Judgment: No Trial Necessary—But Why?

Perhaps one of the most interesting elements of the decision is that it was reached via summary judgment rather than a full trial. So what is a summary judgment? Simply put, it’s a court ruling made when there’s no substantial dispute about the facts of the case, allowing legal matters to be resolved without a jury. Here, the District Court in Michigan reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and decided the legal issues were clear-cut enough to rule without the need for testimony or further dispute.

While some, including legal experts like attorney Larry from the prominent Registry Matters discussion on this topic, often critique summary judgments as bypassing vital procedural storytelling, it can simplify cases where the facts are indisputable. In this instance, strong stipulations of fact seemed sufficient for the judge to move forward.

What’s groundbreaking here is not just the decision itself but the clarity it provides on how SOR laws—particularly controversial provisions—measure up to constitutional muster.

---

Key Provisions Declared Unconstitutional

As with many class-action lawsuits of this nature, the plaintiffs in this case raised several specific arguments about why Michigan’s SOR laws overstep legal and constitutional bounds. Below are several critical issues addressed by the court:

1. Ex Post Facto Violations

At the heart of the court’s decision was a ruling that retroactive application of SOR laws imposed unconstitutional punishment. Plaintiffs argued successfully against amendments made to Michigan’s registry law in 2021, which retroactively extended reporting requirements and registration periods. The court determined these provisions violated the “Ex Post Facto Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents after-the-fact punishment.

This ruling calls for the immediate removal of certain registrants who were subjected to retroactive penalties. Within 60 days of the judgment, the state is required to notify affected individuals of their removal—a monumental decision in itself.

2. Severability Challenge

Another critical finding was that unconstitutional portions of the SOR law could not simply be “cut out” while leaving the rest of the law intact. The court ruled that the offending provisions were so integral to the act that a meaningful registry cannot continue to exist without them—leaving Michigan legislators in the precarious position of potentially rebuilding the law from scratch.

3. Registration for Non-Sexual Offenses

Perhaps one of the more head-turning elements of modern registries is the inclusion of individuals who commit crimes that do not have a sexual element—such as kidnapping a minor without sexual intent. The court ruled this practice a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision immediately invalidates the requirement for individuals with non-sexual offenses to appear on the registry without a clear judicial determination that their crimes fit the registry’s purpose.

---

Wins & Losses for Plaintiffs

Not every claim raised in this sweeping case was successful. Some key victories, however, stand out:

• Mandatory Registration Restrictions Upheld as Win: Requirements to list temporary lodging, secondary residences, or email addresses were determined to be vague and unenforceable.
• Non-Michigan Offense Discrimination: The court struck down language treating individuals with non-Michigan convictions more harshly than native Michiganders.

However, not all counts went in favor of the plaintiffs. For instance, claims related to “unequal opportunities to petition for removal” and “registration without individualized reviews” failed to gain traction.

---

Next Steps for Michigan and Registrants

The court allowed a 90-day window before the judgment officially takes effect. This opens the door for Michigan lawmakers to revise the challenged statutes. As Larry from Registry Matters noted, this could easily become a delaying tactic, with the state enacting placeholder provisions to buy time. Historically, similar cases (as in Does v. Snyder, also in Michigan) demonstrate the state’s reluctance to implement changes until every appeal path has been exhausted.

Additionally, an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is almost certain. If the case progresses, it could even attract the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the evolving makeup of the court and growing national interest in the constitutionality of sex offender registries.

---

What Registrants Should Do Now

1. Understand Your Current Standing Under Michigan Law

If you or someone you know falls into one of the overturned categories—such as registrants with non-sexual offenses or retroactively applied penalties—it’s important to consult legal counsel about how the judgment may apply to you.

2. Watch for Legislative Developments

The court left room for Michigan legislators to amend the SOR laws to address their constitutional defects. Advocacy groups and impacted communities should monitor these moves closely to ensure that any revisions comply with the court’s guidance.

3. Prepare for Delay Tactics

As history suggests, states rarely give up on SOR laws without a fight. Registrants should anticipate appeals and consider contributing to legal funds or joining organizations actively involved in litigation and reform efforts.

---

Concluding Reflections

This case represents a massive win for those challenging overly punitive registry laws. The court’s acknowledgment of constitutional overreach underscores the importance of fairness, due process, and individual rights—even when dealing with controversial topics like sex offender registries. However, with likely appeals, potential legislative tweaks, and potential Supreme Court involvement, the fight is far from over.

For now, registrants impacted by Michigan’s current SOR laws can celebrate this symbolic victory while staying vigilant about future developments.

---

Actionable Takeaways:
1. Stay Informed: Keep tabs on updates around appeals and legislative reforms in Michigan.
2. Seek Legal Advice: Individuals impacted by SOR laws should consult experienced attorneys about how this case might alter their status.
3. Advocate for Change: Use this momentum to push for broader reforms in laws affecting registrants throughout the U.S.

This victory might be in Michigan, but its ripple effects could reshape registry practices nationwide.

The legislative session in New Mexico has officially wrapped up, and it was anything but quiet. Over the course of 60 days, a flurry of bills was debated, challenged, and either passed or defeated—all while stirring public discourse around criminal justice reform and public safety. For advocates working to prevent overreach in laws impacting certain populations, this session was particularly momentous, with significant battles fought and, in their eyes, victories achieved.

In this blog post, we’ll break down some of the most hotly contested bills of the session, provide insights into the legislative process, and highlight the broader implications of these decisions. Whether you’re tuning in as a policy enthusiast, legal professional, or advocate for criminal justice reform, this article will deliver both substance and context.

---

How Legislative Sessions Work in New Mexico: A Primer

Before diving into the specific legislative successes and failures, it’s important to understand the mechanics of New Mexico’s legislative process. The state operates on a biennial schedule of alternating 30- and 60-day sessions, with this year being a full-length 60-day term. During this period, proposals must navigate various stages, including committee reviews in both chambers, floor debates, and final votes.

Bills that fail to pass within the session’s time limits are considered “dead,” meaning advocates for or against specific legislation often find themselves racing the clock—a theme that emerged repeatedly this year.

---

Key Legislative Battles: Bills That Shaped the Debate

New Mexico’s 2025 legislative session saw numerous proposals aimed at reshaping criminal justice policy. Here’s a closer look at the most talked-about and controversial bills—and their ultimate fates.

1. House Bill 73: Eliminating the Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Abuse Cases

• Proposal Overview: This bill sought to eliminate the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits in cases of personal injury stemming from childhood sexual abuse. Currently, the statute of limitations hinges on the victim’s age or when the abuse was first disclosed to a medical provider.
• Outcome: Defeated in the Senate. Despite passing the House unanimously, the bill failed to gain traction in the Senate, where it ultimately died.
• Analysis: Advocates argue that removing the statute of limitations would empower survivors to seek justice, even years after the abuse occurred. However, concerns were raised about balancing justice with fairness, particularly for cases relying on decades-old evidence.

2. House Bill 86: Expanding the Definition of Human Trafficking

• Proposal Overview: This bill proposed a broader definition of human trafficking to capture activities indirectly linked to exploitation and abuse.
• Outcome: Defeated in the House Judiciary Committee. It never made it to a full floor vote.
• Why it Matters: According to experts, bills like this can inadvertently cast a too-wide net, penalizing individuals who may not have engaged in trafficking but were loosely associated with its key players.

3. House Bill 87: Clarification of Nonconsensual Touching Laws

• Proposal Overview: This bill aimed to clarify legal definitions and tighten restrictions around nonconsensual physical contact.
• Outcome: Died on the Senate floor calendar. While it made substantial progress, time ran out before the Senate could take a final vote.
• Legislative Process Insight: This bill’s death highlights one of the challenges of the legislative process: A limited session means time management becomes a make-or-break factor for many proposals.

4. House Bill 322: Increasing Penalties for Serious Crimes

• Proposal Overview: In response to concerns about rising crime rates in New Mexico, this bill proposed harsher penalties for specific offenses, including the reinstatement of the death penalty in cases of severe sexual violence and human trafficking.
• Outcome: Killed in its first committee hearing.
• Bigger Picture: Advocates against the bill argued that introducing harsher penalties does little to address root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of educational opportunities. Critics also labeled such measures as overly punitive and misaligned with evidence-based criminal justice reform.

5. House Bill 385: Chemical Castration for Offenders

• Proposal Overview: This highly controversial bill proposed allowing chemical treatment to suppress sexual urges in specific criminal cases.
• Outcome: Dead on arrival. The proposal didn’t even receive a hearing, aligning with predictions that the measure would fail to gain support.
• Public Response: Bills like this often ignite impassioned debate, with supporters describing them as tools for public safety and opponents condemning them as inhumane.

6. Senate Bill 74: Removing Statutes of Limitations for Certain Crimes

• Proposal Overview: Among its provisions, this bill proposed eliminating limitations for prosecuting offenses like human trafficking and expanding definitions of the crime to include terms such as “harboring” or “maintaining.”
• Outcome: Defeated. The bill faced significant criticism for its vagueness and potential to criminalize vague or indirect associations with illegal activity.
• Why Advocates Opposed It: Expanding the definitions of human trafficking and related crimes can create unintended consequences, such as unjustly ensnaring individuals in criminal proceedings based on circumstantial evidence.

---

Advocacy Efforts That Made a Difference

The successful prevention of these bills didn’t happen by chance. According to Larry, a longtime advocate and expert in legislative affairs, victories were a result of collaborative efforts among multiple organizations. Groups such as the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the State Office of the Public Defender contributed data-driven insights to legislative committees, helping decision-makers understand the potential impact of proposed bills.

Larry also emphasizes the importance of presenting compelling, factual data rather than relying purely on emotional appeals. “We come in with reams of recidivism data and cost-analysis reports,” he explained. This approach has proven effective in stark contrast to well-intentioned but less persuasive emotional rhetoric often employed by advocacy groups.

---

Factors Driving Crime in New Mexico

A recurring theme throughout the session was New Mexico’s elevated crime rate. While certain lawmakers advocated for stricter punishments, critics pointed to deeper societal issues as contributing factors:

1. Economic Challenges: High levels of poverty correlate strongly with elevated crime rates.
2. Educational Disparities: Persistent underperformance in education—a ranking near the bottom nationally—limits opportunities for upward mobility.
3. Substance Abuse Rates: New Mexico also struggles with high rates of addiction, particularly alcoholism, further exacerbating criminal behavior.

Understanding these root causes creates opportunities for systemic improvements that go beyond simply increasing penalties or expanding definitions of crime.

---

Concluding Insights

New Mexico’s 2025 legislative session proved to be a significant battleground for those advocating against overly punitive criminal justice measures. By preventing the passage of multiple controversial bills, advocates demonstrated the power of collaboration, data, and strategic legislative engagement.

Key Takeaways for Advocates

1. Timing is Everything: Legislative time constraints can often derail even comprehensive proposals. Effective advocacy means monitoring the calendar closely and strategizing accordingly.
2. Evidence over Emotion: Policymakers are more likely to respond to solid data and reports than solely emotional appeals.
3. Collaboration Works: Success frequently hinges on partnerships between advocacy groups, defense associations, and state-level organizations committed to justice reform.

New Mexico’s legislative process offers a valuable blueprint for advocates nationwide. As emerging challenges and debates around criminal justice continue to evolve, the lessons learned here will undoubtedly resonate beyond state boundaries.

---

For Readers: Are you an advocate working in your state to push for or challenge important legislation? Share your experiences with us in the comments or email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. We’d love to hear what’s happening where you live—and how you’re making change happen.

Introduction
Navigating the world of politics and legislation can feel like venturing into a maze. For individuals and organizations seeking to introduce or influence policy changes, especially in areas as contentious as criminal justice reform or registry-related issues, the challenges can seem insurmountable. How can one gain legislative sponsorship for a bill when the odds are stacked against them? How can you build enough momentum to overcome skepticism and political risk?

Such questions often arise for advocates and reformers, especially in politically polarized environments. In this article, we’ll explore pragmatic strategies to navigate the legislative process, build relationships with key decision-makers, and secure sponsorship for your proposals. By understanding the nuances of political capital, committee structures, and coalition building, you’ll be better equipped to make your voice heard—even in the most challenging of circumstances.

Is It Just Coincidence, or Can Advocacy Really Make a Difference?

One common question posed to political advocates is whether their actions truly influence legislative outcomes, or if success is purely coincidental—a result of timing or external factors. Answering this question requires an honest assessment of both advocacy strategies and the broader political environment.

Take, for example, legislative battles in New Mexico where a slate of contested bills failed to pass. These were not mere accidents. According to Larry, a political advocate heavily involved in the process, success often results from a combination of strategic efforts and the environment created by informed legislators.

While advocates like Larry work to cultivate relationships and educate lawmakers, the presence of intelligent legislators willing to thoroughly scrutinize proposals also plays a vital role. “We don’t take credit for all the failure to pass bad bills,” Larry explains, “but we had a hand in it.” This collaborative effort highlights an important takeaway: policy successes rarely result from individual efforts alone. Advocacy matters, but it must work in tandem with allies—whether they are other advocacy groups, defense associations, or policymakers themselves.

The Biggest Obstacle: Gaining a Legislator’s Support

For those seeking legislative sponsorship for a bill—especially one aimed at criminal justice reform or registry-related goals—the challenges can appear daunting. Politicians are inherently risk-averse, particularly when engaging with polarizing topics. A Reddit user’s inquiry about gaining legislative sponsorship in Arizona starkly emphasized the difficulty: how do you convince lawmakers to support a cause that’s politically sensitive or unpopular?

Larry’s answer sheds light on the process. He emphasizes the importance of understanding what a legislator can do and tailoring your approach accordingly.

Decoding Political Capital

Political capital—the influence a legislator holds based on their tenure, election record, and position—is a critical concept for advocates to grasp. A legislator with years of experience and a history of landslide victories has significantly more latitude to support controversial issues than a freshman lawmaker barely scraping by in tight races.

“Find out how long they’ve been in office and what their electoral margins are,” Larry advises. “If they’re winning by 50.5% to 49.5%, they don’t have any political capital. They can’t do anything for you.”

By contrast, a veteran legislator who has served multiple terms without facing a challenger—and won by comfortable margins—can represent a golden opportunity. These lawmakers have the political leverage to take risks and lead on controversial initiatives without fearing for their electoral future.

Identify the Right Committees

Another factor determining a legislator’s ability to champion your cause is their committee assignments. If your issue ties into criminal justice, targeting legislators on judiciary committees is far more productive than approaching someone on committees unrelated to your cause (such as agriculture or transportation).

That said, a legislator not currently serving on a relevant committee can still be a valuable ally. “A 22-year veteran who hasn’t had an opponent in multiple election cycles may not serve on the judiciary committee,” Larry notes, “but trust me, they know someone who does.” Such legislators can open doors—either by influencing others or securing sponsorship from someone with the right jurisdiction.

Building Coalitions: The Power of Strength in Numbers

Advocacy is rarely a solo endeavor, and successful initiatives depend on mobilizing support among multiple stakeholders. One key stumbling block for advocates is addressing lawmakers’ inevitable question: “How much support do you have for this bill?”

Without an existing coalition or backing from other groups, persuading a legislator to champion your cause is an uphill battle. As Larry points out, no seasoned politician wants to sponsor a bill with no visible public or institutional support—especially if the issue carries political risks.

To avoid this pitfall:
1. Do the Groundwork: Before approaching lawmakers, engage with community members, advocacy groups, and other organizations that align with your cause. Their support will serve as valuable evidence of a burgeoning campaign.
2. Focus on Networking: Broaden your reach by meeting with legislators, their staffers, and other elected officials. Highlight initial signs of support to build momentum.
3. Develop a Strategy of Appeal: If direct and visible legislative support is limited, frame your pitches to highlight indirect support. For instance, some legislators may opt to cosponsor rather than lead a bill but can contribute to its legitimacy.

By presenting yourself as a credible advocate with a coalition of support, you can mitigate the political risk individual lawmakers might perceive in endorsing your proposal.

Navigating Partisan Politics

Advocacy strategies often differ depending on local political dynamics. In states dominated by a single party—like Alabama and Mississippi—it’s typically unproductive to approach legislators from the minority party. Conversely, in more balanced states like Minnesota or Arizona, there may be a broader range of lawmakers willing to engage.

In red-dominated states:
– Focus efforts on moderate or influential members of the majority party.
– Use shared values or common goals to establish rapport before broaching contentious topics.

In purple or evenly balanced states:
– Seek bipartisan sponsorship when possible—this signals broader support and reduces the risk of partisan backlash.
– Tailor messaging to address both progressive and conservative concerns, creating a narrative that appeals across party lines.

Practical Takeaways for Advocacy

Navigating legislative sponsorship requires persistence, strategy, and foresight. As you set out to advocate for your policy goals, consider the following actionable tips:

1. Research Lawmakers Thoroughly: Understand their political capital, committee assignments, voting records, and electoral history before making your pitch.
2. Build Relationships First: Advocacy is relational. Before asking for sponsorship, spend time building rapport and demonstrating your understanding of their priorities.
3. Leverage Established Support: Strengthen your case by showcasing endorsements or support from other groups, community leaders, or constituents.
4. Strategize Committee Engagements: If a legislator isn’t directly connected to your issue, identify their connections to relevant committees or use them as intermediaries to reach others.
5. Adapt to Local Politics: Tailor your approach to fit the political realities of your state or district, avoiding wasted efforts in unproductive areas.

Conclusion

Securing legislative sponsorship for a bill is no small feat—especially when your issue is politically sensitive or controversial. But as Larry’s insights reveal, success lies in strategy, research, and relationship-building. By understanding the playing field, using political capital wisely, and mobilizing coalitions of support, advocates can navigate around obstacles and create meaningful change.

Advocacy isn’t just a matter of chance; it’s about careful planning and relentless perseverance. With the right approach, even the toughest legislative battles can be won.

In a world increasingly influenced by legal interpretations—whether it’s a breaking Supreme Court decision or the implications of recently passed legislation—having an opinion about the law has never been more relevant. Yet, for many, expressing legal opinions without holding an official attorney’s license can prompt an onslaught of criticism. Some argue that only licensed practitioners are “qualified” to talk about the law, while others emphasize the democratic right to free speech and the importance of accessible legal discourse.

This brings us to a debate that’s both timely and nuanced: What are the boundaries for non-lawyers when it comes to offering legal commentary? More importantly, are accusations of “stay in your lane” really valid in this context?

In this article, we’ll break down the nuances of expressing legal opinions as a non-lawyer, discuss the ethical and professional concerns surrounding such statements, and explore how our society balances free speech with professional expertise. Whether you’re someone dabbling in legal analysis or an audience member curious about the authority behind certain legal opinions, this article will provide clarity and much-needed perspective.

---

Why Are Legal Opinions So Controversial?

Legal analysis isn’t solely reserved for courtrooms or academic spaces—it infiltrates our daily lives in the form of news coverage, blog posts, and social media commentary. But what happens when someone not formally trained in law wades into such discussions? This is where the controversy begins.

On one hand, any discussion of legal concepts—whether from professional journalists, activists, or ordinary citizens—has value in fostering public understanding of issues that often seem opaque. On the other hand, critics argue that unqualified individuals may unintentionally mislead others, especially when analysis crosses the line into giving perceived legal advice.

Protecting Professional Turf Versus Informed Discourse

As Larry, an experienced contributor to legal discussions, astutely points out, many licensed professions (including law) zealously guard their turf. It’s a natural defensive mechanism. After all, professions requiring licenses—whether engineers, doctors, or lawyers—exist in part to uphold standards and ensure public safety.

However, there is an important distinction between having a personal opinion and providing formal advice or guidance. In legal contexts, this distinction becomes exceptionally critical, as misinterpreting the law can lead to serious consequences.

“We are allowed to have an opinion about the law, but the opinion is confined to our personal perspective,” Larry clarifies. “I cannot advise you on what to do legally, but I can say, ‘If it were me, I wouldn’t do X because it might result in Y.’”

The takeaway here is that while the law should not be “gatekept” to the extent that everyday citizens are discouraged from discussing or critiquing its implications, there’s a fine line between public discourse and professional overstep.

---

The Rights and Limits of Free Speech

As both hosts correctly highlight, free speech is a cornerstone of civil liberties in the United States. Citizens not only have the right to express opinions on a variety of subjects but are also encouraged to have these conversations in order to foster civic participation. So where does free speech end and unauthorized legal advice begin?

Non-lawyers aren’t barred from interpreting legal decisions, offering critiques of judicial processes, or engaging with others about potential outcomes. This is, in fact, how much of the public stays educated on unfolding legal matters. Many non-lawyer journalists, activists, and commentators help bridge the gap between complex legal jargon and an audience that lacks formal education in law.

Still, free speech does not grant impunity. The distinction lies in whether someone crosses into giving actual legal advice or guidance—an action restricted to licensed attorneys within their jurisdictions. Giving legal advice could push unlicensed individuals into dangerous territory, leading to accusations of practicing law without proper authorization.

Larry shares a practical example: “You can tell someone it’s probably not a good idea to mix NyQuil with another drug. That’s sharing information, not advice. Similarly, sharing your opinion about a court decision is fine. But advising someone on what precise steps to take within the legal system? That’s overstepping.”

---

Nuances in Professional Authority

Andy introduces an interesting dynamic: Many professionals who comment on legal matters in the media, such as legal analysts or judicial reporters, hold law degrees but are not necessarily practicing attorneys. However, these professionals don’t deliver hard-and-fast legal “advice;” instead, they offer educated insights based on their knowledge.

From a viewer’s perspective, that raises an important question: Do credentials matter if someone is offering relevant, intelligible insights rather than direct advice? To some extent, yes. Expertise and training can add credibility to someone’s interpretation of a legal event or ruling. Yet, opinions from non-lawyers or even those without formal legal education shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand—especially if backed up by thoughtful research and analysis.

Larry adds nuance to this, noting that state-specific laws also shape the boundaries of what licensed and unlicensed individuals can and cannot say. For example, some jurisdictions may take a stricter stance on restricting legal commentary, while others offer a more relaxed approach.

---

Why the Fear of Overreach?

Often, accusations of overreach come down to misunderstanding the difference between law-related commentary and legal advice. This misunderstanding may even stem from some people erring on the side of caution, interpreting legal speech restrictions as more restrictive than they actually are.

Take, for instance, the case Andy presents where a critic snaps back with, “What’s your bar number?” whenever someone offers a legal opinion. Such lines of questioning, while intended to uphold accountability, may instead intimidate everyday citizens from participating in important legal discussions.

As Larry points out, maintaining a clear line between opinion and advice is crucial both for ethical and professional reasons. But there’s no need for law to feel like a sacred object only accessible to licensed experts. On the contrary, public discourse improves when individuals engage meaningfully with laws that affect them and their communities.

---

Three Key Takeaways for Contributors of Legal Dialogue

If you’re interested in participating in legal discussions but want to avoid ethical or professional pitfalls, here are three steps to consider:

1. Clearly State When You’re Sharing Personal Opinions
   Avoid language that suggests you’re providing explicit instructions or formal recommendations. Phrases like “In my opinion” or “If it were me” help demonstrate that you’re speaking personally rather than authoritatively.

2. Back Up Your Position With Facts or Sources
   When expressing opinions about laws, rulings, or legislation, cite reputable sources. Bring in court cases, publicly available statutes, or professional commentary to support your position. This adds credibility and ensures your interpretation is rooted in fact.

3. Know Your Limits and Redirect When Necessary
   If you find yourself tempted to provide guidance that crosses into legal advice, stop and redirect any questions to a lawyer or appropriate professional. Transparency about your own limitations builds trust.

---

A Balanced Perspective

The debate over who “can” and “should” talk about legal matters boils down to balance. Individuals must exercise care to avoid presenting their opinions as formal advice, while critics should avoid policing conversations unnecessarily. After all, it is through open, informed dialogue that we collectively learn, question, and hold institutions accountable.

As Larry wryly observes, “We’re still in The United States, and for now, we have the right to express our opinions.” Let this serve as both a reminder and encouragement to engage thoughtfully in ongoing legal debates—mindful of the boundaries but never afraid to explore new perspectives.

---

Closing Thoughts: The conversation around legal commentary from non-lawyers is about more than qualifications; it’s about fostering trust, clarity, and a well-informed public. By navigating these conversations with nuance, we can promote legal literacy for everyone—whether or not they hold a bar number.

Introduction: The Complexity Surrounding Pennsylvania’s Recent Court Ruling

In a case that has sparked intense debate, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled on the appeal of Joseph Davis, a man convicted of distributing child pornography and using a communications facility for criminal activity. While cases involving such subject matter are inherently sensitive and controversial, the crux of the issue lies in Davis’s contention that his mandatory life sentence without parole violates constitutional protections.

Davis’s case underlines the intersection of recidivism, sentencing laws, and constitutional challenges, sparking critical questions: How does society strike a balance between punishment and justice? Are mandatory life sentences proportional when applied to non-violent offenders? This article dives into the case, the arguments raised, and the court’s reasoning, providing a thorough and insightful exploration of the legal and moral dilemmas surrounding the ruling.

---

Understanding the Background of Joseph Davis’s Case

Joseph Davis has a long history of convictions for offenses related to child pornography, dating back to the 1980s. His recent charges stem from incidents in 2014 and 2015, when investigations conducted by Pennsylvania’s Office of the Attorney General uncovered his continued involvement in distributing explicit material online. Despite a prior conviction in 1987 and another in 1991, Davis returned to similar behavior decades later, causing investigators to deem him a high-risk habitual offender.

When law enforcement searched Davis’s residence in 2014, Davis was found to be the sole user of his computer. Investigators obtained substantial evidence linking him to the distribution of illegal material. To complicate matters, a second investigation in 2015, while his initial case was still pending, revealed more of the same conduct. Davis openly admitted his past convictions to authorities but failed to grasp the severity of his situation, even making statements reflecting a lack of remorse and a belief that his actions should not be illegal.

After his conviction, the Commonwealth sought two concurrent mandatory lifetime sentences under Pennsylvania’s recidivist statutes—legislation designed to incapacitate repeat offenders.

---

The Legal Challenge: Proportionality and Cruel & Unusual Punishment

On appeal, Davis made a central argument: The mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon him were unconstitutional. He cited both the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution’s equivalent provisions against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Specifically, Davis contended that his punishment was disproportionate to his crimes, as his offenses did not involve violence, physical contact, or the creation of illegal material.

Davis raised several key points in his appeal:

1. Non-Violence and Context: Davis argued that his crimes, though undeniably serious, were non-violent. He maintained that he did not produce child pornography, meet with minors, or engage in violent behavior. His actions were confined to digital possession and distribution.
2. Time Gap: His previous convictions occurred decades ago, in 1987 and 1991, with no intervening offenses until his arrest in 2014.
3. Disproportionate Sentencing: Davis highlighted discrepancies between his lifetime sentence and Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines for similar offenses, which would have resulted in a far shorter prison term (36 to 48 months for each count, according to the standard range). He also noted that crimes like third-degree murder result in significantly lighter sentences than his own.

Davis sought to advance a precedent set by Solem v. Helm (1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a life sentence imposed on a defendant with a history of minor, non-violent offenses. However, the Pennsylvania court ultimately rejected Davis’s arguments.

---

The Court’s Rationale: Why Davis’s Appeal Was Denied

The Pennsylvania Superior Court relied on several factors in upholding Davis’s life sentence. At the heart of its decision was Davis’s recidivism and his apparent disregard for the law. Here’s how the court addressed the core issues:

1. Grave Nature of the Offense:
   – Although Davis’s crimes were non-violent, the court emphasized the serious harm caused by possession and distribution of child pornography. Such activities perpetuate the sexual exploitation of children by creating ongoing demand for such material.
2. Legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s Recidivism Statute:
   – Pennsylvania law stipulates that individuals convicted of three enumerated sexual offenses, arising from separate incidents, face mandatory life imprisonment. Davis’s convictions in 1987, 1991, and the recent two incidents (2014 and 2015) clearly met the statutory criteria.
   – Unlike in Solem v. Helm, Davis’s series of crimes were interconnected and reinforced his status as a repeat offender, leaving the court to conclude that incapacitating him was in the public interest.
3. Proportionality and Federal Precedents:
   – The court rejected Davis’s argument that his lifetime sentence violates the principle of proportionality embedded in the Eighth Amendment. It cited Ewing v. California (2003), which upheld a recidivist “three strikes” law imposing a harsh sentence (25-to-life) even on a less serious third offense.
   – The court deemed Davis’s sentence consistent with Pennsylvania’s legislative goals of incapacitation and deterrence. His lack of remorse and continued engagement in the crime further solidified the appropriateness of the punishment.

---

Balancing Justice and the Constitution: A Broader Look at Recidivism Laws

1. Are Mandatory Sentences Fair?

Critics of mandatory minimums argue that they remove judicial discretion, potentially resulting in unfairly severe penalties. In cases like Davis’s, some may feel a distinction should be made between violent offenders and those involved in less direct harm. However, proponents argue that habitual offenders like Davis demonstrate a chronic inability to abide by laws and thus justify strong, consistent penalties.

2. The Role of the Judiciary: Legislating from the Bench?

Davis’s appeal can be viewed as a request for judicial activism—asking a court to limit the application of a law in a way that the legislature had not intended. Pennsylvania’s sentencing framework reflects the collective will of lawmakers and the public. The court’s refusal to deem the statute unconstitutional demonstrates deference to the state’s legislative authority.

---

Key Takeaways and Lessons from the Case of Joseph Davis

1. Recidivism Laws Can Be Unforgiving:
   – Pennsylvania’s three-strike statute harshly penalizes repeat offenders, even for non-violent crimes. The rationale is simple: offenders who repeatedly commit serious crimes pose a greater risk to public safety.
2. Constitutional Challenges to Mandatory Sentences are Rarely Successful:
   – Courts presume the constitutionality of state laws, and challenges based on proportionality or fairness have a high bar to clear.
3. Serious Crimes, Serious Consequences:
   – Davis’s long history of possessing and distributing illegal materials shaped the court’s ruling. Despite the non-violent nature of his crimes, his lack of remorse and repeated offenses led to an outcome many might consider unsurprising.

---

Conclusion: A Case of Strict Justice

Joseph Davis’s case exemplifies the strength of Pennsylvania’s stance on habitual offenders, particularly when it comes to crimes of a sexual nature. While opinions may vary on the fairness of the law’s application in this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding legislative intent.

For advocates of reform, the case raises broader questions about the effectiveness of harsh sentencing laws. Do such penalties lower recidivism rates, or do they reflect a rigid punitive approach? For now, Davis’s case serves as a sobering reminder of the long-term consequences of criminal acts—and the unyielding nature of laws designed to protect society’s most vulnerable.

The American judiciary system, a foundational aspect of the country’s democracy, is currently amidst a heated debate surrounding the potential expansion of the federal judiciary. As significant changes loom, understanding the nuances of this proposal becomes critical for every citizen aware of their rights and the complexities of the legal system. This blog post will delve deep into the implications of adding new federal judgeships, the underlying politics at play, and the consequences such changes could have on caseloads and legal proceedings across the nation.

Context: Why Judiciary Expansion Matters

The proposed legislation, which aims to add dozens of new federal judges to courts nationwide, has reignited a longstanding conversation regarding the efficacy and reliability of the American judicial system. With an already existing backlog of more than 700,000 pending cases, the call for more judges has been echoed by legal experts and representatives from various states. The need for responsive judicial services isn’t merely a matter of political posturing; it directly impacts citizens seeking timely justice, whether through civil complaints, criminal cases, or constitutional challenges.

Yet, the bill’s introduction has also sparked controversy, particularly surrounding claims of partisan motivations. Democrats have criticized the initiative, suggesting it serves as a guise for appointing judges loyal to former President Donald Trump. This position raises essential questions about the intersection of law, politics, and judicial ethics. As we dissect the proposal’s ramifications, we will explore both sides of the argument and provide insights into what this may mean for justice seekers across America.

The Proposal: Overview of the Judges Act

The Judges Act aims to address the judicial understaffing by proposing an expansion of the federal judiciary through the addition of more than sixty judgeships across a dozen states. This measure was initially presented as a bipartisan solution to the growing workload facing current judges. According to representatives from both parties, the act was crafted in alignment with recommendations from the U.S. Judicial Conference in 2023, which highlighted the pressing need for additional judicial manpower.

Notably, the suggested approach to staggering judicial appointments over a twelve-year period would ensure that various presidential administrations have the opportunity to influence the makeup of the federal judiciary indirectly. However, despite its initial bipartisan support, the act underwent significant transformations as partisan tensions resurfaced.

The Partisan Shift: From Bipartisan Support to Disagreement

Initially, the Judges Act was lauded for its bipartisan appeal; however, as the political landscape shifted, resistance arose. Representative Hank Johnson underscored the increasing skepticism surrounding the bill, arguing that Republican motivations were more about solidifying a legacy tied to the former president rather than genuinely addressing judicial needs. Democrats contend that the timing of the bill’s consideration—post the 2024 election—reflects an opportunistic approach rather than a sincere commitment to mitigating judicial delays.

Conversely, GOP members staunchly defend the measure, asserting that apportioning judges across various administrations would not undermine the judicial branch’s integrity. They argue that the delays in discussing the act stemmed from a busy legislative agenda rather than deliberate political obstruction.

The Backlog: A Crisis of Justice

The implications of an understaffed judiciary are dire. Current estimates suggest a case backlog of over 700,000 cases, significantly impeding the judicial process. Cases languish for years, giving birth to a host of frustrations for litigants, ranging from increased legal expenses to prolonged detentions for defendants awaiting trial. The concept of justice, fundamentally tied to timely resolution, becomes distorted when courts are unable to manage their workloads efficiently.

Judge Timkovich from the 10th Circuit highlighted that such delays compel some litigants to forgo federal court altogether, opting instead for state courts or deciding against litigation to avoid the drawn-out process. The ramifications of this trend are substantial, as choosing to sidestep federal jurisdiction can unavoidably deny parties the legal advantages that federal court typically affords—such as the potential for recovering attorney’s fees in civil rights cases.

Political Motivations and Concerns

One of the most contentious aspects of the current legislative proposal involves allegations of motivations rooted in political maneuvering rather than the pragmatic need for judicial expansion. While GOP lawmakers argue that the expansion would serve both parties over the long term, critics question whether the current push is merely a tactic to amplify Republican influence in the judiciary.

President Biden’s veto of the previous version of the Judges Act in December signifies a critical juncture in the debate. The administration pointed to unresolved key issues about allocating judgeships and alleged that the concern for alleviating judicial caseloads was secondary to political considerations. This introduces an essential layer to the ongoing dialogue: to what extent is political ideology influencing what should be a fundamentally impartial legal system?

The Importance of Judicial Integrity

The integrity of the judicial branch and its appearance of impartiality is vital to maintaining public trust in the legal system. Any perception that judicial appointments are being orchestrated for political gains can erode confidence in judicial decisions. Ensuring fair and unbiased judicial processes must remain paramount, regardless of the political landscape.

Furthermore, the encroachment of politics within judicial appointments calls into question how court decisions may be influenced by the ideology of those appointed. This can lead to inconsistency in rulings that ought to adhere strictly to the law rather than prevailing political sentiments.

A Path Forward: Bridging Bipartisanship and Judicial Needs

As the discussion over the federal judiciary expansion continues, finding common ground will be essential. Potential partnerships between Democratic and Republican lawmakers could facilitate a balanced approach that genuinely addresses the complexities of judicial understaffing while minimizing partisan influences.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Keep abreast of discussions surrounding the Judges Act and any repercussions it may have on the judicial process in your locality.
2. Engage Politically: Contact your representatives to express your views on the legislation and its potential impact on the justice system.
3. Advocate for Reform: Support initiatives that promote fair and transparent judicial processes to ensure that the integrity of the judiciary remains intact.

Conclusion: The Future of the Federal Judiciary

The proposed expansion of the federal judiciary presents a critical opportunity to address long-standing issues surrounding judicial overload. However, the substantial partisan discord reveals the complexities that make genuine reform challenging. As debates continue, it is imperative for citizens to remain engaged, advocating for a judiciary that prioritizes impartiality and upholds the principles of justice without partisan interference. The evolution of this dialogue will shape not only the judicial system but, ultimately, the fabric of democracy itself.

The complexities of legal systems often point towards the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights. One recent pivotal ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court involving the case of State vs. Jason Bryant McSwain underscores this contention, particularly concerning the rights of those on the sex offender registry. This blog post delves into the nuances of the ruling, analyzing the new tiered classification system of the South Carolina Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), its implications on the lives of individuals classified as Peeping Tom or PFR (Persons Found Registered), and the broader discussions surrounding judicial processes and legislative intent.

The Context: Background on SORA

The South Carolina Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) has undergone significant revisions in recent years, particularly after a 2021 court decision known as Powell vs. Keel, which identified critical flaws in the previous lifetime registration requirements enforced on individuals convicted of sex crimes.

To briefly summarize, up until the 2022 amendments, SORA mandated lifetime registration for all sex offenders without offering them a chance for judicial review of their risk of reoffending. This requirement had raised substantial constitutional questions, particularly concerning the rights of those individuals and their ability to reintegrate into society. The court’s ruling in Powell vs. Keel emphasized the necessity for a more nuanced approach to registration, ultimately leading to the creation of a new tiered system.

The New Tiered System: An Overview

In 2022, the South Carolina General Assembly reformed SORA, establishing a tiered classification system aimed at categorizing offenders based on the severity of their crimes. This system includes:

• Tier 1: For individuals convicted of relatively less serious offenses, allowing for the possibility of removal from the registry after 15 years.
• Tier 2: For those with more severe convictions, who must register for a minimum of 25 years before becoming eligible for removal.
• Tier 3: The most serious offenders, who must wait a groundbreaking 30 years and bear the burden of proof to demonstrate they no longer pose a risk to society.

While the new classification aims to alleviate the rigidity of lifetime registration, it also brings forth debates about its fairness, especially regarding the lengthy mandatory waiting periods.

The Case of Jason Bryant McSwain: Facts and Legal Arguments

Jason McSwain is a former teacher who pleaded guilty to serious charges, including criminal sexual conduct with a minor. Under the tier system, McSwain was classified as a Tier 2 offender, which required that he remain on the register for a minimum of 25 years before applying for removal. However, his appeal for early dismissal was denied because he had only been on the registry for approximately 19 years.

McSwain’s legal team contended that the tiered system was arbitrary and violated his substantive due process rights by imposing mandatory waiting periods without the opportunity for a judicial review of his risk of reoffending. His argument relied heavily on the premise that people in his position should have individualized assessments rather than be subjected to rigid categorical classifications.

Judicial Review and Legislative Intent: A Complicated Relationship

The South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling highlighted several critical points. The court ruled against McSwain’s arguments, affirming the constitutionality of the new tiered system. In their analysis, they mentioned that the General Assembly’s decisions regarding the classification and the length of time required for registration were well within their legislative powers. The court emphasized the need for caution; they detailed how, despite appearances, the tier system did better align with public safety goals than the previous lifetime requirement.

The ruling also addressed the burden of proof needed to prove loss of status. Unlike Tier 1 and 2 offenders, who the law states do not need to prove they are a low risk for reoffending to be removed from the registry, Tier 3 offenders must provide clear and convincing evidence of their reformed status, making it significantly more difficult for them to navigate the legal landscape.

The Court’s Stance: Presumption of Constitutionality

Another cornerstone of the court’s analysis was the presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislative acts. As stated in their ruling, the court maintains a reluctance to overturn statutes enacted by the legislature unless there is a clear and undeniable constitutional violation. This presumption places a heavy burden on those challenging the provisions of such legislation to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its inadequacies.

In this context, McSwain’s arguments lacked the necessary evidentiary support to illustrate that the tiered system posed substantial constitutional issues, thereby meeting the threshold defined by the court.

Potential Implications for PFRs

The ruling sets a precedent for how future cases involving PFRs will be handled in South Carolina, especially concerning the classification and removal processes associated with SORA. While the tiered system aims to create a more flexible framework than the previous law, critics argue that it still lacks adequate individualized due process, particularly for those who may have demonstrated significant growth and rehabilitation over time.

Moreover, the requirement for Tier 3 offenders to wait 30 years and prove they do not pose a risk to society raises questions about the fairness of such conditions. For many, this creates a seemingly insurmountable barrier to reintegration, leading to continued stigmatization and isolation.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

1. Awareness and Advocacy: Individuals affected by the PFR registration laws should be aware of their rights and the legal landscape. Engaging with advocacy groups can provide crucial support and guidance.

2. Potential for Reform: Continuous review and reform of registration laws may be necessary to ensure that they adequately balance public safety with the rights of individuals, particularly regarding rehabilitation and reintegration.

3. Legal Counsel Consultation: Those seeking relief or facing legal consequences under SORA should consult knowledgeable legal counsel who can navigate the complexities of the law and provide tailored advice for their specific circumstances.

Conclusion: Navigating Complex Terrain

The State vs. McSwain case illuminates the intricate dynamics at play in sex offender registration laws, particularly the impact of legislative changes on individual rights. It underscores the need for a thoughtful review of how laws are constructed and enforced, ensuring they align with the principles of justice and due process. As the legal landscape evolves, both lawmakers and the judiciary must continue to consider the nuances of individual circumstances, striking a balance that prioritizes community safety while respecting the dignity and humanity of all individuals.

In the world of criminal justice, the complexities of legal processes can lead to significant ramifications for individuals, particularly those labeled as sexual offenders. A recent case in Illinois, Illinois Voices for Reform and Joshua Hale Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated Plaintiffs versus Brendan Kelly in His Official Capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, has shed light on an urgent and contentious issue: the lack of an effective process for correcting erroneous information on the Illinois Sexual Offender Registry. This legal battle raises critical questions about due process rights and the responsibilities of state agencies to maintain accurate public records.

In this article, we will delve into the pivotal aspects of the case, examine the implications for registrants like Joshua Hale, and analyze whether the claims of procedural due process hold up against the scrutiny of both the law and public sentiment. Readers will come away with a deeper understanding of the legal landscape surrounding registries and the vital importance of safeguarding individuals’ rights to accurate representation.

Understanding the Case

The case originated when plaintiff Joshua Hale, a resident of Aurora, Illinois, claimed that the Illinois State Police (ISP) failed to implement an effective process for registrants to correct erroneous information on their registry. According to Hale, his record inaccurately depicted him as a lifetime registrant, while, by law, he was only required to register for ten years. This mislabeling not only constitutes a legal error but also has dire consequences for Hale’s personal safety and public reputation.

The Allegations

The crux of the case lies in the assertion that the ISP’s failure to create a robust mechanism for correcting these errors violates Hale’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically the guarantee of procedural due process. The complaint highlights that individuals labeled inaccurately on the registry face substantial harm with no remedy available when they endeavor to rectify these mistakes.

For example, a registrant misidentified as a “bad PFR” may be subject to severe social stigma and possibly violence, exacerbated by the public nature of the registry. Similarly, the case implies that incorrect registration periods can lead to unjust penalties, with individuals facing charges for failing to comply with registration requirements that may not even apply to them.

The Legal Landscape

Jurisdictional Considerations

One of the core legal questions arising from this case is whether federal courts have jurisdiction to mandate improvements to a state-run registry. This question touches upon a broader debate regarding the role of federal courts in state matters. Proponents argue that when state actions infringe upon constitutional rights, federal intervention is not just warranted but necessary to protect those rights.

Conversely, some argue that states have authority over their own registries, which were implemented to secure federal funding but tailored to the states’ specifications. This creates a nuanced debate around state rights versus individual rights, particularly regarding public safety policies.

The Question of Due Process

A pivotal aspect of the discussion centers on whether individuals on the registry possess a right to due process concerning the accuracy of their information. While Hale and his co-plaintiffs contend that due process applies, the legal landscape is ambiguous. Some regions, like New Mexico, provide a limited form of due process for registrants, but it appears Illinois has not established a similar precedent.

The Implications for Registrants

The Risk of Inaccurate Information

The repercussions of remaining on the registry past one’s legal registration period are significant. In Hale’s case, being falsely categorized impacts not only his legal standing but also exposes him to potential physical danger. The mislabeling could lead to lethal encounters, given the charged public sentiment regarding sexual offenses.

Moreover, the binding constraints placed on individuals labeled as “bad PFRs”—such as restrictions on where they can be present within public spaces—compound the difficulties they face when seeking employment, housing, and community reintegration. The importance of accurate information cannot be overstated; it is inherently tied to the quality of life and safety for registrants.

Seeking Remedies

The plaintiffs are pursuing class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, aiming to compel the ISP to implement effective error correction processes. However, as discussed by legal analysts, the current complaint may be challenging to advance—especially if the underlying constitutional claims are not robust enough to support federal jurisdiction.

Alternative Legal Strategies

As commentators suggest, a declaratory judgment might provide a more appropriate avenue for addressing these grievances. Such a ruling would clarify the legality of current registration processes and the responsibilities of state police, potentially impacting all registrants’ handling across Illinois. However, navigating these legal waters requires both clarity in the law and support from advocacy organizations.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The ongoing case of Illinois Voices for Reform and Joshua Hale serves as a crucial juncture in the exploration of due process rights for registrants. While it raises essential questions about the accuracy of public records and the responsibilities of governmental bodies, it also highlights the potential fallout for individuals who find themselves unfairly categorized.

As the discussions evolve around legal representation, due process, and public safety, it is essential that any changes in policy consider the human stories behind the legalities. Individuals, especially vulnerable members of society, deserve to have their rights protected and their voices heard amidst the clamor of legal proceedings.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Educate Yourself on Registry Laws: Understanding the specifics of local registry laws can empower individuals to advocate for their rights more effectively.

2. Support Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on reforming registry laws play a vital role in protecting rights for registrants. Providing support via donations or volunteer work can help promote necessary changes.

3. Engage in Community Dialogue: Open discussions about registry issues can reduce stigma and encourage community support for individuals affected by inaccurate designations.

The complexities of the legal system should not overshadow the fundamental rights of individuals to be accurately represented and treated fairly under the law. Time will tell if the courts deliver justice for those affected by administrative shortcomings, but the case is an essential call to action for reform and reformists alike.

In recent times, legislation surrounding residency restrictions for individuals labeled as Person’s Found Responsible (PFRs) has attracted considerable attention, particularly in the context of community safety and individual rights. A noteworthy case in this realm is Donaldson v. City of El Reno, recently adjudicated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This case emerged from complex legal arguments that challenge the constitutionality of retroactive residency restrictions. In this article, we delve into the essentials of the ruling, the implications for PFRs, and the broader legal principles at stake.

Context of the Case

At the center of Donaldson v. City of El Reno is Kelly Patrick Donaldson, a man with a criminal past related to a sexual offense against a minor. After serving a portion of his prison sentence, Donaldson found himself subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), as mandated by Oklahoma law. The pivotal issue in Donaldson’s case arose when, after expressing interest in a new residence, he was informed by the El Reno Police Department that he could not live within 2,000 feet of a city park—an amendment made to SORA after his conviction.

This residency restriction, enacted long after Donaldson’s crime, raised significant legal questions about ex post facto laws, which prohibit retroactively imposing restrictions or increasing punishment for past acts.

The Legal Framework

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision revolved around the interpretation of the ex post facto clause found in both the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. This clause safeguards individuals from laws that criminalize actions that were legal at the time they were performed. The court had to assess whether the residency restrictions imposed on Donaldson could be deemed punitive in nature and, therefore, unconstitutional under the ex post facto provision.

Key Arguments Presented

Donaldson’s defense argued that when he was convicted in 2005, the prevailing law did not include any residency restrictions related to parks. Consequently, the application of 2019 amendments retroactively would violate the ex post facto clause. His position leaned heavily on a previous ruling—Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections—which found the effects of SORA registrations punitive.

Conversely, the City of El Reno contended that the residency restrictions were civil and non-punitive, thus not subject to the ex post facto analysis. The city’s stance was that the amendments to the law were regulatory measures designed to enhance community safety, specifically to prevent PFRs from residing near areas frequented by children.

Supreme Court Findings

After extensive oral arguments and deliberation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against Donaldson, concluding that the 2019 residency restrictions did not retroactively increase his punishment. The court held the following:

• Jurisdictional Intent: The legislature clearly intended for the amendments to apply to all PFRs regardless of when they were convicted, thus applying them retroactively.
• Nature of the Restrictions: The residency restrictions were deemed civil regulations designed to promote public safety rather than punitive measures. This classification allowed the restrictions to remain in effect without violating constitutional protections.

Evaluation of Punitive Effects

The court applied the intent-effects test, established in prior case law, to assess the legislative intent behind residency restrictions concerning their punitive nature. Under this test, several factors were considered:

1. Affirmative Disability or Restraint: While the restrictions imposed a significant limit on where Donaldson could live, the court found these limitations did not reach the degree of incarceration or banishment that is typically associated with criminal punishment.

2. Historical Perspective: The court determined that residency restrictions had not historically been viewed as punishment. Instead, they were aligned with legislative duties for community protection.

3. Purpose of Restrictions: The court reiterated that the primary goal of these laws is to protect the public, especially children, from potential reoffending.

Ultimately, the court concluded that while residency restrictions limit individual freedom regarding housing choices, this limitation does not equate to punitive punishment in the legal sense.

Implications and Significance

The Implications of this ruling extend beyond Donaldson’s case. It underscores a significant trend in legal practices regarding PFRs as states increasingly pursue safety measures that can be enforced regardless of when the initial offense occurred. This ruling has critical ramifications for individuals labeled as PFRs who may face mounting restrictions as laws adjust—questioning the balance between community safety and individual rights.

Moving forward

For individuals grappling with similar issues, the ruling emphasizes the need for strategic legal representation capable of navigating the nuances of statutory language and constitutional protections. As this case demonstrates, presenting substantial evidence to support claims of punitive treatment or restrictions is crucial.

Actions for Stakeholders

• Awareness and Education: Legal teams and advocacy groups should work to educate PFRs and their families about their rights and responsibilities under the current laws and potential repercussions of recent rulings.
• Evidential Support: When challenging residency restrictions, presenting solid evidence that demonstrates their impact can make a compelling case in future proceedings.
• Civic Engagement: Advocates for those affected by such laws should continue engaging in dialogue with lawmakers to find a balance between public safety and civil rights.

Conclusion

In Donaldson v. City of El Reno, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reinforced the prevailing legal framework regarding residency restrictions for PFRs. Despite the outcome that didn’t favor Donaldson, the case raises essential discussions about the legislation’s implications for individual rights and community safety. For those affected by such laws, understanding these dynamics and the legal implications of recent rulings is vital for navigating this complex landscape.

By examining this ruling, we can gain insights into the broader legal environment shaping the lives of PFRs and continue advocating for fair treatment while supporting community safety initiatives. As we advance, it will be crucial to stay attuned to changes in legislation, judicial interpretations, and the ongoing dialogue surrounding the rights of those designated as PFRs.

Navigating the legal landscape can be downright daunting for many individuals. With complex terminologies, intricate processes, and a myriad of regulations, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. In a recent discussion among seasoned legal professionals, Chance provided insightful clarifications that emphasized the importance of understanding legal concepts for both laypeople and those working within the system. This article aims to break down those insights into digestible pieces, helping readers grasp essential legal knowledge and the best practices for seeking assistance.

The Importance of Clarity in Legal Matters

In a world where laws govern interactions, disputes, and personal affairs, having clarity is vital. Chance aptly illustrated this sentiment by highlighting how certain legal matters can seem “clear as mud.” This phrase encapsulates the confusion many people face when confronted with legal issues or terms. Not only does this ambiguity lead to misunderstandings, but it can also result in significant problems if left unaddressed.

To combat this confusion, discussions around legal topics can provide much-needed insights. Engaging in conversations with professionals who can break down these complex concepts is paramount. That’s where experts like Chance come into play, acting as bridges to understanding.

Why Professional Guidance is Essential

As Larry pointed out during the discussion, if even seasoned individuals struggle to understand certain legal situations, newcomers or those facing such issues for the first time surely will. Here are a few key reasons why reaching out for professional assistance is not just beneficial, but often necessary:

• Expert Knowledge: Legal professionals have the education and experience to navigate the intricate details of the law. They can offer accurate advice tailored to individual circumstances.
• Stress Reduction: Legal matters can be stressful. Knowing that a knowledgeable person is guiding you through the process can alleviate some of that burden.
• Informed Decisions: Professionals provide clarity, enabling clients to make informed decisions rather than guessing their way through legal complexities.

Reaching Out for Help

When faced with uncertainty, it can be challenging to know where to turn for help. Chance encouraged listeners to reach out directly and not hesitate to ask for clarification. His open invitation to call him underscores the importance of accessibility in legal advice.

If you find yourself tangled in legal questions, here are some steps you can take:

1. Identify the Right Contact: As Chance mentioned, calling a specific number for legal assistance can put you in touch with someone who can clarify your situation. For instance, feel free to contact Chance directly at (949) 365-5842 if you’re looking for guidance.
2. Prepare Questions: Before making a call, write down specific questions or points of confusion you have. This will help the conversation be more productive.
3. Don’t Be Shy: Many people hesitate to ask questions out of fear of appearing uninformed. Remember, lawyers and legal professionals are accustomed to addressing your concerns—no question is too small.

Ending the Conversation: A Call to Action

As the discussion concluded, both Chance and Larry highlighted the importance of continued dialogue and learning. Just as they shared their insights, readers should also strive to engage with the legal community and seek clarification on challenging topics.

Key Takeaways:

• Seek Professional Help: Don’t hesitate to call a legal professional when in doubt. Having an expert on hand can make all the difference.
• Prepare for Your Consultations: A list of questions can maximize the efficiency of your discussions with legal experts.
• Stay Informed: Engaging with ongoing conversations around legal matters can help demystify the law and empower you in your interactions.

In summary, while the legal system can often feel overwhelming, proactive engagement, clear communication, and a willingness to ask questions can significantly ease the navigation of legal challenges. Remember, no one is alone in their quest for understanding; the resources and professionals are available and ready to help.

The criminal justice system in the United States is a complex web of laws, regulations, and societal norms that affect countless lives. As discussions evolve around various elements of this system, one area that remains particularly controversial is the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. Advocates for reform, like Brian—who has spent over two decades grappling with the implications of his own classification as a “person facing registration” (PFR)—are raising their voices. Brian’s relentless pursuit of legislative changes aims to establish a more equitable system that recognizes the nuances of individual cases rather than painting all offenses with a broad brush.

In this blog, we’ll delve into Brian’s journey as a PFR advocate and explore the potent implications surrounding mandatory minimum sentences. We’ll analyze their effectiveness in deterring crime, discuss the broader impacts of incarceration, and suggest steps towards a more humane approach to criminal justice reform.

The Challenge of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences impose a fixed minimum incarceration period for specific offenses, leaving judges powerless to consider unique circumstances of individual cases. While proponents argue that such laws create consistency and deter crime, the reality is more complicated. Brian’s recent advocacy efforts focus on House Bill 25-1073, targeting mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offenses against children. Such legislation threatens to escalate the severity of penalties without addressing the core issues of crime prevention and community safety.

The Expense of Incarceration

The financial burden of mass incarceration is substantial. In states like Colorado, it costs approximately $40,000 per year to house a single inmate—a figure compounded when mandatory minimums lead to longer sentences. With state budgets increasingly constrained, as Brian notes, pushing for laws that aggravate state expenses could result in critical losses in funding for schools, rehabilitation programs, and victim services.

1. Cost-Brain Drain: The methamphetamine of the justice system, growing prison populations sap valuable resources. The diversion of taxpayer money to adhere to punitive laws raises the question: Shouldn’t we instead invest in preventative measures and services that address the root causes of crime?

2. Opportunity Costs: Extended terms in prison not only drain funds but prevent individuals from reintegrating into society, thereby reducing their prospects for employment and rehabilitation. Brian himself notes how he benefited from being outside the prison system, emphasizing that productive engagement within the community is essential for personal growth and transformation.

Empirical Evidence Against Deterrence

Research consistently challenges the deterrent value of mandatory minimum sentences. Studies conducted by the National Research Council and legal scholars such as Eric Luna demonstrate that these kinds of sentences do not serve their intended purpose. Many offenders do not contemplate potential sentencing outcomes when choosing to commit a crime, rendering such laws ineffective. In fact, they may lead to harsher offenses as defendants face a lose-lose situation and the realities of prison sentences.

Amplifying Voices for Reform

While facing these systemic issues, Brian emphasizes the importance of organizing and advocating for change. Over the years, he has cultivated relationships with local legislators—an essential strategy that many advocates may overlook in their quest for reform. Building such connections allows for more productive discussions and a chance to emphasize that many criminal offenses are not black-and-white, but rather, deeply nuanced.

The Power of Coalitions

Brian’s work underscores the importance of creating coalitions and enlisting partners with different skill sets. The more hands involved in advocacy, the lighter the load. Each additional person can provide unique insights and leverage connections that can further amplify the movement’s message.

1. Building Bridges: Like Brian, individuals seeking change can strengthen political ties through personal engagement, contributing to campaigns, and being present at events. A strong network bolsters advocacy efforts and allows for developing deep relationships with representatives.

2. Strategic Communication: As Brian has learned, systematically framing discussions around cost and preventative tactics rather than punitive measures can resonate more with some lawmakers. Emphasizing financial implications, alongside advocacy for rehabilitation, builds a compelling narrative that can sway legislative minds.

Addressing the Underrepresented Voices

Brian’s commitment to highlighting the less visible consequences of incarceration—including the indirect impacts on families and communities—is crucial. The emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on families with incarcerated members often goes unnoticed. Policies that force long sentences without judicial discretion may leave children without parents, leading to a cycle of poverty and trauma that society must bear.

Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Minimums

The rigidity of mandatory minimum sentencing can inadvertently encourage defendants to reject plea deals and push for trials, resulting in longer case backlogs and increased court costs. By altering how we approach sentencing, lawmakers can help alleviate pressure from overcrowded court systems while promoting more tailored justice outcomes.

Moving Towards Reform: Practical Steps

For those like Brian and others aiming to dismantle ineffective punitive systems, advocating for change requires persistence and strategic planning. Here are actionable takeaways to facilitate the reform movement:

1. Educate and Engage: Inform constituencies about the financial stability offered through justice reform and the societal benefits of compassionate legislation.

2. Leverage Evidence: Use researched data to counteract misconceptions about crime rates and recidivism. Directly challenge the narratives reinforcing punitive measures that fail to deter criminal behavior.

3. Foster Community Awareness: Tap into local community events to hold informative gatherings where discussions around criminal justice can take place. Engaging the community at large builds a collective voice that can be heard in legislative halls.

Conclusion

Brian’s story illustrates the challenges and complexities of navigating the criminal justice landscape while advocating for reforms that might seem daunting. The fight against mandatory minimum sentencing is emblematic of a broader discussion around legality, morality, and the best paths to justice. This battle is necessary not only for those directly affected by these laws but for the social fabric of our communities, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

As advocates continue to rally for evidence-based reforms, it’s essential to remember that lasting change requires determination, education, and resilience. Together, through shared passions and collective action, we can reach a more just society—one that places value on understanding, growth, and community.

Advocacy is a vital force for change, particularly for individuals facing significant societal challenges like those affected by the registry. Engaging in advocacy can take many forms, whether it involves direct action, financial support, or simply raising awareness about critical issues. This blog post will explore these avenues in-depth, providing you with insights and actionable strategies to help support the advocacy movement effectively.

Understanding the Challenges of the Registry

To grasp the crucial role of advocacy in this context, we first need to understand the multifaceted challenges faced by individuals on the registry. Many of these challenges are akin to mounting disabilities that stem from the restrictions imposed by the registry system. Individuals often experience severe limitations—not only on their freedoms but also regarding employment opportunities, housing stability, and social interactions.

The Restrictions Weigh Heavily

Larry, an informed advocate, highlights the far-reaching implications of being on the registry. Individuals often grapple with limitations that prevent them from living fulfilling lives—these pressures can be overwhelming. For example, many lives are “doxed” online, exposing personal information that brings undue scrutiny and can lead to harassment. Such public exposure goes beyond the constraints of one’s conviction, greatly complicating the possibility of leading a normal, successful life.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: A Lens for Understanding

In navigating the complexities of the registry, it’s helpful to apply psychological frameworks, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This model illustrates that basic needs—like safety and psychological well-being—are foundational. Individuals facing these hardships often prioritize the daily elements of survival, leaving little room for advocacy work. The stark reality is that without addressing these underlying needs, effective advocacy can become an uphill battle.

The Two Prerequisites for Advocacy: Time and Money

Andy identifies two critical components for successful advocacy efforts: time and money. These resources are often in short supply for those who are most affected by registry restrictions.

The Dichotomy of Resources

There exists a disparity among those affected; some may have the financial means to fund change efforts yet lack the time to engage directly. In contrast, others may possess ample time but hardly any monetary resources. This dichotomy generates an important tension within advocacy groups. For example, a person may want to fight against registry restrictions but feel overwhelmed by their precarious living situation. Conversely, individuals with stability and resources may not fully grasp the urgency of these struggles.

Mobilizing Support: A Call for Action

Advocacy efforts can benefit from individuals recognizing their strengths—whether they be financial resources or available time. Larry emphasizes that constituents can contribute meaningfully to advocacy movements, helping those who may not be able to engage directly. Support could include drafting informative updates, mobilizing funds for campaigns, or contacting legislators on specific issues.

Practical Steps for Advocacy Engagement

For readers interested in getting involved, this section outlines actionable steps you can take, whether you have time, money, or both to contribute to the movement.

1. Stay Informed

An advocate’s first step is staying up-to-date with legislative changes affecting the registry. Many states have organizations that closely monitor these developments. Dedicate time to reviewing legislative materials and spotlighting bills that may negatively affect those on the registry.

2. Communication with Lawmakers

Engaging with your local representatives can be incredibly impactful. You don’t have to reveal your status on the registry to effectively communicate your concerns. Prepare to explain why certain legislation could be damaging and advocate for policies that promote fairness and understanding.

3. Support Organizations and Candidates Financially

Even modest contributions can significantly impact advocacy organizations that work on behalf of those affected by the registry. For state candidates, a contribution of a few hundred dollars can elevate you in their eyes, granting you access to the political process. Consider pooling resources with others in your community to maximize impact.

4. Volunteer Your Time

If you cannot financially support advocacy efforts, there are numerous ways to volunteer your time:

• Phone Banking: Making calls to mobilize support for advocacy efforts can help raise awareness.
• Literature Drops: Delivering leaflets that promote alternative narratives about registry-related issues is a great way to connect with the community and increase visibility leading up to elections.
• Attend Meetings: Engaging in discussions at local advocacy meetings can provide valuable insights and allow for networking opportunities.

Navigating Challenges to Find Your Role

While engaging in advocacy, individuals may encounter challenges such as fear of exposure or uncertainties about their ability to contribute meaningfully. Here are some tips to navigate these hurdles:

Creating Safe Spaces for Advocacy

It’s crucial to establish supportive environments where individuals can share their experiences without fear of stigma. Online forums, private groups, and community meetings can offer safe spaces for discussions, enabling individuals to connect, learn, and organize.

Leveraging Relationships

Utilize existing networks to talk about causes that matter to you. Personal connections can yield significant influence, potentially leading to more engagement within legislative bodies and community outreach.

Concluding Thoughts: Every Action Counts

Advocacy for those affected by the registry is complex but not insurmountable. By employing strategies rooted in understanding the unique struggles faced by individuals, supporters can make a real difference. Whether you have time, money, or a combination of both, your contributions are vital to promoting change at multiple levels.

Actionable Takeaways:

• Educate Yourself: Keep up with local and national issues.
• Engage Wisely: Use your resources effectively, whether through financial support or direct advocacy efforts.
• Build Community: Connect with other advocates to amplify your efforts.

Together, through committed advocacy, we can notionally erase the stigmas of the registry and work toward a more inclusive society. Each step—big or small—can catalyze change in the lives of those who need it most.

Introduction

In recent years, the topic of post-sentencing monitoring in the United States has garnered significant attention, particularly as it relates to civil liberties and individual rights. One notable case currently under scrutiny involves Missouri’s unique approach to lifetime monitoring via GPS tracking, which has raised critical questions about due process and privacy rights. In this blog post, inspired by discussions from a recent podcast episode, we will delve into the implications of such monitoring systems, particularly as they relate to a recent legal challenge in Missouri. Through exploring real-life narratives and the complexities of the law, we aim to provide clarity on this often-contentious topic.

Readers can expect to learn about the nature of Missouri’s GPS monitoring program, how it aligns with constitutional rights, and the potential implications of the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision on individuals subjected to these monitoring systems. By the end of this article, you will have a deeper understanding of the legal, ethical, and personal dimensions surrounding lifetime monitoring programs.

The Context of Missouri’s GPS Monitoring System

In Missouri, as in several other states, individuals convicted of certain crimes are subjected to perpetual GPS tracking even after they have served their sentences. This policy stems from a lifetime monitoring program that categorically applies to specific felony charges, regardless of an individual’s risk assessment or behavior post-conviction.

A poignant narrative from an active podcast listener—who, after a two-year imprisonment, has picked up the thread of these conversations—highlights the human element at stake. The listener expressed deep appreciation for the podcast’s content, which has helped them process their own experiences while serving a three-year sentence for a relatively low-level felony. Moreover, they shared insights about the case currently before the Missouri Supreme Court, which challenges the constitutionality of this lifetime monitoring requirement.

The Underlying Legal Concern

At the heart of the listener’s concern is the distinction between risk-based monitoring and blanket surveillance. In Missouri, individuals can find themselves subjected to lifetime GPS monitoring based solely on their guilty pleas, such as in the case of a Class E felony, defined as the lowest felony classification in the state’s legal system.

As highlighted in the podcast, the pertinent legal argument revolves around whether such categorical applications of tracking devices infringe upon constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court’s previous rulings on similar issues, especially in landmark cases involving GPS tracking, may hold vital precedential significance as the Missouri Supreme Court deliberates.

Exploring the Implications of Lifetime Monitoring

Consider the implications of having GPS monitoring applied without individual assessments. The podcast hosts discussed how this practice effectively imposes a perpetual search warrant on individuals based solely on their past infractions.

The Potential for Unconstitutional Practices

Larry, one of the podcast hosts, articulates the concern that such blanket policies could lead to a systemic violation of civil rights. He draws parallels to earlier Supreme Court cases where the court ruled that invasive tracking—like placing a GPS device on a vehicle—required a justified basis. If Missouri allows indefinite monitoring without tailored evaluations, it raises profound questions about fairness and the principles of justice.

Moreover, the listener’s experience emphasizes the lack of informed consent regarding the collateral consequences of a guilty plea. It was only after the fact that they learned about the lifetime GPS monitoring—raising ethical questions about legal representation and the responsibility of attorneys to ensure clients understand all potential outcomes of their pleas.

Key Perspectives on Monitoring

In discussing these issues, it is essential to examine the differing perspectives from legal experts and the broader community. While some may argue that lifetime monitoring serves as a deterrent and a means of enhancing public safety, others contend that its effectiveness is unsubstantiated and that it punishes individuals long after they have served their sentences.

These discussions take on added importance considering how technological advancements in tracking devices have evolved. The potential for misuse and overreach has prompted advocates for reform to challenge existing practices that may disproportionately impact marginalized communities already under strain from systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system.

What Makes a GPS Monitoring Program Sustainable?

To be effective and just, any system of monitoring needs to incorporate a principle of individualized assessment based on risk. The podcast highlights that blanket applications fail to account for varying levels of threat posed by individuals based on their specific circumstances and rehabilitation progress.

Necessary Reforms

There are several actionable steps that can be taken to reform monitoring practices:

1. Risk Assessments: Implement rigorous assessments to evaluate the risk levels of individuals before imposing lifetime monitoring conditions.

2. Periodic Reviews: Establish a system of regular reviews to reassess monitoring requirements based on behavior, rehabilitation efforts, and contribution to the community.

3. Clear Legal Framework: Create a transparent legal framework that clarifies the criteria for implementing and lifting monitoring conditions to protect individual rights.

Mitigating the impacts of unjust monitoring is vital not only for the individuals directly affected but for the integrity of the justice system as a whole.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding lifetime GPS tracking in Missouri exemplifies the larger conversation about redemption, individual rights, and the potential for systemic reform within the criminal justice system. The potential outcomes of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling could set significant precedents impacting how monitoring practices are executed across the nation.

As we reflect on the personal stories of those affected, like the listener from the podcast, it becomes clear that the implications of policy decisions extend beyond legal theories—they resonate deeply within families, communities, and the fabric of society.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Engage with ongoing discussions around criminal justice reform to understand how policies may affect you or your community.

2. Advocate for Change: Support initiatives aimed at reforming monitoring practices to ensure fairness and justice in the system.

3. Explore Rights: Familiarize yourself with your rights concerning legal representation and understand the implications of legal decisions that could affect your future.

By advocating for thoughtful reforms in monitoring systems, we can aspire to build a justice system that not only holds individuals accountable but also respects their dignity and rights as they reintegrate into society.

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from f y p studios East and West and a little bit more West and then Ultra West. Transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 331 of registry matters. Good evening, Larry and Chance. Larry, how are you?

Larry: I’m doing okay. Now, who is the, Moore West? Is it me or the special guest? Oh, no. You’re just west. And then I think,
Andy: Isn’t Colorado like Denver? Isn’t it like almost straight north of you?
Larry: I was gonna say, I think we’re almost about the same meridian. Okay. And then obviously all the way West.
Andy: I mean, almost in the Ocean West, almost in the Pacific Ocean West. That would be the more West.

[00:56] Chance: Right.

[00:59] Andy: Please do us the biggest of favors and please head over. And if if you can’t do anything, write a review, five star review. You could then go to YouTube, like, subscribe, thumbs up, notify, whatever those things are. And, so, yeah. Then, Larry, what are we doing tonight?

[01:19] Larry: Well, we have a special guest from Colorado. Super secret. I don’t know how he’ll be introduced, but right now, a super secret guest from Colorado.

[01:30] Andy: I introduced him to like, to the, to the Discord servers. Like, Hey, I got a super secret guest. And everyone’s chiming and saying, Oh, oh, oh, who is it? I just did it as a way to, like, entice people to show up.

[01:44] Larry: Well, he will be discussing legislation and possibly asking me a few questions about the process. And Chance is with us with a California court order. He has a case to discuss. I have no idea what it’s about. And we have a comment from one of our supporters. And, I think you had a question for me before we got to the segment.

[02:07] Andy: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. I do. Well, I mean, yeah, I hadn’t oh, I guess I see. So, if you don’t mind though, Larry, before we do get started, I have a question for you. And, here.

[02:20] Unnamed Senator: How much longer are you planning to stay?

[02:23] Louis DeJoy: A long time. Get used to me.

[02:27] Andy: Why are we playing that?

[02:29] Larry: There’s a certain irony on that. That’s postmaster Louis DeJoy. And when the Biden administration took over, that was a question posed to him. They mistakenly thought he was a political appointee and that he was a holdover. And he is not. He’s appointed by the postal board of governors, which is a bipartisan commission. So, they tried to run him out. They stacked the board of governors with Biden’s appointees and they still couldn’t run him out. So, the irony is he’s back. So, I’m gonna try to stay as long as he stays. So that’s my goal. As long as he stays, I’m staying.

[03:06] Andy: I see. Okay then. Chance, how are you tonight? I’m good. I’m good. Thanks for asking. Of course. Anything inspiring to share before we go on?

[03:20] Chance: Oh, no. Just, you know, just happy to be here. And, you know, 331. Unbelievable.

[03:28] Andy: Yep. 331. Larry, let’s go over to this question. I think I just forwarded this to you like an hour ago, didn’t I? Isn’t this the one that I just sent over a couple hours ago? Yes. More just a comment. But yes, it was just sent to me and I thought it was

[03:43] Larry: so touching that I wanted to play it. Plus, it’s got content that we’ll be getting to when this decision comes from the Missouri Supreme Colette.

[03:51] Andy: Well, fabulous. It says, dear Andy and dear Larry, and then I’ll throw in dear chance, a little note to say how much your podcast is appreciated. As an active listener while under investigation for two years, but missed out while I was locked up from September 2022 to, 2024. So he’s just locked up for about two years, on a three year sentence. Needless to say, I’m catching up after two years. So he’s got, like, a hundred episodes to listen to. I also wanted to send an article about something going on in here in Missouri that affects me and many others. Forgive me if, you’ve already covered this. There is a challenge to Missouri’s PFR GPS lifetime monitoring that was argued before the Missouri Supreme Court on December fourth of twenty twenty four. Missouri’s stand alone program of lifetime post sentence monitoring is not based on risk, but only on whatever statute you plead guilty to. In my case, a class e felony, which is the lowest in Missouri, during an undercover law enforcement sting operation. I was uninformed about this collateral consequence by my attorney at the time, so I currently have retained counsel to help me with this matter while we await the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. I’ve attached to this email a link to the news article and also the appellate’s brief in the case as argued by two very experienced appellate attorneys. Also, if you need any sort of remote administrative assistance, transcription work, or anything, please let me know. I’m very experienced administer with fifteen years of professional career behind me at the age of 44 years old. I currently maintain my own little business as proofreader to court reporters here in Saint Louis, Missouri and other clients around the country while they work toward being a what? What is a scopist?

[05:32] Larry: What is a scopist? Larry? I’m gonna have to let the brilliant attorney. I have no idea.

[05:39] Chance: I have no idea what the world is. I

[05:44] Andy: know what a stenographer is, but what is a scopist? Okay. I have no idea. Someone please help me out with this word because I have no idea what a scopist is. Being a scopist. Okay. Anyhoo. Alright. Keep up the amazing work. Wow. Scopist. I’m gonna go ahead, Larry. I would imagine that based on the word that it’s you look at what the stenographers did,

[06:04] Larry: under the scope. But, so to speak. That’s what I’m guessing. But I’ve never heard that before, to my recollection.

[06:11] Chance: Maybe it’s just an, proofreader.

[06:14] Andy: It’s, Ascopis is a comprehensive, multi disciplinary, and trusted source of scholarly literature data and analytics. It offers powerful search tools, author profiles, metrics, and AI powered features to enhance research and scholarship. That’s what Google says. What? Never heard this.

[06:32] Larry: Well, I am glad to know about this case because I didn’t haven’t heard about it. But I’ll say this. Based on my reading of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Grady, I believe that was the name of it out in North Carolina, I believe that the Supreme Court’s made it clear in that, I think it was all non unanimous. I think it was, Burke. But anyway, that was a strong decision. That when they attach that device to a person, it is searching and seizing. And therefore, to our Constitution, search and seizure requires an individualized determination. So therefore, since he says that this is a categorical application, I believe that if the Missouri Supreme Court doesn’t find this to be unconstitutional, this is subject matter and right to go to U. S. Supreme Court.

[07:26] Andy: I mean, how similar would you say this is to, God, what was it like, the mid-2000s where the Supreme Court heard a case where a police would just, like, plop a GPS on your car and now they know everywhere you’ve gone. How similar would this be to them? Would be very similar because that’s what the state of Missouri is doing. And just to categorically

[07:46] Larry: say that you lose your constitutional right to privacy for the remainder of your life based on something you did once, that would be like having a perpetual search warrant because you goofed up once in your life. And even after you paid your debt and leaving or left prison, then we would say, Well, this is a perpetual warrant. I mean, chance would that stand?

[08:09] Chance: Nah. I don’t think so. It doesn’t sound right. Just doesn’t sound right.

[08:13] Andy: So this is gonna be pretty awesome. And then he also did say he has the lowest, class C felony in Missouri.

[08:19] Larry: But I don’t think it would withstand scrutiny on, you know, any categorical application. Folks, listen carefully. If you want to put GPS monitoring on people, you can get away with it. You’ve got to individually assess them under some objective process, and you’ve got to do it on a regular basis. But you can’t just categorically apply a device that tracks and monitors them and charge them money for it for the rest of their life. You just can’t do that.

[08:50] Andy: Sorry. Well, Larry, I wrote up something that I wanted to ask you some questions about advocacy work. Do you, do you mind if we cover this for a little bit of a, of a personal kind of Q and A, but also more like at a 30,000 foot level? Well, as long as you’re not giving out my phone number because I, unlike you, I answer my phone when it rings. I’m never answering my phone. None of none of that is ever any good. Alright. Well, let’s zoom out all the way. So we’re, like, in an airplane 30,000 feet. We’re trying to in my mind, the objective of this whole PFR advocacy movement is to eliminate the disabilities and restraints that people have in having to live under the rules of the registry. Is that, is that fair? Like, the ultimate goal? Would you agree?

[09:36] Larry: Well, I think I would agree, but it may not be a realistic goal. But if you’re in a fantasy world, sure, it works.

[09:44] Andy: So I just wanted to set the stage of, like, if we could have everything, that’s what we would be trying to do. But as you said, fantasy level, then if we moved zoomed in to where we’re closer to reality, there are dozens and dozens of things that keep people from living their best lives in relation to the registry. And I’m thinking of things like where people have the living and the work restrictions and having your whole life doxed on the Internet. And to me, those are the biggest challenges for people to live remotely close to normal

[10:12] Larry: lives. Well, I can’t disagree with that very much because that is exactly what’s happening. You’ve got a tremendous amount of disabilities and restraints in various parts of the country. Your very private information that was not a part of the conviction, unlike what it was when Smith versus Doe was decided. There’s a lot of stuff that you’re providing that’s being made public that’s not a part of the conviction. And you have so many things that you’re not allowed to do with your children to live a normal life. So, it’s a tremendous challenge for people who are on the registry. Absolutely.

[10:52] Andy: And then are you familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?

[10:56] Larry: Come again.

[10:58] Andy: Okay. I figured. So it’s if you can picture the food pyramid that we all saw when we were in growing up in school and whatnot. And so it’s a pyramid looking thing that covers the very basic needs of a person. They are psychological needs, safety needs, love, belonging needs, esteem needs, and self actualization needs. It’s all this, like, psychology gobbledygook. But until a person has these things, if we think about the ones where, like, safety needs, if you’re living in a tent under a bridge, you’re probably concerned about your stuff and your general well-being. And it’s hard for them to move on to anything greater of importance in their lives. Would you does that sound reasonable?

[11:37] Larry: Well, it does sound reasonable, but is this a psychology show?

[11:43] Andy: No, it is definitely not. But anyway, stick with me. So, I do have a point of what I’m trying to get. The point is, is that there are quite a few people within the sphere of people impacted by the registry that have needs deeply within that pyramid and they can’t do anything. And if they’re living in a tent, they’re probably not able to do a lot of advocacy work. Whereas a person that has, I don’t know, 50 rental properties, they’re not really worried much about their next meal. They might not have the time to do advocacy work. They do have other resources available to them.

[12:15] Larry: Oh, I think I can see where you’re going with that. I’ve preached a similar sermon many times.

[12:21] Andy: I’ve heard some of those. And so, I think there are two things that are required for advocacy work, and that is time and or money.

[12:33] Larry: Very ironic. I just had that conversation with one of our supporters here in the state, And I don’t think he has quite 50 rental properties, but he does have a number of rental properties. And that’s what his profession is. And he has a conviction that forces him to be listed publicly. And he has teenagers, which this is somewhat disruptive to their life. And as they’ve grown from being small, youngsters to teenagers, he’s become more concerned about the impact that it has on them. I suggested to him that you really are a very busy person with your properties and you’re very busy with your, with your life and your children and trying to be a part. And so you really don’t have a lot of time to hang out to stay capital. But what you do have, a lot of people don’t have is money. And we have people who do have the time if they’re compensated for it. Kind of like you get compensated for your properties. If you can provide money in lieu of time, that’s what you can do. So, there are a lot of people out there, they’re on the registry. There are some who are living in the woods and selling pencils, but there are a lot of people who are doing quite well and they don’t feel like that it’s their obligation to contribute because they’re making it okay. And that I have not been able to sort out in my head.

[13:56] Andy: And when you say okay, like, they don’t get harassed. They don’t have fire bombs and bricks going in their windows. They go to work, they function, etcetera.

[14:05] Larry: Well, like this guy, he’s doing okay, so to speak. They cannot really cause him to get fired because he owns the company. Right. And they can’t, they can’t really, in a short housing market, convince his tenants to move out. Although they have tried. Really? Yes. There’s been some sneaky phone calls that have come to his tenants saying, did you know that this person’s on the PFR list that you’re running from? But they really can’t disrupt him in the way that a person can be disrupted that’s renting an apartment that they can cause problems for. He owns a lavish, place. And they really can’t do him as much harm, but it’s no fun for what he’s going through. But he has options that the people that are living day to day don’t have that are barely making it. And I told him, keep giving money and even up your giving because we’re in the legislative session right now and we need support because we’re trying to do the best we can to keep things from going downhill.

[15:05] Andy: And we do have so many people in so many places around the country that do have enough intelligence that they could get more directly involved. And I would like if you would give some, maybe even, like, off the beaten pathways that people could get directly and or indirectly involved. Now keep in mind that some people have very issues that are challenges. Some people, that might get exposed. So they would want to keep a degree or two of separation away. And maybe they’re overly shy and going to talk to a powerful legislator might be off the off the table for them. And with all that taken into account, can you help me expand on the idea of what people could do, whether that’s phone, email? Could they stalk the representative’s house? You you do some things that I think are available to we people. And where this all comes from, though, Larry, is that I’m annoyed that someone presented something that we should be the ones doing all the work because, well, whatever the reasons, but we should be the ones doing it. The person used the term trial balloon, And it drove me crazy because you and I aren’t lawyers to do a trial of anything.

[16:15] Larry: There are so many things that can do in states where you have either a formal organization or an informal group that’s working. Like, for example, my capacity to do things right now is limited by just not enough time in the day. I can’t watch the legislative website as thoroughly as someone who’s hibernating and afraid that they’ll be outed. But watching it is not enough. Watching it is the first step. But I need you when you find a bill, I need you to to identify that bill. I need you to look through the 14 or 18 or 22 pages of that bill and tell me why we don’t like it succinctly. And I need you to help me write the updates that go out to the supporters because the supporters like to know that we’re on top of these things. So you could watch the website. You could draft bullet points for me. You could draft arguments for me that tell tells me that you understand why the bill is not good. And I think that’s gonna come in a later segment from from our guest. And you can also go meet with your lawmakers. They will not know you are a PFR. We do not scan people when they come in the capital to say is there there’s a PFR checker. So in the in some circumstances, you could actually make contact with the people who represent you, particularly of if they are of the more conservative nature, because they’re the ones who tend to push the hardest for crack down on the registry to make it tougher for registrants. You can communicate. There’s so many things you can do. You can give money to the organization. You can give money to a candidate. And you’ll basically find that a small state like this, you’ll have access. If you contribute time or money to their campaign, you will find that you are a very popular individual and you’ll find yourself with their cell phone numbers.

[18:03] Andy: So, there’s a lot you could do. Could you, could you, when you, when you say that, are you talking that you open up and write a 5 figure number out of your checkbook? I don’t understand that question. Me or you? Oh, Well, no. If you donate money to their campaign, are you saying that you donate 10 or $50,000? Are you saying $500?

[18:23] Larry: You can donate in a state like this a $500 even a $250 campaign contribution for a state legislator is impressive. And then as far as time Amazing. You’ll find yourself amazingly, in their good graces if you make a $300 donation, particularly if they’re having to face an election where it’s competitive.

[18:42] Andy: Okay. And then if you donated time, if you show up and help take out the garbage, does that, does that grant you an audience?

[18:49] Larry: Probably not the garbage, but you can be making phone bank calls, which are not ever gonna be answered. But you can still make phone banking, at one of your volunteer occupations. You can do literature drops. We go house to house. I don’t do it much anymore, but we go house to house and put literature that people largely throw in the garbage. But you hope that 10% of those get looked at and we’re doing name recognition. We’re doing association with that. We know that you’re not gonna vote for someone because you’ve got, a door hanging on your door. We’ve got some stuff to know that. But we also have sense enough notes. You have so much going on your mind that you may forget the name of the person when you’re sitting in there in the polls for those down ballot races. And you might say, Who? Well, if I’ve just put a door hanger on your door the day before election, you say, yes, that’s my state representative. That’s my state senator. I’m gonna vote for that person or that someone I want to be my state rep.

[19:46] Andy: I gotcha. Well, I think I’m done with my soapbox. Is there any chance, would you like to add anything to this little diatribe on mine? Oh, no. No, no. I think you guys have done a very comprehensive job here. You did my very best, which kind of makes a decent segue into moving over to what I teased earlier today of our super secret special guest from Colorado.

[20:08] 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.

[21:01] Andy: Can can I get, like, a a hello, Brian? Just to make sure you’re here. I’m here. Okay. Very good. I was like, oh my god. You sounded like you were on your on a phone for a moment. But alright. So Brian is joining us, and he’s a dedicated advocate for criminal justice reform, focusing on the harmful impacts of the PFR registry and the needs for legislative change. As a PFR himself, Brian is working to build a statewide movement that empowers registrants and their loved ones to fight for fair, evidence based laws. Evidence based. You and your silly terms. His work centers on mobilizing effective in and then individuals engaging lawmakers and challenging misinformation to push for meaningful reform, whether through legislative advocacy, public education, or direct action. Brian is committed to ensuring that those on the registry have a voice, a community, and a path forward. Brian, you you just got put on the registry, like, three weeks ago. Right?

[21:56] Brian: Twenty six years

[21:57] Andy: ago. Twenty six. Twenty ‘6. Like, ’99? Did I do my math? Ninety nine. Yep. Nineteen ninety nine. Jesus. That’s a really freaking long time. Why are you here, sir? It’s lifetime. So Like It’ll be for the rest of my life. Everybody? Or did you do something? For me. Or okay. Alright. Well then, so why are you what are we going to talk about?

[22:24] Brian: So over the last couple of years, I’ve gotten into the habit of looking at the bills that have been presented to the legislation at the beginning of the sessions, which starts in January, and looking through them to see what sort of bills that are presented and especially something that might make sense to maybe potentially challenge or get in front of from a legislative perspective. I I do a lot of work in the, off legislative season interacting with, at least my state rep. And, she’s very, very, very involved with the the or the legislative side of things. And, you know, basically listening and, getting advice from her as well. In this this particular year, there was a house bill 25, dash one zero seven three, which is, basically wants to put mandatory minimum sentences for sex certain sexual offenses against children. This one really jumped out at me because, if this bill were to pass, the, conviction that I was sentenced under would no longer be a class four felony. It would move it to a class three felony. It would also move it from being a, some judicial discretion, whether there’s, a sentencing where you’re incarcerated and make that a mandatory minimum sentence, incarcerated. So, it it’d be a minimum of, like, ten years in prison, and the judge would have no option other than to sentence me to that. Obviously, we don’t wanna go backwards, so having this bill not pass would be better because at least state keeps the status quo.

[24:04] Andy: It’s funny that you’re kind of bitching about there being mandatory minimums where Georgia is just laid in with all kinds of mandatory minimums where, like, the minimum for just showing up in court for a PFR type offense is five years. You’re just doomed from that point.

[24:18] Brian: Yeah. When I when I was going through sentencing, the it was up to eight years. And in this particular one, that’s now would be a minimum of ten. Jesus. All right. And what is your issue with mandatory minimums? Why don’t they deter crimes? So there’s, some basic research. Basically, on first reading of this for me, it was like, that doesn’t make any sense. I mean, because, I don’t know about anybody else. But, you know, before I committed my crime, I didn’t look up and see what sentencing guidelines were and be like, oh, no. Class four, that’s totally fine with me. I’ll go ahead and commit that crime. But, oh, class three, I can’t do that. So on its face, didn’t make much sense. So I did some research based on that, and there’s a couple of items out there. National Research Council has a number of articles that say, you know, minimum deterrent effects, minimum sentencing doesn’t deter, the the crimes from happening. There’s a a a group some really good studies out there from Eric Luna, who apparently is a fairly well established law professor, found that minimums minimums don’t fail to reduce crime, and they actually sometimes have more severe offenses or encourage more severe offenses on top of that. So, you know, those are the types of things that, we would be against or, you know, try to prevent, but try to bring it around to fork focus more on law enforcement resources, early intervention, and evidence based prevention programs. That would be much more cost effective from, that type of a bill.

[25:56] Larry: Well, of course, having more people in prison leads to more expenses. Would that be correct? I would assume that if you have 5,000 in your state prison system and you go up to 7,500, it would cost more, right? Yep. So in Colorado, it costs about $40,000 per person that’s incarcerated.

[26:17] Brian: And in Colorado, we’re actually needing to trim around a billion dollars out of the state budget. And something like a bill like this is a perfect thing to push back against because when they go and look at how much it’s gonna add to the overall expense of the state, it it it’s it doesn’t align correctly. So the and and in addition to seeing more people incarcerated, they’re gonna be incarcerated for a longer period of time. It’s gonna ultimately cost taxpayers millions of dollars. And again, it’d be more cost effective to, fund schools and victim services and rehabilitation, rather than sticking people in, into prison, without really making people safe. The one that, a couple of other things that also came to light, with this group some groups that I’m working with. When you’re in prison in Colorado, and I don’t know what the other states are like, you’re still required to complete sex offense therapy. But the problem is is that they don’t staff the therapist well enough. So you potentially could complete your prison sentence, but are ineligible to be released because you weren’t able to complete your, your your sex ordered therapy while in prison. And just to put a little bit more icing on that cake, they’re still required to do maintenance polygraphs while they’re in prison, which to me is, like, you’re incarcerated. What what are you doing that you need to have a maintenance polygraph? And again, the state pays for that, so it doesn’t to me, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[27:53] Chance: Chance, do you have any questions? No. No. Not so far. I’m just listening

[27:57] Brian: intently. Alright. Well

[28:00] Larry: oh, go ahead. What sort of things can be done to help cut costs for individuals on the registry? Am I missing something I should be addressing?

[28:09] Brian: Well, by one of the things I mean, taking the power away from the judges, to have some judicial discretion really, to me, it it it kinda neuters the whole why why do you have a judge if there’s just mandatory minimums? Because every case is gonna be different. I mean, we all sit down and have conversations about, you know, what our offense was and things like that, and we’re all unique. So having a judge be able to, look at the case and be able to put in some, fair and thoughtful, judicial rulings on it make a lot more sense. And those are the things that I can think, at least I can think about.

[28:53] Larry: This is similar to the line of questioning that Justice Jackson faced during her hearing before the Senate for her confirmation to be on the US Supreme Court. Didn’t she kind of try to tailor some downward departures? And didn’t she get vilified for doing those downward departures?

[29:09] Brian: Yes. She did. Yeah. And that’s one of the areas that, when I was looking at this, it’s like, okay. Well, this sounds vaguely familiar. But again, I mean, the the judge is the person that’s sitting there looking at the case and and listening to the arguments. I I would hate to take away that type of, ability for the judge to be able to do that. So, but then there’s also some additional, you know, secondary victims. I mean, these never get talked about because they’re just everybody wants to be tough on crime. I mean, you get the the kids of folks, you know, they’re the parents who they’re in prison. You know, quite often, jobs are very difficult to come by, if you’ve done any sort of time. So, you know, poverty and then the the psychological trauma. I I have a friend of mine that, he effectively has PTSD from all the required therapy that he went through, and, you know, he struggles with it. So, but it just makes it really challenging for families to just even function. So trying to keep people from going to being incarcerated really, it just doesn’t it makes sense to keep them out as much as possible if they can be, working in the community. I mean, I benefited from being out in the community, and had I been incarcerated, I would’ve I would’ve spent ten years in prison without working and without making any money, and I wouldn’t be in the fortunate position that I am now.

[30:39] Larry: So so what’s the smarter approach?

[30:42] Brian: Well, so, and this is one of the areas that, when I build the the discussion or have the conversations with the representatives, you know, or definitely reinforce that, you know, this is not the most cost effective way to do things. So I look at it from a financial perspective. And then, you know, the reason why bills like this get put in is they’re effectively like a feel good law, where, when the individual in the, you know, know, the house or the senate wanna run again, they can hang their hat on, you know, I’m tough on crime, and here’s the things that I did. So they need some level of political cover to be able to say, okay. Yeah. That that bill might have been not quite correct, but here’s what we’re doing to help with the situation. So, you know, providing some rehabilitation programs, more victim services and prevention programs, those types of things would be more beneficial and give the politicians the the necessary cover to be able to either vote for doing those types of activities, or if they vote against them, then it’s like, well, no. They’re not they’re not for this type of thing or, you know, that it it it gets sticky in the election cycle, and that’s the reason why you have to sort of build the argument for them. So, and I mean, is there anything else that I should be doing, more to get organized?

[32:09] Larry: I guess you’re asking me that. Right? Yeah.

[32:13] Chance: Either chance or lyric. Yeah. I I do have something to say about all this. And it may not be in terms of organization, but it may be in terms of emphasis. And, you know, what politicians, legislators are sensitive to. And, you know, I think you’ve got it right. I mean, costly. You know, longer sentences increase the cost of the prison sense or the prison system, which is often funded by taxpayers. This money could potentially be better spent on prevention, education, rehab, things that you’ve already mentioned. But I also think that that’s tied into overcrowded prisons, as you’ve mentioned before, even the length of stay that you could have done. Okay? And also, one thing you didn’t mention, which is unintended consequences. Because in some cases, mandatory minimum sentences can lead to unintended consequences, such as incentivizing a defendant to go to trial rather than accepting plea deals, which can clog the court system and delay justice for all involved. So there’s a lot of things that could happen here, as a result of implementing these things. But, you know, as far as emphasizing those things, and maybe those things go into your organization as well. What do you think, Larry?

[33:27] Larry: Well, I have had extensive conversation with Brian and he’s doing an amazing amount of the right things, amazing number of things correctly. And he understands how to comport himself. And he’s doing right. Some of the arguments he’s making are not quite as powerful as he thinks they are. They should still be made, but they’re not quite as powerful as he believes them to be. Like, for example, I’m gonna take a detour back to what something was said about the study that shows that mandatory minimums don’t deter. I would agree with that. It probably does not do much in the way of deterrence. But one thing it does do, it makes sure that you’re not recidivating while you’re in there. And conservatives believe that we need to protect the community from recidivism. So, therefore, if you’ve done something really bad, even if it’s a chance of you doing it again, it’s only 5%. We can reduce that chance to zero for those eight or ten or twelve years that you’re mandatory locked up. So, so that’s, that’s one detour. But the other thing is when you argue cost, cost is somewhat important. The budget has to be balanced. Most states are required to have a balanced budget and they can’t borrow and print money the way the federal government can. But there are some things cost doesn’t matter, even though they should. It is unequivocally proven that it costs more money to put a person to death than it does to have them serve life in prison. But yet, states all over the forgiving Bible Belt, they put people to death. Alabama just juiced someone with nitrogen or whatever it is that they’re using, and Texas just executed someone. And if you look at the dates of the commission of these crimes, they span the period of twenty and thirty years because that’s how long the appeals take to be fully exhausted. And so that cost hundreds of thousands, if not over end of millions of dollars for each one of those death sentences. If someone can shoot me a copy of some legislation from the state of Texas, which is the number one executing state in the country, about why when they’ve last proposed to repeal the death penalty, I’d sure like to take a look at that. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to the average Texan about what it costs to put a person to death. I think that’s money well spent. That person took a life and they deserve to lose their own life and they don’t give a damn what it costs. So so sometimes there may be better arguments to augment with the thing about cost because it’s not as powerful as you would like to believe.

[36:12] Andy: Well, what can he do right now, though?

[36:15] Larry: Well, what he can do right now is to continue to build his relationships, which is what he’s doing. We talked about him getting to know the committee analyst for the typical committees, the bills that he’s going to be working for or against are going to be routed to, and he needs to provide them with solid, data a little bit more condensed than what he did with what he provided me because they don’t have a lot of time to read a a long, long submission. But if he can frame the the analyst, report that goes to the members, he can have a dramatic impact on the committee chair and possibly some members on the committee to ask the right questions, pose the right questions, and keep these bills from passing. He’s largely gonna be on defense, almost everything you’re doing. Brian, you’re largely not gonna be pushing for bills you’re trying to pass. You’re largely gonna be trying to modify or kill bills, as I see it. Right?

[37:21] Brian: Yeah. I hope to pivot to working on bills in the future. But, again, it’s a a learning process for me.

[37:31] Larry: Well, you are doing an amazingly good job, and I don’t know if I was at your stage. See, I have decades of being interested in politics and decades of hanging out watching it. A very close amount of observation. Twelve years serving a state Senator. I have so much more than average persons have, but if I were starting out from scratch, there’s nowhere, no way I would be where you are in terms of what you’re doing and how well you’re doing it. And, and I enjoy working with you and you’re one of the few that will tell you, contact me at any time if I can be helpful.

[38:11] Brian: Thanks.

[38:13] Andy: Yeah. And I mean, do you have any final messages? Oh, good. Good. No. No. Well, I didn’t want to interrupt. But

[38:20] Brian: I guess I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to pivot over to the advocacy side of things or I have a question.

[38:27] Andy: We are fine on time. Do you have any final messages?

[38:32] Brian: Well, from my perspective, one of the things that, I’ve been working on is basically building some coalitions here in the state. There’s a few smaller groups that, they’re really small. But, you know, from my perspective, unless these changes aren’t gonna happen unless we make them happen. So from my perspective, you know, rather than sitting around waiting for somebody to to do it, it’s like, well, I can do it. And if other people’s wanna get involved I mean, just this week, I’ve had two people reach two people in the state reach out to me and say, hey, what can I do to help? And, so, again, I mean, the the more of the more people that step forward to help, the the lighter the load, you know, many hands for make many hands make for, light work. And Right. Every every single one of us have, a good skill set. I just found out that, one of the guys that reached out to me, he actually has a personal, engagement through business, with our attorney general. So, you know, we have inroads that we can leverage from that perspective. And working to build those relationships with the politicians really helps put a face to the name. I’m I’m fortunate in the sense that my representative actually is aware of my offense only because I disclosed to her. But nobody else in the political spectrum knows. And whenever I go to an event, they are more than happy to engage with me to, do things for me. I have personal phone numbers of a number of these individuals. It’s it’s not all one way because I do show up for their campaigns, and I do contribute to their their campaigns. Here in Colorado, there’s a cap on what you can donate to an individual, at the state level, and I think it’s, like, $400. So, and I just maxed that out with, some of the representatives. So, but and they do remember you. It’s amazing. It’s like I show up to events, and they they come over and they shake my hand, and they greet me by my name. And, I mean so they know who I am, and all it takes is really reaching out and showing up. That’s the main thing.

[40:49] Andy: Larry, if we can go back, when we’re talking about the money side of it, there’s the federal OMB, which is the Office of Management and Budget, I think, that figures out the cost of things. Do states have something like that?

[41:02] Larry: I think that most do have a similar process here. There is a fiscal analysis done on legislation. If it has a direct appropriation, if it’s, if the legislation has within the body of the text, that there’s going to be an upfront appropriation and ongoing recurring expenses. But beyond that, the bills are available for the agencies. So the agencies themselves watch the legislation. So if, if there’s a bill, hypothetically, this mandatory minimum for the Department of Corrections, their people at the Department of Corrections have already under our system here, they would see the bill and they would submit their response. They would put the average cost of incarcerating an individual and they would, then you would bring in the administrative office of the courts and you would try to figure out how many people were convicted on an annual basis for this crime and what the input factors would be in terms of the new admissions to the prison system. And they would try to put some kind of number on that. And so you would see in the fiscal report, the Department of Corrections responded as follows. They say that based on the number of offenders who this is the high charge on their This will result in 194 new admissions each year cumulative over the next five years. This will have this impact on the department of corrections budget. So, that’s the way we do it here.

[42:38] Andy: I see. Well, Brian, you are amazing. I appreciate all that you do, and I appreciate our personal friendship immensely. I think you are a fabulous human being, and I enjoy talking to you almost every day these days, especially about all the tech GPT stuff coming down the pike, man. Wow. Yep. It is crazy. Well, thank you again, man. I appreciate it. Yep. I hope you have a fabulous night. Go get some dinner, man.

[43:01] Brian: I’ll wait. Yep.

[43:04] Andy: Well, back for another episode of California Corner, and we’re gonna dive into something that’s both important and, of course, it’s complicated in how to handle a DA’s objection when trying to terminate PFR registration. And we’ll be breaking it down through the lens of a key appellate case, and that is the People versus Mansoor, and that is from 2023. To help make a sense of it all, it is going to be our resident attorney, Chance Oberstein. And, so it’s good to have you as always.

[43:33] Chance: Alright. Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Do people need to get their, like, Black’s Law books and propeller hats on to follow in on this? Nah. Maybe maybe, you know, some aluminum foil to make a little cone at the top of their head, but that’s about it. Okay. I remember a movie called,

[43:49] Andy: Signs, where the kids were sitting in the closet, and they had little, tinfoil hats on. Well, let’s dive in. Do do you give me a brief summary of the Mansour case? Of course. In 02/2006,

[44:01] Chance: defendant pleaded guilty to a felony possession of penal code section six six four slash two eighty eight point two, which is an attempt to distribute harmful matter to a minor, which required lifetime registration as a sex offender under former section two ninety. Years later, the trial court granted his petition to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor under penal code section 17 b. After the legislature amended section two ninety to provide for a tiered system of registration, in terms of time periods in 2021, the defendant petitioned for relief from the lifetime registration requirements. He argued he is entitled to relief from the registration requirements because the reduction of his felony conviction to a misdemeanor places him in tier one under amended section two ninety, and he is therefore only subject to a ten year registration requirement. After the petition was summarily denied, he appealed. The the the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and held that section two ninety provides that an offender is a tier three offender subject to lifetime registration if the person was convicted of a felony violation of two eighty eight point two as defendant was here. Notwithstanding the fact that his later conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor further, the 2021 amendments to section two ninety do not reflect a legislative intent to create an exception to this rule.

[45:26] Andy: Well, then how does Mansoor’s case relate to our topic on this day?

[45:31] Chance: Yeah. This is where the shoe drops, but let’s let’s get into this a little bit. It relates in this way. A district attorney may cite the Mansour case to argue against a petition to terminate sex offender registration stating that reduction of a felony in a generic way to a misdemeanor does not relieve a defendant of their lifetime registration obligation. However, this argument can be countered depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

[45:58] Andy: So that seems really insightful. Let’s try to do something actually, we probably need a tinfoil hat if we’re gonna do a hypothetical situation. Suppose a petitioner, we’ll call him mister PFR, is reassigned to tier one because his felony, it was reduced to a misdemeanor under penal code section 17 b. And I know these things because I’ve read this California law, and I have it kinda memorized, like, the back of my hand. And then the district attorney objects to his petition for termination citing, well, Mansour. What would be an appropriate response?

[46:28] Chance: Okay. Well, the key point here is that the Mazur case is not directly applicable to mister PFR’s situation. And here’s how mister PFR should respond. Number one, PFR should have read that the manager case involved the person convicted of violating penal code section two eighty eight point two, which is a felony or misdemeanor, is a tier three offense requiring lifetime registration. In contrast, mister PFR’s conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor reassigning him to tier one, which only requires a ten year registration period. Therefore, Manzer addresses lifetime registration for tier three offenses, not a tier one offense. Two, the California Department of Justice reassigned mister PFR to tier one after his conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor. The district attorney’s objection contradicts this practice and undermines the tier registry law, which differentiates between low and high risk offenders. Three, sustaining the objection would undermine the purpose of the tier registry law. It aims to focus on high risk offenders and allow low risk offenders, like those assigned to tier one, to be removed from the registry after meeting certain criteria. Five, the district attorney’s stance should set a precedent affecting other registrants convicted of Wobbler offenses. It could set a precedent in that way, keeping them on tier three despite their eligibility for reassignment to a lower tier. And last but not least, the objection relies on penal codes actually relies on penal code section 17 e and cases like Mansour, which do not address the eligibility of tier one registrants to petition for termination. This misrepresentation could lead to unjust outcomes.

[48:13] Andy: That sounds like a pretty compelling argument. What would a judge consider when responding to such objections?

[48:20] Chance: Well, you know, this is what a judge should consider, the following. Like, number one, mister PFR is eligible to petition for termination as a tier one registrant. His conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor, and he met the ten year register registration requirement. That’s, I mean, that should be it. But, further, the disc attorney’s objection does not raise a valid ground under penal code section two ninety point five a two. It is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and does not address the specific criteria for objecting to a petition, such as community safety concerns or failure to meet registration requirements. And I believe that in California law, especially in two ninety, the court shall grant the petition if the prosecutor doesn’t aver those things. And three, the DOJ has confirmed mister PFR’s reassignment to tier one. The judge should respect this administrative determination as the DOJ is responsible for these assignments. Granting the petition aligns with the intent of the tiered registry law, which aims to remove low risk offenders from the registry after meeting certain criteria.

[49:31] Andy: Any anything else? I appreciate you breaking that down. Is there anything else that you wanna dig into that before we go? No, I think that’s comprehensive. Larry might have a comment. I’d be happy to hear what he thinks. Definitely. Larry, chime in.

[49:46] Larry: Well, I was thinking about this. So, this is your famous wobblers that you talked about on previous episodes. And the person was reduced by that law and it wobbled down. But they couldn’t get off of the PFR list.

[50:06] Chance: Well, this, in this particular instance, this particular offense is unique. And that, and that is why it can’t, there can’t be any removal because if you wobble down, let’s just say you let’s let’s just say you have a PC three eleven point eleven, which is, CP. If it wobbles down from it it has a it’s a tier three felony offense, but if it wobbles down to a misdemeanor, the DOJ reassigns you to a tier, tier one, and since you’re tier one, if you’ve done the ten years, you’re eligible to petition. In this case, the 280.2 is a tier three, no matter whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony. And so, even if you wobble down to a misdemeanor, you’re still stuck on tier three.

[51:00] Larry: To me. What does Andy say? It’s like, clear as mud.

[51:04] Andy: Yes. I would say it’s clear as mud. Put on your aluminum cap. Put on your aluminum cap. This stuff can get messy.

[51:12] Chance: It’s you know, it’s funny because interestingly enough, the right outcome would be to to just honor the reduction because with that particular offense, and we’re talking about harmful matter, that, that if you, if you’re, if you get a misdemeanor out the gate, you don’t have to register at all. But if you get a felony and it’s later reduced, you’re stuck on tier three. It’s just an anomaly. And the legislature can clear this up very, very easily.

[51:49] Andy: Yeah. But would they?

[51:51] Chance: Well, not so far. And it’s so interesting in the Mansouri case because it’s not, this is like, you know, so bad because it’s not, he didn’t get, he didn’t get, you know, this is not a straight, 288.2. It’s an attempted 288.2. So it’s just wrong on so many levels. Just wrong.

[52:13] Andy: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Larry. I’m sorry.

[52:15] Larry: That was going to be my question, sort of. When California designed this to your registry, though, they categorized the offenses in statute. How is it that the Department of Justice can usurp that legislative classification?

[52:36] Chance: Well, they, I don’t think they really do policy. And, you know, when they’re implementing it, sometimes it can just be downright, unintelligible. And, you know, it’s really for, I think this is really an issue that, these are little anomalies that the legislature can clear up, you know, and it just takes a little concentration. It takes a little bit more than, you know, the average bear does as a legislator to understand these things and to fix them. And they have the help of the sex management group. They’ve delegated to them to make recommendations, and I believe that this is on their menu.

[53:21] Larry: So, but depending on the exact language of how the California law reads, if it says you were convicted of it and it doesn’t say, and should that later be reduced? If it doesn’t say that, I could credibly argue that if the legislature had wanted these people to be tier one, they would have said that, that it could be changed. Because if the language says based on what they’re convicted Let me give you a simple I’m working on a case of a guy at the military, and we’re going to do a segment on this if he gives permission, but he was registered, never registered at all. He had a military encounter when he was in his early twenties with the 14 year old babysitter. He got court martialed in 1994 and he, he pled to the court martial in June of nineteen ninety five. Our registry, as it was originally passed, was applicable to anyone who was convicted on or after 07/01/1995. But June comes before July. But then in the year February, it was amended and it said, the language says specifically, or anyone who was a convicted owner after 07/01/1995 or, or and, I forget which reads, and or whatever, they were in prison on 07/01/1995 or on probation or parole. Well, he was, he’s, by the pure letter of the law, he was not in prison. He continued to work his job after the court martial until they sentenced him in August of nineteen ninety five. So, he was literally not in prison on 07/01/1995. And that’s what the law says. It doesn’t say in prison on 07/01/1995 or at any part thereafter. It says in prison or on probation or parole on 07/01/1995. Well, that is clearly not what they intended. They intended to scoop up anyone who was serving any portion of their sentence on or after 07/01/1995. But they did not artfully craft that legislation. Well, magically, I’m a textualist all of a sudden. Because I’m looking at the text and this is gonna keep my client from having to register or so I hope. Words are important. And if the legislature wanted these people to be wobbled down and gotten off the registry, They didn’t say that, did they? So you’ve got to be around the Yeah. It’s

[56:05] Chance: two different, two different sections. You know, when you’re when a wobbler when something gets wobbled down, you know, you’ve got to look at the statute very carefully. And you also have to abide by the policies of the DOJ. But this particular issue in Manzer wasn’t between Manzer and the DOJ, because the DOJ had him in tier three no matter what. He he went back to the, I believe, to the trial court and he said, look, this is what I should be, at. I should be at level one. And so since I should be at level one because I’m a misdemeanor, please take me off the registry. And there is a section in California law legislators put that in there for the very purpose of keeping judges from removing people from the registry if they wobble down based on the fact that now they were a misdemeanor. Judges can’t do it de novo. It’s it’s the jurisdiction of the DOJ. And this is where it gets really sticky because the DOJ, you know, is is trying to follow exactly what the legislature has laid out, and that’s what they build their policies on, and that’s how And they also make, they also interpret what they can do through, you know, case law. So, you know, it’s a sticky place. It’s a thorny area.

[57:24] Larry: So, well, it’s as clear as mudd. But we really appreciate

[57:29] Chance: you. Yeah. I’m glad I could clarify all this stuff for you.

[57:33] Andy: Well, I appreciate you clarifying. Yes. And and bringing these segments because boy, oh, boy, this stuff is really clear as mud. And it’s helpful to have somebody discuss it, break it down and make it easy, easier ish, Lee, for some of us here. My pleasure.

[57:50] Larry: I would suggest that if anyone is in a similar situation, just give your phone number and call Chance because I don’t understand it. If you don’t understand, we have no shot. How would they, how would they get a hold of you, Chance?

[58:06] Chance: They can call me on the number right there on the screen, (949) 365-5842, and I will get that and return their call. That’s to my office.

[58:16] Andy: And you answer your calls?

[58:18] Chance: I answer them sometimes, and sometimes when I’m in court, I’ve gotta call back.

[58:24] Andy: Yeah. Totally. I can imagine you say, Excuse me, Judge. I gotta take this. Oh, yeah. I gotta call my watch phone. I’ve gotta go. Well, gentlemen, we have reached the conclusion of another episode of Registry Matters. Do you have any parting words?

[58:42] Chance: Larry.

[58:43] Andy: I enjoyed being here. I look forward to seeing you in a couple weeks after we take a week off. Oh, we’re gonna take next week off? Cool. I like it. That works perfect. I will be out of town next week, and, yeah, next week would be a struggle. But I would make it. It would just be a struggle. Alright. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you too. I will see you in a couple of weeks like everyone else. Very good. Head over to registrymatters.co, and you can find show notes, and then head over to FYP Education where I have blog posts. And, you can also head over to fypeducation.org/shop to find all of the merch that we’re posting, t shirts with crazy slogans and pictures of Larry being doctor doom and gloom. And, head over, and you can leave voice mail at (747) 227-4477. Send an email to Registry Matters cast like that individual did that we covered tonight on the program. And then, of course, it is super huge and awesome if you become a patron for even as little as a dollar a month, and that’s at patreon.com/registrymatters. Gentlemen, I hope you have a fabulous rest of your weekend. And, oh, just give me your football picks because most people will hear this in the future after the game has been played, So we’ll be able to challenge whether you got it right or not. Who’s gonna win? Philly. Shock. Philly. Larry?

[60:02] Larry: Kansas City.

[60:04] Andy: Oh, a split. Oh. Alright then. Okay. Well, tell me in chat who you think’s gonna win. Maybe we should have a little poll or something. Oh, so, yeah, we got some splits. Perfect. Well, I hope everybody has a great weekend, and I will talk to y’all soon. Have a good night. Thanks much. Thank you.

[60:22] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transitioning from prison to life on the outside is a journey fraught with challenges and uncertainty. As former inmates carve their paths back into society, navigating the complexities of parole and reintegration can be daunting. This article explores the relationship between incarceration and housing options, particularly for those with past convictions, shedding light on personal stories, expert insights, and opportunities for building a new life.

Introduction: The Liberation Journey

Michael’s recent letter vividly encapsulates the bitter-sweetness of nearing release from prison after years of confinement. With just a few weeks left in a rehabilitation program, he eagerly anticipates stepping into a world that feels, by his description, like a paradise compared to the grueling confines of multiple state prisons. However, the shadows of his past loom large over his future endeavors. He poses important questions about finding sustainable housing, especially for returning citizens, and the complexities that come with legal stipulations regarding property ownership and rental arrangements.

This article delves into Michael’s inquiries, offering insights from experienced voices in property management and parole supervision. Readers will gain a better understanding of the unique challenges faced by individuals re-entering society, the potential for entrepreneurship in housing, and the legalities that accompany these aspirations.

The Landscape of Re-Entry: Challenges and Opportunities

In the context of Michael’s situation, several hurdles come to the forefront. One of the most pressing matters is the challenge of securing stable housing upon release. As many former inmates can attest, last-minute housing scrambles are commonplace. The need for transitional housing such as halfway houses can often become complicated due to restrictive regulations, market saturation, or community opposition.

Why Stable Housing is Crucial

Stable housing is a fundamental pillar of successful reintegration. Research shows that individuals with stable living situations are less likely to re-offend. Key issues include:

• Mental Health: The stress of homelessness or unstable living conditions can exacerbate mental health issues, making it difficult for individuals to focus on reintegration.
• Employment Opportunities: Many employers conduct background checks and may be hesitant to hire individuals with records, which can limit job opportunities significantly.
• Social Connections: Stable housing often facilitates better social interactions and community connections, crucial for support systems that aid in reducing recidivism.

By exploring the potential of property management geared towards reintegrating citizens, we can unlock doors to opportunities previously thought impossible.

Michael’s Vision: Investing in Housing for Returning Citizens

Michael proposes an innovative idea: purchasing land and renovating single-wide trailers to lease them out specifically to returning citizens, including those required to register due to past offenses. This concept reflects a growing recognition of the need for dedicated housing solutions tailored for individuals with criminal backgrounds.

Legal Considerations in Texas

In exploring this venture, Michael raises pivotal legal questions regarding the Texas penal code, particularly Chapter 62. Larry, one of the hosts responding to Michael’s letter, provides valuable insight:

• Ownership vs. Residency: In Texas, the law typically mandates that registered individuals must report addresses where they reside. If Michael owns properties in which he does not live and does not conduct business, he may not be obligated to register them. This could provide a way to maintain an investment without triggering registration requirements.

• Supervised Releases: Those on parole face strict scrutiny when it comes to financial transactions and business ownership. Rentals and property management can be seen as major financial activities, requiring disclosure to parole officers. Thus, before initiating his plan, Michael may need to uphold transparency and commit to responsible management practices.

Finding a Market

Considering the restrictions many individuals face when re-entering society, the market for supportive housing is significant. Transitional housing that understands the unique needs of returning citizens can facilitate second chances and empower individuals to rebuild their lives. Statistics indicate that supportive housing programs can lead to improved outcomes, with 70% of participants in such programs finding stable employment compared to a mere 38% in non-supportive settings.

The Reality of Starting Anew: Expert Opinions

As Michael embarks on this journey, it’s essential to recognize the varied perspectives on returning to civilian life. Larry and Andy, seasoned professionals involved in property management and parole supervision, shared a wealth of insights during their discussion:

• Start with Stability: Larry recommended that new parolees focus first on traditional employment opportunities to establish a foundation of accountability and stability. Securing reliable income should come before ventures involving real estate management.

• Organizational Strategies: Andy’s experience illustrates another avenue for managing rental properties discreetly via an LLC, which can protect the owner’s personal identity from scrutiny while navigating the sometimes turbulent waters of parole restrictions.

Life Beyond Prison: Building a Community

Integrating back into society is about more than just securing a roof over one’s head; it’s about fostering a sense of belonging within the community. Successful reintegration often calls for the development of support networks, education, and skills training.

• Form Community Outreach: Individuals looking to invest in housing for returning citizens could collaborate with local organizations focused on rehabilitation. Their shared insights can help bridge gaps and improve resources that support newly released individuals.

• Advocate for Change: Engaging in advocacy to promote fair housing policies for those with criminal records can also have lasting impacts on systemic barriers faced by returning citizens.

Conclusion: Carving a New Path

As Michael edges closer to his release, his vision of creating housing solutions for himself and his fellow returning citizens reflects a powerful determination to not only change his life but also to give back to the community. While navigating the complexities of parole restrictions and property management may seem daunting, successful entrepreneurs can carve their paths by harnessing available resources, knowledge of the legal landscape, and a steadfast vision for sustainable living.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Research Local Regulations: Understand the specific housing laws and regulations in your area regarding property ownership and rental agreements for individuals with a criminal past.

2. Focus on Employment First: Prioritize securing stable employment as a means to build a solid foundation before delving into property management ventures.

3. Build a Support Network: Connect with local housing organizations, advocates, and community support groups aimed at aiding individuals in reintegration.

In closing, while the journey from incarceration to reintegration is challenging, it is not insurmountable. With determination, planning, and support from the broader community, former inmates like Michael can find their footing and contribute positively to society once again. The freedom to embody change and establish new beginnings lies just ahead.

In a pivotal court case currently making headlines, the state of Florida is grappling with the implications of mandatory markings on the driver’s licenses of individuals convicted of certain offenses. This legal debate raises complex issues surrounding public safety, individual rights, and the First Amendment’s protections against compelled speech. As we delve deeper into this controversy, readers will gain an understanding of the legal arguments at play, the historical backdrop, the potential implications of court decisions, and how these developments could affect citizens’ rights moving forward. Whether you are a legal professional, a concerned citizen, or simply interested in civil rights, this article aims to clarify the nuances of this legislative matter and its broader societal impact.

The Core Issue: Government Compelled Designations

At the heart of the debate lies a law requiring the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to affix special markings on the driver’s licenses or ID cards of individuals with certain convictions. Proponents argue that these designations enhance public safety by allowing law enforcement to quickly identify individuals with serious past offenses. However, opponents view this requirement as a form of punishment and stigmatization that infringes on constitutional rights, specifically the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The Legal Battle

The case began with Michael Crist, who challenged the compelled marking on his driver’s license after being found in violation due to its presence. The appeal courts are assessing whether such a policy is legally sound and whether it violates Crist’s rights under the First Amendment and other constitutional protections.

Compelled Speech vs. Public Safety Claims

1. Supporters of the Marking
   • They argue that distinguishing these individuals prevents future crimes and enhances community safety. By alerting law enforcement officers to a person’s criminal history, they believe it allows for more informed and potentially cautious interactions.
2. Opponents of the Marking
   • Critics assert that this is akin to branding, which imposes undue stigma on individuals who have already served their sentences. They argue that it violates the core principles of equal protection and due process by subjecting certain individuals to public scrutiny based purely on their past convictions.

This clash of opinions illustrates how this legal issue straddles the line between individual rights and the state’s responsibility to ensure public safety.

Judicial Review and the “Hybrid” Nature of Driver’s Licenses

The legal discourse surrounding Florida’s driver’s licenses hinges on identifying the nature of the speech involved: is it government speech, personal speech, or a mixture of both? Understanding this distinction carries significant implications for judicial scrutiny levels.

The Speech Spectrum Explained

• Government Speech: If deemed purely government speech, the laws involved undergo a “rational basis review,” meaning they need only a cursory justification to uphold.
• Personal Speech: If characterized as personal speech, the challenge would meet a much stricter standard known as “strict scrutiny,” requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the regulation.

The Florida appellate court must determine whether the markings constitute public expression or if they are an imposition on individual freedoms. The court notes that a Florida driver’s license embodies both government-issued information and personal identifiers, which adds complexity to this assessment.

What Constitutes Personal Speech?

The court highlighted that personal information such as home addresses, organ donor status, or military service notation constitutes individual expression. Individuals voluntarily include these designations to communicate aspects of their identity. Conversely, mandated markings would compel speech that reflects a government determination rather than the individual’s choice.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

The outcome of this case is likely to set a precedent in Florida’s legal environment.

Possible Outcomes

1. Affirmation of Current Policy: Should the appellate court uphold the mandatory designations, Florida would not alter its process. Critics argue this would perpetuate a system of public shaming even after individuals have completed their sentences.
2. Reversal of the Policy: Conversely, if the court rules against the mandated markings, Florida’s legislature would be required to reevaluate how it handles the marking of driver’s licenses, potentially eliminating the required designations altogether.

Broader Political Context

This legal question reflects longstanding tensions between public safety measures and individual rights—particularly for those with felony convictions. The past decades have seen a rise in punitive measures, such as registration and notification laws, aimed at tracking offenders. Critics argue that these measures often go beyond the sentence imposed, serving to belittle the rehabilitative efforts of those who have paid their dues.

Potential Changes in Legislative Policy

While ongoing court proceedings will determine the immediate fate of these markings, it is worth noting that Florida lawmakers retain the power to revise the policy. Possible legislative actions might include:

• Narrowing the Scope: Defining which specific offenses should carry markings instead of applying the requirements universally.
• Enhancing Due Process: Allowing individuals the right to contest or seek the removal of said markings based on personal circumstances.
• Sunset Provisions: Implementing timelines for reviewing the effectiveness of these laws regarding public safety and the impact on former offenders.

Such policy revisions would aim to achieve a better balance between community protection and a fair treatment of individuals seeking to reintegrate into society.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The ongoing court case concerning Florida’s mandated marking on driver’s licenses brings to the forefront important discussions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. The outcome not only influences the individuals affected but also speaks to broader societal values regarding rehabilitation and stigma.

As citizens, it is crucial to stay informed about these developments and engage in the discussion surrounding civil rights, especially as they pertain to those who have served their time. By keeping an eye on legal proceedings and legislative actions, we can contribute to shaping policies that uphold fairness and justice for all individuals, regardless of past mistakes.

Key Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Follow updates on the court’s decision, as it may set a significant legal precedent in Florida.
2. Engage in Advocacy: Support legislative initiatives that aim for fair treatment of individuals who have served their time.
3. Understand the Issues: Recognize the complexities surrounding public safety and individual rights in the context of criminal justice.

As we await the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, it remains imperative that we foster discussions around these critical issues to ensure a just and equitable legal framework moving forward.

In the realm of criminal justice reform, few topics ignite as much debate and concern as the issue of sex offender registries. While these systems are designed to enhance public safety, they can also inflict significant, long-lasting consequences on individuals who have served their time and worked towards rehabilitation. In June 2023, North Dakota took a significant step forward by passing House Bill 1231, which aims to provide relief for low-risk offenders from the burdens of mandatory registration. This blog post delves into the specifics of HB 1231, exploring its purpose, qualifications, potential impact, and the controversies surrounding it.

Contextualizing House Bill 1231

House Bill 1231 is a legislative proposal in North Dakota that seeks to alleviate the registration requirements for certain low-risk offenders who have demonstrated compliance with the law for an extended period. As states across the nation grapple with the balance between public safety and the rights of rehabilitated offenders, North Dakota’s approach highlights an evolving understanding of these issues.

In essence, HB 1231 is not merely a legal reform but a cultural shift towards recognizing that some individuals, after a lengthy period of compliance and rehabilitation, should not be shackled by the stigma of a registration label. The bill opens a critical dialogue on how to manage the interests of public safety while fostering the reintegration of individuals into society.

What Does House Bill 1231 Entail?

The bill proposes that low-risk offenders, who have completed at least seven years of registration, will have the opportunity to petition the court to end the registration requirement altogether. This provision indicates a major policy shift, affirming that rehabilitation is achievable and that punitive measures need not last a lifetime.

Key Components of the Bill:

1. Eligibility Criteria: Offenders must be classified as low-risk by the Attorney General and have a clean record for a minimum of seven years.
2. Petition Process: Offenders can file a petition with either the sentencing court or the district court in the county where they currently reside. This flexibility allows those who may have been sentenced in less favorable jurisdictions to seek relief in a more amenable court.
3. Clean Record Definition: To qualify for petitioning relief, offenders must not have been convicted of any felonies or sexual offenses during their registration period and must have successfully completed all mandated treatment programs and supervision without incidents.

Navigating the Petitions: The Court Process

The process of applying for relief under HB 1231 involves more than just submitting a form. Once a petition is filed, it is served to the state’s attorney, who is tasked with notifying the victim if that individual can be reasonably located. This structure places victims in a position to present their perspectives during the court hearing, ensuring their voices are heard in decisions that may affect their sense of security.

The court will consider the offender’s clean record, along with victim statements, to make a determination on whether the continuation of registration is necessary for public safety. The judge has the discretion to grant or deny the petition, weighing public safety needs against the offender’s rights to reintegrate into society.

The Implications of HB 1231

As with any significant legislative change, the introduction of House Bill 1231 raises important questions about its effects on various stakeholders:

For Offenders:

Low-risk offenders who abide by the law and successfully complete their treatment programs stand to benefit significantly from this bill. By offering a path to end mandatory registration, the bill acknowledges their efforts toward rehabilitation and allows them to move beyond their past offenses, lessening the stigma associated with being on the registry.

For Victims:

While the bill provides a mechanism for offenders to petition for relief, it also recognizes the rights of victims. The ability for victims to have a say in the process is crucial for their emotional well-being and sense of security. Nevertheless, concerns may arise about whether the timeline for granting relief is too short given the nature of the offenses involved.

For Public Safety:

The broader public safety debate is encapsulated in the bill, which invites discussions about the efficacy of sex offender registries. Advocates for public safety may argue against easing restrictions, fearing that it could lead to increased risks. Conversely, supporters assert that many individuals can be rehabilitated and that long-term registration does not correlate with increased public safety.

For the Judicial System:

The bill also places an administrative responsibility on the courts that may, depending on the demand for petitions, strain resources. While the total number of eligible individuals is quantitatively manageable, each petition will require careful consideration, deliberation, and potentially lengthy hearings.

Controversies and Challenges

Despite its potential benefits, House Bill 1231 is not without its controversies. A couple of critical points that may challenge the bill’s implementation and reception include:

Geographical Disparities: The provisions allowing individuals to file in their current jurisdiction indicate a welcome flexibility, but could also lead to disparities based on local judicial attitudes towards offenders. Counties that are more punitive may adopt stringent practices, while others may embrace rehabilitation

Determining Low Risk: There may be disagreement regarding the criteria for classifying an offender as “low-risk.” This ambiguity can lead to inconsistencies in the application of the law, as various stakeholders interpret the guidelines differently.

Victims’ Rights and Transparency: Advocates for open government may push back against provisions allowing certain hearings to be closed to the public. Central to their argument is the principle of transparency in the judicial process.

Looking Ahead

House Bill 1231 represents an important step in the ongoing pursuit of justice reform. It opens up avenues for low-risk offenders to regain their freedom from a lifelong vestige of punishment while acknowledging the importance of community safety and the experiences of victims. As this legislation proceeds, it will be crucial to monitor how effectively the different stakeholders engage with the law’s provisions.

In conclusion, North Dakota’s passage of House Bill 1231 could potentially reshape the experiences of many individuals bound by the sex offender registry. How successfully the new law balances the needs of offenders, victims, and society as a whole will ultimately determine its legacy.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: If you or someone you know is affected by registration requirements, keep abreast of developments related to HB 1231 and similar legislative proposals.
2. Engage in Dialogue: Participate in discussions surrounding criminal justice reform, as public opinion can influence future legislation.
3. Seek Legal Advice: Individuals considering applying for petition relief should consult with legal experts knowledgeable in the nuances of the law.

With the implications of HB 1231 still unfolding, it is imperative that communities engage in thoughtful and informed conversations about how to achieve justice in a system designed to protect us all.

In recent years, discussions surrounding sex offender registries have garnered significant attention, particularly concerning their efficacy, the stigmatization of those on the list, and how these laws intersect with our broader societal norms. In one thought-provoking voicemail, a listener poses a contentious question: should we reconsider these laws in light of perceived contradictions within our political landscape? This inquiry raises essential points about the nature of justice, public safety, and the moral complexities of our legal systems.

This article delves deep into the nuances of sex offender registries, the implications of public figures on these discussions, and the responsibilities of citizens to engage thoughtfully with the laws that govern them. Readers will learn about the origins of these registries, the arguments for and against their existence, and potential pathways toward more equitable regulations that serve the interests of both public safety and justice.

Understanding Sex Offender Registries: Historical Context

Sex offender registries were established in the United States in the 1990s as a response to high-profile cases that highlighted the risks posed by repeat offenders. The goal was ostensibly to protect communities by ensuring that law enforcement and the public were informed about the whereabouts of individuals convicted of sexual offenses.

However, over the decades, these registries have morphed into complex systems with significant implications for those included. The legal framework often leads to public shaming, which can hinder rehabilitation efforts and stigmatize individuals who have served their sentences. Critics argue that the blanket policies fail to account for the vast differences in the severity of offenses committed and do not necessarily correlate with the safety of communities.

The Comment That Started It All: A Call for Change

In a recent discussion, a listener left a voicemail asserting the need to eliminate sex offender registration laws, citing frustration over perceived inconsistencies in accountability, especially regarding public figures. The voicemail opens a can of worms concerning the credibility of those shaping laws aimed at public safety. The responder to the voicemail took a clear stance against the inflammatory accusation of having a “sex offender in the White House,” stating that it was crucial to maintain intellectual honesty in these debates.

This moment serves as a microcosm of a broader societal issue where hyperbole can cloud the serious discussions necessary for reform. The emotional weight of the voicemail highlights a crucial disconnect between individual experiences with the law and the political context in which these laws are enacted.

Debunking Myths: The Role of Public Discourse

One of the most critical responses to the voicemail revolves around the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal accountability. The discussion highlights how misinformation can perpetuate confusion about the severity and implications of someone’s past. For instance, accusations may arise from a civil court ruling, but these do not equate to criminal convictions.

The conversation also reveals a phenomenon often seen in public discourse: individuals making blanket statements without proper understanding or context. This can lead to a cycle of misinformation, where fear-mongering overshadows rational discussion about the implications of sex offender registries. More than just harming reputations, such discourse can skew public opinion, prompting stricter laws without understanding their impact on rehabilitation.

The Responsibilities of Voter Engagement

An important aspect of the discussion emerged as the speakers pointed out the need for citizens to be critical consumers of information and engaged voters. The sentiment that people are often surprised or disappointed with the outcomes of their votes underscores a significant issue in political engagement: the need for education and awareness about the policies being enacted.

Citizens must take responsibility for understanding the implications of the laws they support. Voter behavior can often lead to contradictory outcomes where individuals call for leniency in legal standards yet vote for representatives who advocate for harsher laws. This dissonance further complicates any potential for reform in the realm of sex offender registries.

Rethinking the Future: Reforming Sex Offender Registries

The conversation surrounding sex offender registries begs the question: how can we create a system that balances public safety with the rights of individuals? Thoughtful reform is essential to addressing many of the criticisms leveled against current laws.

1. Reevaluation of Offenses: Differentiating between varying degrees of offenses can lead to a more equitable registry that doesn’t employ a one-size-fits-all approach. For instance, there can be significant legal and ethical distinctions between a juvenile offense and a more severe adult conviction.
2. Focus on Rehabilitation: Laws could also emphasize rehabilitation more than punishment, allowing for individuals to reintegrate into society without being permanently branded. Programs that support this transition could be prioritized.
3. Public Awareness Campaigns: Increasing awareness about the purpose and function of registries can help reduce stigma. Educating the public about the facts of sexual offenses, recidivism rates, and rehabilitation can foster a more informed and compassionate community.
4. Policy Advocacy and Legal Reforms: Citizens can advocate for legal reforms that allow for periodic reviews of an individual’s status on the registry, thus providing opportunities for those who have demonstrated rehabilitation to remove their names from the list.

Concluding Thoughts: A Call for Intellectual Honesty

As the discussion highlighted, calling for the elimination of sex offender registries requires a nuanced understanding of their implications and the societal context in which they exist. The complexities of law, public perception, and the reality of rehabilitation must be addressed thoughtfully.

Actionable Takeaways:

• Educate Yourself: Take time to understand the laws surrounding sex offender registries and follow local legislation to stay informed.
• Engage in Dialogues: Participate in community discussions or forums focusing on justice reform and share your perspectives.
• Advocate for Change: Connect with local advocacy groups that work towards criminal justice reform to get involved.

Revisiting and reforming laws around sex offender registration can lead to a more just system that values both public safety and individual rights. It is crucial for individuals to engage thoughtfully with these issues and advocate for meaningful change.

In today’s complex legal landscape, the intersection of law enforcement practices and individual rights can provoke intense debate and concern, especially surrounding proactive stings intended to combat child exploitation. While these measures are firmly rooted in the desire to protect vulnerable populations, their implementation often raises significant questions about due process, accountability, and civil rights. In a recent discussion, Kathleen Hambrick, a passionate advocate for justice and founder of Cage (cage.fyi) (a comprehensive resource for victims of the legal system), brought attention to two crucial bills being introduced in Washington State that aim to address the shortcomings in how proactive stings are conducted and their consequences. This article delves deeper into their implications, highlighting legislative reform, the balance of oversight in law enforcement, and ways for concerned citizens to take an active role in enacting change.

The Proactive Sting Dilemma

Proactive stings are operations where law enforcement officials set up scenarios aimed at apprehending individuals who they suspect may be seeking to exploit children online. Initially designed to deter predatory behavior, these operations can sometimes morph into problematic practices. As Kathleen Hambrick shared, in her advocacy work highlighting the complexities of these legal measures, one significant concern is the incentive structures that law enforcement agencies may face when performing these operations.

The Case for Advisory Oversight

One of the most pressing elements of the proposed bills is the reestablishment of an advisory board associated with the Missing and Exploited Children’s Task Force (MECTF). This board is essential because without proper oversight, law enforcement agencies can deviate from their intended objectives. Kathleen recounted an alarming reality: during her son’s wrongful arrest in a proactive sting operation, it became evident that the police were not adhering to their own stated goals, as confirmed by a police officer’s testimony during the trial.

This disparity highlights a need for an independent board that includes not only law enforcement representatives but also defense attorneys and legal practitioners who can genuinely evaluate the efficacy and adherence of proactive stings to established guidelines. Having legal experts present on this board would ensure that police actions are appropriately monitored, reducing risks of wrongful targeting and civil rights violations.

Legislative Changes: Bills 5282 and 5312

The bills currently under discussion—5282 and 5312—have the potential to reshape the landscape surrounding how proactive stings are carried out and how individuals found guilty of these victimless crimes are treated.

Bill 5282: Establishing Vigilance

This bill focuses on restoring an advisory board for the MECTF, which is paramount given past abuses in the system. Kathleen emphasized that under the newly proposed structure, the inclusion of defense attorneys will lead to more balanced oversight, preventing law enforcement from solely dictating the terms of engagement without transparency. Furthermore, with public meetings subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), transparency will ideally become a standard practice, allowing community members to hold law enforcement accountable.

Bill 5312: Changing Sentencing Standards

Perhaps more groundbreaking is Bill 5312, which seeks to amend the current sentencing standards for offenses related to proactive stings. Historically, an individual could be sentenced to lifetime registration and parole for attempted crimes that didn’t involve any hands-on offense, which raises significant moral and ethical concerns. The proposed changes would scale back these harsh penalties for individuals with no prior sexual offense history, thus treating these cases more appropriately by recognizing the distinction between actual offenses and implied intent.

In the words of Kathleen, “This is a huge difference,” emphasizing the critical nature of distinguishing intent and action within the legal framework to avoid unfair and debilitating consequences for individuals mistakenly caught in these operations.

Advocacy and Community Involvement

For readers who wish to support these vital reforms, there are several avenues available. Both bills are scheduled for legislative hearings, and community voices are essential in amplifying their significance. Kathleen highlighted the need for at least 1,000 pro votes to demonstrate public support for these proposed bills. By utilizing links on her blog, individuals can declare their support, regardless of whether they reside in Washington State or beyond.

On the ground, citizens can help by:

• Visiting advocacy websites like Lady Justice Myth
• Signing petitions supporting the bills
• Sharing information on social media platforms to raise awareness within their networks
• Contacting local representatives and urging them to back the proposed legislation.

Conclusion: A Step Toward Justice

The recent dialogue surrounding these new legislative bills represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing quest for justice reform. By striving for accountability in law enforcement practices and advocating for humane treatment of individuals entangled in proactive stings, advocates like Kathleen Hambrick shine a light on the importance of due process within our legal system.

Ultimately, whether or not these bills pass into law, the dialogue they generate serves as a critical reminder of the continuous need for reform to ensure that justice is equitable and serves all members of society. Advocacy brings communities together, empowering individuals to stand against injustices within the legal framework—together, moving toward a more just and fair society for everyone.

As the journey for reform continues, every voice matters. Join the conversation, lend your support, and actively participate in shaping the future of justice in your community. Together, we can foster a legal system that prioritizes protection without sacrificing the rights and dignity of individuals.

In today’s world, where public safety and individual rights often find themselves at odds, the structures put in place to manage offenders, such as risk-based registration systems, provoke meaningful discussions. A recent case from Massachusetts presents a critical examination of these systems, highlighting their challenges and inefficiencies. This article will dissect the key elements of the case of John Doe vs. the PFR Registration Board, exploring the implications of risk assessment on public safety, the rights of registrants, and the broader discourse surrounding these systems.

Understanding the Case: Setting the Context

John Doe’s case is pivotal, particularly in a state recognized for its liberal stance on various issues. Doe’s situation arose from severe allegations, which culminated in a classification as a level 3 offender—an indication of high risk. The offensive acts included the sexual assault of a minor, leading to his conviction for multiple counts of rape and abuse of a child. After a sentence of two and a half years, the case raises numerous questions: How do these classifications impact the individuals involved? What standard of evidence is used to categorize offenders? This blog post aims to answer these queries and dissect the ramifications on both public safety and individual rights.

The Nature of Risk-Based Systems

What Are Risk-Based Registration Systems?

Risk-based registration systems are designed to classify offenders based on their likelihood of reoffending, with the objective of enhancing public safety. The classification levels range from low to high risk, impacting how and whether offenders’ information is made publicly accessible. For instance, level 3 offenders generally face significant public scrutiny and the dissemination of their registration details, while level 1 offenders are subject to far less public disclosure.

The Standard of Evidence

To justify a level 3 classification, the PFR Registration Board must establish clear and convincing evidence of a high reoffense risk and a substantial danger to the public. This high burden of proof is critical; it is designed to ensure that individuals aren’t unjustly branded as high-risk offenders without substantial justification. The standard is so high that it resembles the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” creating a challenging environment for those defending against such classifications.

Key Insights from the Case

Offenses and Background

In July 2016, John Doe, at the age of 20, provided alcohol to a 14-year-old girl after befriending her on social media. The incident escalated into sexual assault, suggesting a disturbing pattern of behavior. Post-conviction, further reports emerged indicating Doe’s continued inappropriate behavior with minors, which factored significantly into the Board’s decision regarding his classification.

The Board’s Decision-Making Criteria

The hearing examiner relied on multiple aggravating factors to affirm the level 3 classification. These included Doe’s relationship with the victim, his substance abuse, and the predatory nature of his actions. Importantly, even though Doe’s criminal activities were past episodes, they played a crucial role in shaping the Board’s evaluation of his threat level to society.

Judicial Oversight and Administrative Deference

Interestingly, the court upheld the Board’s decisions, emphasizing the high deference granted to administrative agencies. This judicial restraint means that courts typically support the Board’s decisions unless manifest evidence suggests arbitrariness or a failure to adhere to established law. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that substantial evidence backed the Board’s decision deeming Doe a level 3 offender.

The Pitfalls of Risk-Based Registration Systems

While risk-based registration systems aim to bolster community safety, they come with inherent issues that warrant discussion.

Implications for Registrants

Missing the Mark on Due Process

Critics of risk-based systems, including Doe in this case, assert that there may be a lack of due process for those classified as high-risk offenders. The weight of past offenses can overshadow an individual’s potential for rehabilitation and change, especially when evidence does not substantiate current dangerousness.

The Challenge of Stigma

Being classified as a level 3 offender carries not only legal consequences but also long-lasting social stigma, affecting individuals long after their sentence. Such stigmatization can hinder their ability to reintegrate into society, further complicating their prospects for a positive future.

The Questions Advocates Must Consider

The complexities surrounding risk-based registrations raise a series of questions for advocates and policymakers:

• What benefits, if any, do registration systems offer individuals classified as low risk?
• How should varying circumstances impact the duration and nature of registration periods?
• What could a fair appeals process entail for those disputing their classification?

Towards a Fairer Risk-Based System: Recommendations

In light of the shortcomings observed in cases like Doe’s, proposed reforms could better balance public safety and individual rights:

• Streamlining the Appeals Process: Establishing a clearer, more accessible appeals process for offenders challenging their risk classification could ensure fairness. In Massachusetts, utilizing an administrative law judge to adjudicate appeals might streamline justice while relieving courts of overload.
• Access to Resources: Allocating funding for expert representation for indigent registrants can help level the playing field, ensuring all individuals, regardless of background, have an opportunity to present their cases fairly.
• Regular Reevaluation: Implementing periodic assessments of offenders, especially those previously classified at higher levels, can provide a more dynamic view of an individual’s risk and potential for rehabilitation.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Debate

The case of John Doe vs. the PFR Registration Board illustrates the ongoing struggles faced by those navigating the intricacies of risk-based registration systems. While public safety remains a paramount concern, the processes in place necessitate scrutiny and reform to avoid punishing individuals long after their past crimes. By fostering discussions about the efficiency and fairness of these systems, society can seek a more just resolution that ensures both public safety and the dignity of individuals striving for redemption.

In the quest for effective risk assessment and management, it is clear that we must tread carefully, balancing community safety with the rights of individuals—an endeavor that remains vital in our ever-evolving legal landscape.

In recent discussions surrounding the rights of individuals registered as persons facing registration (PFRs), the focus has shifted to the implications of government requirements on their freedoms. This dialogue, rooted in constitutional law and civil liberties, raises critical questions about whether certain requirements infringe upon the rights protected under the First Amendment and the broader constitutional framework. In this article, we will delve into a range of perspectives shared by legal minds and concerned citizens about the intersection of registry mandates with the fundamental rights to free speech and travel. Readers will gain insights into the constitutional debates that surround these issues, including the implications of travel reporting requirements, the nature of freedom of expression, and the potential avenues for legal challenges.

The Constitutional Debate: Can Travel Reporting Requirements be Challenged?

The conversation begins with the observation of recent legal rulings that struck down requirements for PFRs to disclose their Internet identifiers. These rulings were grounded in the assertion that such mandates discourage free speech—a fundamental right enshrined in the First Amendment. Mark, a thoughtful participant in this discourse, wonders whether similar parallels could be drawn concerning travel reporting requirements.

The Right to Travel

At the heart of this discussion is the right to travel, a right acknowledged by both the U.S. Constitution and various legal precedents. When individuals facing registration must disclose their travel plans, it raises concerns about the potential for unconstitutional constraints on their liberty. Mark argues that requiring PFRs to report their travel may constitute an undue burden on their ability to travel freely. If the courts recognize that compelled reporting can inhibit Internet expression, shouldn’t similar reasoning apply to travel, which is also considered a form of expression?

Considerations Under the Law

Larry, another speaker in the dialogue, responds with an intriguing counterpoint. He notes that while travel reporting is enforced for PFRs, courts have generally upheld such requirements as necessary for public safety rather than infringements on individual liberty. The key factor, he argues, is the reasonableness of the requirement in serving legitimate government interests. When discussing constitutional rights, this ongoing evaluation of reasonableness often shapes the outcomes of legal challenges.

The Parallels with Free Speech

The conversation takes a broader perspective as they consider the potential chilling effects of reporting requirements on free speech. The analogy is drawn to historical contexts, such as the McCarthy era, where public reporting on individuals’ ideological leanings served as a method of exerting social control. The fear of being surveilled or scrutinized for their beliefs may lead some PFRs to hesitate in exercising their right to free speech—this dynamic poses a serious concern in terms of First Amendment protections.

Hypotheticals and Their Implications

To further explore the complexity of these issues, Mark presents a hypothetical scenario involving a PFR wanting to travel to participate in a political rally. His rationale revolves around the notion that the requirement to report travel could lead PFRs to second-guess their engagement in activities that may be politically sensitive. This raises a pertinent question: Does the mere act of requiring individuals to report their travel plans create an environment of self-censorship?

The Informational Landscape

In defense of the reporting procedure, Larry questions the specifics of what PFRs must disclose to registry officers. He hypothesizes whether such officers inquire about the purpose of travel when plans are communicated. The unpredictability of this inquiry introduces a layer of complexity to the interaction between PFRs and designated overseers, especially when layered with the potential for subjective interpretations based on the PFR’s affiliations or activities.

Key Considerations:

• Self-Censorship: If individuals feel monitored, they may alter their behavior to evade scrutiny, inhibiting their rights.
• Purpose Disclosure: The legal requirement of reporting travel plans raises questions about the extent to which personal activities are subject to oversight.

The Role of Government Oversight

An important aspect of this conversation revolves around the extent to which government agencies monitor individuals and whether such monitoring creates an atmosphere of fear that dampens free expression. Mark draws parallels between tracking travel and the overall evaluation of a person’s activities—these requirements, while ostensibly protective in nature, may inadvertently contribute to a climate of surveillance that discourages engagement in constitutionally protected rights.

Voices of Reason

As they explore these constitutional implications, another speaker draws a compelling comparison with international travel, where certain identification markers are required. The restriction placed on the freedom to travel could be likened to the retroactive imposition of scrutiny based on past actions—an area ripe for legal exploration and commentary.

Ultimately, this entire dialogue informs the broader conversation regarding civil rights and government accountability, a tapestry of ideas that echo through American legal and political landscapes.

Moving Forward: The Path to Legal Challenges

While the discourse initially began with a specific inquiry into the ramifications of travel reporting for PFRs, it evolved into a rich examination of constitutional rights. Should a legal challenge be mounted specifically concerning travel reporting, it would require a careful selection of plaintiffs and the identification of pivotal legal arguments.

Key Takeaways for PFRs and Advocates

1. Understanding Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with the nuances of your legal rights to travel and expression.
2. Engagement in Dialogue: Participate in public discussions and forums regarding civil liberties; advocacy is essential for change.
3. Seek Legal Expertise: Consult professionals who can provide insights into potential avenues for challenging restrictive regulations.

Conclusion: Synthesizing Key Insights

As we conclude this exploration into the rights of individuals facing registration, it becomes clear that the intersection of these rights with governmental requirements represents a significant legal and ethical conundrum. The concerns surrounding travel reporting, freedom of speech, and constitutional rights are foundational to understanding the landscape of civil liberties in the United States. The conversation about the legality and ethical implications of such requirements has only just begun, and further dialogue is necessary as advocates and legal scholars continue to navigate this challenging terrain.

In the quest for justice and civil liberties, individual voices, like Mark’s, contribute to the momentum for change—a reminder of the importance of protecting freedoms that lie at the heart of our democracy. By continuing to examine these fundamental issues, we not only uphold the spirit of the Constitution but also galvanize efforts toward a future where rights are recognized and honored for all citizens.

Listen to RM327: Iowa Supreme Court sides with PFR here

[00:00] Announcer: This episode of Registry Matters is brought to you by our patrons. Thank you for your continued loyalty and support.

[00:09] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West and more West transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 327 of Registry Matters. Happy New Year, everybody. It’s the first show of 2025. Larry, how are you tonight?

[00:24] Larry: Well, I am recovering from some creeping crud, so hope I can.

[00:29] Andy: You got the corona virus again, didn’t you?

[00:32] Larry: I don’t know. I didn’t take any tests this time. I know it was worse than last year with COVID. So, it was fun.

[00:40] Andy: Do you recall a particular individual that said if we would stop testing, then we the numbers for the people with COVID would go down?

[00:46] Larry: Yes. And it was a true statement.

[00:49] Andy: It is absolutely a true statement. Well, how would we know if our tire is low on air if we never check it? I mean, you could just let it go.

[01:02] Larry: That’s right. We used to do that before we had the, the gauges that are built in the tires and people would run very low. And there was a president that was in office that was criticized when he told people to check their tire pressure.

[01:12] Andy: I recall that too. That was also very fun. He wore tan suits, and that was also very, highly criticized.

[01:19] Larry: Yep. So

[01:21] Andy: Well, I will do it. I will do it. I will do it. Where’s that button? There it is. Okay. So I haven’t said this in a long time, but make sure you press like and subscribe and ring the bell notification and all that happy horse stuff on, on YouTube and leave a 5 star review. Of course, if why would anybody hey, make sure you leave like a one-star review. Nobody would ever say that. But so, download it on a podcast app, Patreon support. Yeah. Go on. What are we doing tonight?

[01:51] Larry: tonight? Well, it’s me, mister gloom and doom. But for good news, Chance is back with a California corner this week. And I think he’s gonna discuss what we didn’t get to last week for audio problems on our last episode. Removal from registration. That there are so few taking advantage of this wonderful option. And we’re gonna be looking at a case from the Supreme Court of Iowa. And we have a question from one of our loyal patrons in North Carolina. And then you mentioned some gobbledygook that we might go off topic on, but, hopefully, we don’t do that.

[02:34] Andy: Yeah. I don’t know that we’re gonna do that one. Let’s kick right over to this question from Mike in North Carolina. It goes, first of all, happy New Year. Thank you, sir. Happy New Year to you too. He says, I am about to fill out and appear for my mandatory in person appearance here in North Carolina. I looked up the online registration requirements, and I have a question for you or Larry. Trust me, it’s not for me. In section b, it talks about commercial social networking. I’ve read it multiple times. That’s him reading it, not me. Does it mean sites like Registry Matters? Not sure if I even fall into the high-risk offender portion in section c-1. I’m going to report in person on Monday, hoping someone can take a look at it.

[03:21] Larry: Well, someone did take a look at it. Who did it? I followed his link, and I got the statue, and I plopped it in here. And we have a licensed attorney of the state of California, so that would qualify for North Carolina. Don’t you think? We could [Andy: I think so.]

[03:38] Chance: If I’m gonna commit malpractice it does. But go ahead. Go ahead. So, Take a shot.

[03:45] Larry: So we have so looking at the statute that he provided us and, just looking at the definition contained in section B. And it’s very crucial that section B says that meets all of the following requirements to be covered. And since I’m such a horrible reading reader, if someone would like to read 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I’m having my doubts that registry matters would qualify for those for all of them combined because it can’t be any one of them. It’s all of them.

[04:23] Andy: Alright. Well, I will read them. It says, it is unlawful for a high risk PFR to do any of the following online. So, 1, to communicate with a person that the offender believes is under the age of 16. Number 2, to contact a person that the PFR believes is under the age of 16. Isn’t that the same thing? It believes to communicate to contact. Isn’t communicate the same as contact? Yeah. You’re in section a, though. We were Oh. Yeah. [Chance: You you wanna skip down to b there.] You didn’t okay. Well, you said 1234. Alright. So here sorry. Sorry. Back up. Section b then says, we’re gonna come up with the definition of social networking websites. So here’s 1. Is operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the website. Now, you told me in pre-show that this would be a true, but we don’t run it here locally. It’s run through a third-party site. So does that make this not count for us? [Larry: Well, I think it would be one of the 4 possibly met, but then we’ve got more to go here because it has to be all of them.] Okay. And then number 2 is repealed by session laws 2019-245 section 3 a, effective December 1, 2019, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date. Number 3, allows users to create personal web pages or profiles that contain the user’s name or nickname, photographs of the user, or other personal information. I don’t think that applies. Like, you could leave comments on the Registry Matters website, but, like, that’s not a way for you to, like, be in contact with each other. And then you said number 4, so provides users or visitors a mechanism to communicate with others, such as a message board, chat room, or instant messenger. And that one’s a hard no.

[06:15] Larry: We don’t do number 4.

[06:18] Andy: I mean, again, if you left a comment, someone could reply to your comment. But, like, that’s not that’s not communicating with. I wouldn’t really call it that.

[06:29] Chance: So Yeah. Though, this is a very grey all these things well, with the exception of number 1, all these things are pretty grey.

[06:39] Larry: And if in my opinion, this is only an opinion of an individual, but in my opinion, these 4 are not met. All 4 of them have to be met. Not really, really clear on number 2. But, I don’t think all 4 of these are met in terms of this. But, when you say something’s in a gray area, then it gets sent to a rule of lenity. Right, Chance? When you when you have something that where there’s a lack of clarity, any doubt and ambiguity is supposed to be resolved in favor of the runner, the accused. And so, therefore, this seems very innocuous. I would be very surprised if he had any problems with it. But one never knows.

[07:31] Chance: Yeah. One question that arises, and you’re looking at 3 and 4 is whether you know, does this include Discord? Use of Discord?

[07:41] Andy: I mean, that that would be significantly closer to meeting these things. People don’t create profiles. They sure as heck communicate with each other.

[07:52] Chance: Yeah. That’s what I’m talking, but that’s why I’m saying it’s kind of gray. This is what makes it gray for me because I don’t know whether or not Discord would be included in all this. [Andy: Certainly.]

[08:03] Andy: And then I asked you this, also, and someone just in chat said, I thought the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to block us from social media.

[08:13] Larry: Well, they did say that, in in Packingham. That was a total ban. But they didn’t say that there couldn’t be reasonable restrictions that are narrowly tailored and targeted. The problem for the lawmakers, and I know that thousands of them listen across the country, you can do almost anything if you narrowly tailor it. If you’ll put your broad brush into the dumpster and you will figure out a small subset of the total PFR population, there’s almost nothing that you couldn’t do. But you just can’t help yourself because you listen to the victim’s advocates and to the law enforcement apparatus too much and you don’t think about how to narrowly tailor. I can think of ways you could narrowly tailor and get away with almost everything that you’d wanna do, but that doesn’t give the satisfaction of being able to pontificate that you’re being tough on all the registered offenders. That just doesn’t sound as well when we we’ve got it’s kinda like our 3 strikes law When we had a, Gary Johnson as governor of the 1990s, he insisted that we should have a 3 strikes law, and we passed one to satisfy Governor Johnson. Not a soul has ever been in 30 years given a life sentence under our three strikes law because it’s so narrowly tailored that you could I mean, Nolan Ryan could not have hit that strike zone when he was in his heyday of being a great pitcher. I mean, it is impossible. But you can do a lot of stuff if you narrowly tailor it.

[09:45] Chance: If you look at it, I think they’ve attempted to do that. I mean, just look at the title. Ban online conduct by high-risk sex offenders that endangers children. They’re banning conduct. You know, of course, this gets into social media, but, you know, the idea is that they’re trying to, you know, to nail it down to a very, very small and high-risk segment’s conduct. So, this, you know, it just it just goes into the mix in in in making this gray.

[10:17] Larry: But if you had been if you look at, subsection a in the 1234 there, again, you would need it to have narrowly tailored it even below what they’ve got it tailored here because you might have a biological child or someone you have legal custody of and you’re telling them they can’t communicate with any person. It doesn’t say. And, if you want to do this correctly, you will say except for and you would put those exceptions in there of biological children, children that you have legal custody of and so forth and so on. But they didn’t do that. [Chance: Right.] The contact person is at least to be at 60. [Chance: We’re talking about different shades of gray.]

[11:01] Chance: You know, do you wanna be the do you wanna be the person who has to litigate that is the question. [Andy: Mike, we need you to be our crash test dummy on this one.]

[11:12] Larry: Yeah. I think [Andy: We’ll see how he responds to that.] I think he’s not excited about doing that. That’s why that’s why he put this in there. Probably.

[11:21] Andy: But, he said no.

[11:24] Larry: But I don’t think he’s got anything to worry about. But if you look at the punishment down in section e, a violation of this is a class h felony. Now it sounds like a lower level felony in North Carolina because they probably go a through h, maybe for even further. But still, it’s a felony offense, and that could possibly subject you to a lot of incarceration time. If they if they can use it as a habitual enhancement and all these kind of things, it could be a very uncomfortable situation.

[11:53] Andy: Not to mention just at least even going to the county jail to be processed before you go off and do the rest of your time. Even if it’s even if it’s 3 months, it’s still enough of a pain in the butt. So, all right. Did we cover everything?

[12:11] Larry: It’s best I know how to do. And, Chance, you agree that it’s a bit iffy, but I I don’t think he’s got any potential threat coming his way. But you never know.

[12:26] Chance: Yeah. No. I you know, I’m it’s a bit iffy and gray to me, and I’m not sure I’d wanna be the crash dummy on that. But, you know, choices, choices.

[12:37] Andy: Well, I mean, he’s here on Discord too. He’s I think the conversation is a is about is he able to, like, download the podcast from the website to listen to it? Couldn’t that immediately collide with First Amendment of being able to receive information with the information to redress grievances with your government, etcetera, etcetera?

[13:00] Larry: It certainly could.. But, again, does he wanna be facing a $50,000 bond for a PFR if they try to make an issue of this?

[13:15] Andy: I think he’s independently wealthy, and I don’t think money’s an issue. And I’m just kidding. I know he’s gonna, like, rage type at me no again. Alright. Well, then, shall we talk about Iowa? [Larry: I love Iowa. So, let’s talk about Iowa. What you got in mind?] Alright. Well, there’s a case from the Iowa Supreme Court, and it’s John Feller versus the whole entire state, which includes about, what, 12 people? The state of Iowa. And it’s a win for us. So, what’s this case about?

Larry: How the heck would I know? That’s the reason why we have AI.

[13:54] Chance: Yeah. That’s okay, Larry. Let me help you out like kinda like manually with a brief discovery of the case, non AI. John Feller, required sex offender registrant, sought to modify his lifetime registration requirement. The Iowa District Court in, I think it’s called well, I don’t know. Anybody know how to pronounce that? [Larry: Dubuque.] I think it is Dubuque. Dubuque County denied his application, citing various reasons including his decision to testify by affidavit, his courtroom demeanor, and the letters he sent to his daughter. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed this denial. However, the Iowa Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors and not providing substantial evidence that Feller remains a threat to public safety. The Supreme Court noted that Feller had completed sex offender treatment, lived in the community without issue for almost a decade, and was evaluated as low risk to reoffend. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for an order granting Feller’s application to end his lifetime registration. I mean, how clean is that? It’s beautiful.

[15:09] Larry: Indeed. See, you did all this for me, so I can go home now. Right?

[15:16] Andy: Oh, you can totally go home. Well, according to Come on. According to the court, but for the state’s unusual procedural approach to Feller’s underlying charges, he would be off of the PFR list by now. Instead, he’s subject to lifetime registration unless a district court grants his application to modify his registration requirement. Did that happen?

[15:34] Larry: Well, it did as Chance, provide the summary as the district court denied his application provided reasons that we’ve already covered, ranging from his decision to testify of affidavit rather than personally and his courtroom demeanor to the letters he sent his daughter with permission from the daughter’s mother and his parole officer. The court of appeals affirmed the district court and the Supreme Court, fortunately for him, granted review.

[16:04] Andy: In the opinion, it states, we now reverse the district court’s ruling and remand for the entry of an order granting the appellant’s application to end his lifetime registration. The appellant’s evaluations demonstrate that he is at a low risk to reoffend, he has successfully completed PFR treatment, and he has lived in the community without issue for almost a decade since his release from prison. The district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors, and substantial evidence was not introduced that the appellant remains a threat to public safety. You’ve pontificated for years that abuse of discretion is a difficult hurdle to overcome, but he did it.

[16:46] Larry: It does occur occasionally, but while it’s a tough standard to overcome, would you agree me with me on that Chance? When you are Well going abuses of discretion, that is almost an impossible standard to meet.

[16:59] Chance: Entire I of course, I would agree with you. I mean, I’ve, you know, I’ve only achieved it once. It’s been recently in California, but it’s incredibly rare.

[17:12] Andy: And I’ll tell you, speaking of tough standards, did you know that the Iowa state bird, the American Goldfinch, is said to symbolize resilience? It’s almost as if the Fellers case embodies that spirit, don’t you think?

[17:24] Larry: Interesting connection. But, yes, it’s a unique situation where the Supreme Court saw fit to intervene. They did have to grant review, and they not only granted review, they slapped down both courts. [Chance: That’s pretty rare.]

[17:37] Andy: In April 2011, the state charged Feller by trial information with lascivious acts with a child and third-degree sexual abuse for his conduct between 2007 and 2011. According to the minutes of testimony, Feller admitted to doing a number of naughty things to JB we can’t read here. When he first started touching JB, Feller described it as their secret, and he told her that he had to keep it away from the family to stay together. He told police he did not touch LF because she was his biological daughter. Things went south for Feller. And then what happened next?

[18:12] Larry: A memorandum of plea negotiation shows the state agreed to dismiss the sexual abuse charge and substitute a second count of lascivious acts with a child. To the April 2011 trial information. I don’t know if we wanna get into the weeds of what a trial information is. Boy, it’s a charging instrument. It could be indictment, complaint. I don’t know how they do it in California. But here, when an information is filed, it’s usually without any cross examination. It’s the prosecution saying, here’s the probable cause. We’re saying that, and we’re filing this information. But, anyway, while Feller was awaiting trial, his attorney sent him a letter detailing how some temporary help in the county attorney’s office opened a new case file instead of amending the old case file. Because remember, they were they were, substituting the lascivious acts. According to Feller’s attorney, the state was going to amend the old case and dismiss the new one, but it never did. Since the state never altered its filings, and Feller pleaded guilty in 2 separate case numbers to lascivious acts with a child for what he did to JB. The district court sentenced Feller to concurrent sentences of 5 years’ incarceration on each count and 10 year special sentence committing him to the custody of the Department of Corrections. It also ordered Feller to register his PFR as required by Iowa law chapter 692 a.

[19:39] Andy: Upon entering prison in 2012, Feller submitted an application for determination to the Iowa Department of Public Safety to establish his registration requirements. The DPS informed Feller that he was required to register for a period of 10 years. Feller discharged his term of incarceration in 2014 and again filed an application for his SOR determination in 2016. This time, the DPS informed Feller that he was required to register, for how long, for the rest of his life. They wrote, you are required to register due to your convictions in October 24th 2011. I’ll try this again. Your convictions in October 24, 2011 for a lascivious acts with a child in violation of Iowa code section case numbers and lascivious anyway, it goes on and on and on. If committed against a person under such and such ages, according to this and that, the conviction of a second or subsequent PFR type offense to register for life. This sounds to me like a plot by the prosecution, Larry.

[20:49] Larry: It very well could have been.

[20:53] Andy: But he filed another petition?

[20:56] Larry: Yes. He did. In December 2021, Feller applied to modify his SOR requirements under Iowa code 692 a.128. The district court held a hearing on July 13, 2022, that included testimony from J. B. And Kayla opposing Fellers’ application primarily out of concern for LF, who was 15 years old at the time. They testified that Feller had been sending LF letters or cards almost monthly with permission from Kayla and his parole officer. The district court admitted several of these letters as exhibits. According to JB, the letters that were admitted “had the most manipulative tactics in them, that I wanted to show.”

[21:49] Andy: Now, the contents of his cards, they don’t really sound manipulative to me, but for example, one letter reads read as follows. Hope you’re doing good and have not heard from you in a long time. Be nice to get a card. I hope school went well. Be nice to know how you are doing. Have a fun 4th July. I love you with all my heart and always will, and I hope your summer vacation is good. Once again, it would be nice to hear from you. Grandma Feller misses you too. Love always, dad. Please send a card. That sounds like a father who misses his daughter’s contact while he’s in prison. How did the hearing go? Well,

[22:30] Larry: Feller did not testify, but as mentioned, he submitted an affidavit noting that he had completed PFR treatment while incarcerated and, again, while on parole. He stated that he has had no criminal charges in the 8 years since his release, including no sex offender registration violations, and only learned that he would have to register for life when he was discharged when he completely discharged his sentence in 2014. Further, Fellow declared that he has maintained full time employment for the last 8 years and is on apartment and vehicle. He also submitted a 2021 letter from the Department of Correctional Services documenting him as a low risk to reoffend based on their risk assessments. He appears to have been a good candidate for modification of his registration requirements.

[23:17] Andy: So maybe so, but the district court denied Feller’s application. In doing so, it found JB to be an extremely credible witness and accepted her unrebutted testimony as fact, giving weight to her belief, which is based on her own experience and Feller’s similar pattern with respect to his younger daughter that Feller’s obligation to register should continue. Other factors it considered in determining that Feller presents a significant enough risk to reoffend that he should continue to register as included Feller’s demeanor at the hearing, lack of remorse, and pattern of behavior. The district court did acknowledge that it was a difficult determination for the court. The court of appeals, while also admitting that this was a difficult case, affirmed.

[24:02] Larry: Yeah. He lost trial court at the court of appeals, so he got slapped down pretty hard.

[24:08] Andy: And, so, what is the modification process about?

[24:12] Larry: I’ve never seen this before. It’s under, 692A.128. And it says a PFR may file an application. And I just lost it. Where do I go here? Go ahead and read it since I lost my place.

[24:36] Andy: So part 1 is a PFR may file an application in district court seeking to modify the registration requirements under this chapter. 2, for an offender whose requirements to register as a PFR commenced prior to July 1, 2022, an application shall not be granted unless all of the following apply. A, the date of commencement of the requirement to register occurred at least 2 years prior to the filing of the application for a tier 1 offender and 5 years prior to the filing of an application for a tier 2 or tier 3 offender. B, the PFR has successfully completed all PFR treatment programs that have been required, c, a risk assessment has been completed and the PFR was classified as a low risk to reoffend. The risk assessment used to assess an offender as a low risk to offend shall be a validated risk assessment, approved by the department of corrections. 2 more to go. D, the PFR is not incarcerated when the obligation is filed. And then e, the director of the judicial district department of correctional services supervising the PFR or the director’s designee stipulates to the modification, and a certified copy of the stipulation is attached to the application.

[25:50] Larry: Wow. That was a long list. I’m glad I could weasel my way out of reading that.

[25:56] Andy: [Chance: A lot of stuff. It is. It’s a lot of stuff.] I always love when they put in there, make sure that you’re not in prison when you try to file the application. I always love that one. But anyhoo, the opinion states, here, the parties agree with the district court’s conclusion that Feller met the threshold mandatory criteria for modification under Iowa code section 692 A.128, and then in parentheses, 2. So the only issue on appeal is whether the district or court abused its discretion in denying modification. The court may modify the registration requirements under this chapter if the applicant meets the threshold, threshold statutory requirements, the district court proceeds to the second step, namely determining in its discretion whether the registration requirements should be modified. Now that says may, doesn’t say shall. How did he meet the abuse of discretion legal standards since it’s a discretionary act?

[26:52] Larry: Very carefully.

[26:54] Andy: Thank you, mister Snarky.

[26:56] Larry: I from the opinion, it says a district court commits an abuse of discretion in an SOR modification case, quote, when it fails to consider a relevant factor or considers an improper or irrelevant factor on the question of whether the ongoing risk of danger from the PFR justifies continuation of the registration requirements. And they cited a case called Fortune. And it’s 957 Northwestern Second at 707. In exercising this discretion, the district court must take care to ensure that public safety and not punishment provides the lens through which facts are evaluated. And that’s referring back to that same citation. Now, that’s pretty powerful. They’re being pretty clear in in the Fortune case. We have previously explained this requires a district court to consider only those factors related to whether the applicant is low risk to reoffend, such that extending the applicant’s registry requirements has no substantial benefit to public safety. To be clear, low risk does not equate to no risk and conclusory appeals to the public safety do not defeat the modification application. So this sounds like a very good outcome. And I didn’t read the fortune case, but it sounds like that they’ve got a good framework.

[28:19] Chance:. I’m sorry. I’m just gonna say that the spectrum here is moving in the right direction. You’re moving away from conviction based and punishment type analyses to risk analyses. It’s good. This is good.

[28:28] Andy: Yeah. That makes me think of the, what was the other case you said that we might cover, Larry?

[28:41] Larry: There was one from Massachusetts where the assessment board where they do a risk based system, he appealed their denial of his lowering of the risk, and that didn’t go so well for him. We’re gonna talk about that in a future episode.

[28:56] Andy: Right. Right. Right. Okay. And then in quotes, where only proper factors have been considered, we find an abuse of discretion only where there is clear error of judgment. Here, however, the district court considered improper factors that were either not supported by the record or not related to whether extending Feller’s registry requirements was a substantial benefit to public safety. These include Feller’s choice to testify by affidavit instead of personally. That was a critical factor.

[29:27] Chance: And speaking of which, the district court considered 2 really critical and proper factors. As Andy just mentioned, Feller’s choice to testify by affidavit instead of personally. And just as critical, his courtroom demeanor, both of which were not relevant to assessing his risk to public safety.

[29:45] Larry: Yes. That’s something, we fight with juries all the time, trying to get jurors not to consider irrelevant factors such as an accused exercising his or her right not to testify. In theory, a judge is trained to disregard irrelevant factors. Apparently, this judge did not follow that training. The high court found that the district court abused its discretion by relying on Feller’s demeanor to find lack of remorse. According to the district court, Feller’s demeanor was one of discomfort and avoidance as he did not make eye contact with the court nor with the witnesses who testified. Courtroom demeanor can be a valid factor, but the record in this case does not support the district court’s reliance on it. Nothing in the record suggests Feller’s demeanor was dismissive, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. And we fail to see how his apparent discomfort and avoidance during inherently comfortable court proceeding is evidence that he is a threat to reoffend. That’s powerful stuff.

[30:53] Andy: Let me ask you both the question then. How if you are going to demonstrate remorse and all of that, were you supposed to go in there, like, crying and crawling on your knees begging for forgiveness? And you’re in an incredibly uncomfortable situation, and you’re probably trying to, like, hold your head up high and have pride and whatnot and, you know, have armor up on your expressions and all that. How are you supposed to display this?

[31:19] Chance: Well, you’re not supposed to grovel. That’s you’re supposed to be sincere. Very, very sincere. And, you know, in showing that, you know, you’re sorry for this particular act or acts. And that takes a lot of sincerity. It’s just it’s just looking straight at straight at the court and saying, you know, what’s on what’s on your heart and what’s in your mind and expressing sincere regret. That’s it in a nutshell. But then if you don’t,

[31:47] Andy: But then if you don’t speak on your own behalf, then what are you supposed to do?

[31:52] Chance: You can do it by affidavit. You can do it by letter to the court. But it’s not just going up and saying, I’m remorseful. Like for what? That’s what gets you into the weeds. It’s expressing sincere and true regret for whatever, you did. You know, not for getting caught but for what you did. And it has to be sincere, and it can be sincerely expressed in an affidavit. It can be sincerely expressed in a letter. It can be sincerely expressed verbally. But it’s gotta be a sincere expression of that. And one thing I will say, and this happens a lot in court, people get nervous. They get distracted. They get overwhelmed. It’s a bad experience. It’s traumatic. And it’s not easy to get up and say anything in court. And when a judge is then looking at you and judging you by all these different nonverbal things that they’re studying, okay, that they do typically in in trial. They’re looking, you know, for all kinds of things that just don’t exist in this type of hearing. This is not that type of hearing. That’s this type of hearing. And so in this type of hearing, those things don’t matter.

[33:07] Andy: Gotcha. And he chose to testify by affidavit.

[33:12] Chance: That’s sometimes a very good thing to do because I think it’s easier, to express your sincere regret on paper, in a thoughtful way than to all caught up in the weeds, nervous, and overwhelmed, and have anxiety, and totally melt down in front of a judge.

[33:29] Andy: Absolutely. Well, okay. So, we need to wrap this up. And to end, the court stated, in this case, remand for a new hearing to reassess Feller’s application without consideration of the improper factors is unnecessary. The state acknowledged as much at oral argument conceding that there is not enough evidence that Feller poses a threat to public safety if we exclude Feller’s letters to LF from consideration. Thus, we remand and order granting Feller’s application. Now, does this mean it’s all over, like he can spike the football?

[34:04] Larry: It does mean that They also acknowledged, in doing so, we note that Feller would have been removed from the PRFR registry after 10 years if not for the procedural path that the state chose, which resulted in 2 separate case numbers instead of 2 counts that should have been part of a single case. And they cited the appropriate code section. This too speaks to the issue of public safety because the legislature determined that Feller’s crime should only require registration for 10 years as opposed to lifetime he is facing absent modification. Our decision to remand for the district court to grant Feller’s application aligns with the legislature as directive. If I could give one word of caution to judges, never tell the legislature what they meant because they will come back and they will tell you, no. That is not what we meant. All you have to do is look at Wisconsin when the attorney general issued that opinion that said that 2 separate counts within the same case represented separate conduct and that you were a recidivist. And the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said, no. That’s not what that meant. And the legislature came back and said, nope. You got it wrong. That is precisely what we meant. And they adopted that reasoning. So, at court, you need to be careful what you put on paper because you can’t tell the legislature what they meant.

[35:29] Andy: Alrighty then. Well, Chance, I completely botched. It’s been so long since you were here. I totally forgot to introduce you again and welcome you back to the program. So, hey, welcome back. I apologize again. [Chance: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And It’s good to be back.] Yeah. Thank you. I’m glad you’re back. Today’s, Chance is going to briefly discuss California’s tiered system of relief for PFR registration and why. I mean, like, seriously, does anybody need to ask why it’s so important to take advantage of it? But that’s what we’re gonna talk about.

[35:58] Larry: Yes. In 2021, California implemented a tiered system for PFR registration, a significant shift from their previous lifetime requirement. Yours truly was very critical. The new system categorizes offenders into 3 tiers based on the severity of their offenses with corresponding registration periods of 10 years, 20 years, a lifetime. But why is this change so important, Mr. Chance?

[36:25] Chance: Well, you know, first and foremost, the tiered system offers a path to relief for many individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation and pose a low risk to public safety as we’ve said time and time again and talk about all the time. By allowing these individuals to petition for removal from the registry after a specified period, the system acknowledges their efforts to reintegrate into society and lead productive lives. At least, that’s the theory behind it. Unfortunately, not enough registrants are taking advantage of this opportunity. According to the California Department of Justice, and I’m talking as of May of 2024, 6, 7 months ago, the total number of people required to register is in California is 104,894. The number of petitions filed requesting termination of the requirement to register has grown to 8,646. Of that total, 6,704 petitions have been granted, a 123 petitions have been denied, and 491 petitions have been dismissed. There are about a 1,308 petitions pending review.

I think that the numbers pretty much lead to this. This underutilization means that countless individuals remain burdened by the stigma of their past, unable to fully reclaim their lives because they simply are not taking advantage of it. I mean, imagine being burdened. Yeah. Imagine. Everybody imagine being a burden with the stigma for life regardless of the nature of the offense or the progress made sense. You know, what are you doing? The tiered system provides a more nuanced approach recognizing that not all offenses are equal in terms of severity and risk. And this is a critical step towards a more just and equitable legal system. Something I just mentioned a moment ago, which is how the spectrum is moving from conviction based and punishment to risk. And that makes it a lot more equitable. Additionally, the tiered system helps law enforcement focus their resources on monitoring high risk offenders. By reducing the number of individuals on the registry, authorities can allocate more attention and resources to those who pose a genuine threat to public safety. This targeted approach enhances community protection and ensures that the registry serves its intended purpose of protecting the public. For those eligible for relief, taking advantage of this tiered system can be life changing. It opens doors to employment, housing, and social opportunities that were previously closed. It allows individuals to move forward without the constant shadow of their past mistakes. And most importantly, it offers a chance at redemption and a fresh start.

[39:18] Larry: And let me go off script here a little bit. When this system was developed, I predicted it would be minimally used. In my opinion, it is still too complicated. In my opinion, they could have done a better job of doing it and they would have more success rate. But, they had over a 100000 people on it, on the registry in California when they passed this two plus years into it, they’ve still got over a 100,000 people on the registry. 6,000 have gotten off. But the people have been removed, have been offset by new additions. So, the registry is just as bloated as it ever was. But, anyway, let’s not forget the collateral effects on the registrants’ families and their loved ones. The stigma and restrictions can deeply affect spouses, children, and extended family, often limiting their social and economic opportunities, suppressing your earnings for the rest of your life. Relief of registration doesn’t just liberate the individual. It breathes new life into the family unit, fostering a supportive and stable environment.

[40:17] Chance: Yeah. It you know, agreed. And, you know, if you’re someone who you know is or if there’s someone you know who is eligible for relief under California’s tiered system, and that and that means you or someone else close to you, it’s crucial to seek legal advice and begin the petition process immediately. This journey may be challenging, but potential rewards are immense. Remember, justice isn’t just about punishment. It’s about fairness, rehabilitation, and the opportunity for a second chance. Take advantage of it.

[40:53] Larry: Well, when you say take advantage of it, I know you can’t give specific pricing, but for those who are wanting a ballpark, is there any way you can tell them? I think the fear tactic of I gotta get a lawyer, not rolling in the dough. What would be, at least a range of pricing that you would be looking at for a removal petition?

[41:19] Chance: Well, there is all kinds of range of prices because there’s like zero range, which is the public defender’s office if you qualify. There are some people that are advertising doing it for a $1,000 to $3,000. Not exactly, you know, describing what the process is. So later they can charge maybe double or 3 times for a hearing if necessary. For me, I work on a sliding scale. And it’s anywhere from $2500.00 on up depending on what the complexity is. Depending on what the level is, and that type of thing. So, for me, it’s important that if someone contacts me, they’re able to talk about their case. They know what they’ve been convicted of. They maybe have an idea of what their tiers tier is because they’ve received a tier letter. If not, we gotta find out. And then a bunch of other factors that I look at and take into consideration as whether or not gonna get to a hearing and have to litigate this. So I can’t really say precisely, but I can say that, you know, starting around 25100 for the, like, the, you know, the most simplistic type things and working on that for me.

[42:31] Larry: [Andy: Couple, questions. 1 with go ahead, Larry. Did you wanna say?] I was gonna say that, Chance, that sounds very reasonable because if we had such a process here, I can’t imagine we would be as low as you as you’re saying that your simple case would be. So, I think that, certainly give your contact information at the end of the program and all that kind of stuff, but that sounds very reasonable. Go ahead with these questions that popped up.

[42:57] Andy: So, does this apply to specific tiers, or does it apply to everybody? 1, 2, 3, what tiers?

[43:03] Chance: Mostly, tiers 1 and tiers 2. There are some people that are up in tier 3 because their risk level is high. They can come out of tier 3, but otherwise, tier 3 is life.

[43:16] Andy: And then does it apply to people who move to California from another state? [Chance: Great question. And the answer is, yes.] Is there is there a time limit in state or anything like that? I mean, like, the person that’s asking this question has been on the registry since we invented the alphabet.

[43:36] Chance: A long time. It You’ve gotta You’ve got to determine, and this is why you wanna contact an attorney, whether or not there’s a state equivalent, what tier it falls into, and then it comes down to how much time you’ve actually registered. [Andy: He’s been on the registry, I think, since the ninety’s ish?] Yeah. So, the real issue here is what this particular individual is convicted of and where it falls on our tier system.

[44:03] Andy: And then, if was this put through in a recent bill in California to put all this together? And if so, what bill was it?

[44:11] Chance: It was I think it was AB 384, if I’m not mistaken. Anyways, it was a couple of 3 years ago, maybe. And, and, you know, the reason I’m discussing it today and I’m saying more people should take advantage of it is I think that, you know, as Larry rightfully said, you know, it’s not making much of a dent. Not enough people are taking advantage of it. And, you know, so not enough people are peeling off of it and not and it’s being refreshed by new cases and new individuals registering every day. But the option’s there to take advantage of it. And I do think that still a lot of people, 1, either don’t know about it or are too fearful to take advantage of it or think it’s too ominous in terms of finance or whatever. It’s not. You can get there.

[45:08] Andy: I know my life is different after being deregistered.

[45:12] Chance: Totally. Totally. Anything else? I think that’s it.

[45:21] Andy: Alright. Well then, before we go, do you have anything else, Larry? I know that you wanna get out of here because you’re all cranky and whatnot. [Larry: No. I think I’ve covered it as best I know how.] Very well. So, before we go, there’s something fun for you. We’ve hidden a small puzzle in today’s episode, something you might not have noticed the first time around. If you can figure out the answer, you’ll be entered into a drawing to one of our podcast t shirts that you can check out over at fypeducation.org

[45:48] Larry: So, here’s how it works. Go back, listen carefully, and when you think you figured it out, send your answer to regifreematterscast@gmail.com.

[46:04] Andy: And I will be nice to you and give you a clue, and it’s something tied to the Iowa section. And so if you have to go back and listen to it, you can speed it up, slow it down, all of those other things. And I will, we will announce the winner next week. So good luck, and I look forward to your emails. And, again, that’s registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Any closing words from anybody? Anybody have any just final thoughts before we, shut everything down?

[46:33] Larry: We may have scheduling difficulties next week, so don’t count on your normal arrival time because I will be in a strategic planning session at our normal recording time. So, we will be announcing some adjusted times for next, episode.

[46:48] Andy: Very well. Anything else, Chance?

[46:52] Chance: No. No. Just thank you for joining us for another show.

[47:00] Andy: And, so head over to registrymattersdot.c0 for show notes. And voice mail, 747-227-4477. I just gave the email address, but that’s registrymatters cast@gmail.com. And please, for all of the patrons that have supported us, especially like Mike who asked the question earlier, like, for years, I can’t thank you enough. It is incredibly generous. Even for a dollar, it just it it’s much, much, much appreciated. And that’s over at patreon.com/registrymatters. And, well, that’s all I got. So I guess, we will talk to you in a week or so depending on scheduling conflicts and all that jazz. Hope you all guys have a great night.

[47:40] Chance: Good. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.

[47:46] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

California’s approach to managing the registration of individuals who have committed certain offenses has undergone significant transformation in recent years. The introduction of a tiered system for the registration of individuals under the Penalty for Failure to Register Offenses (PFRO) in 2021 marked a notable shift in how society views rehabilitation and public safety. In this blog post, we’ll explore what this tiered system entails, its importance in promoting rehabilitation, and why it remains underutilized.

A New Beginning: The Tiered System Explained

Before delving into the importance of the tiered registration system, let’s break down what this system actually is. California’s new tiered structure categorizes offenders into three tiers based on the severity of their offenses:

• Tier 1: Offenses that pose the least threat, with a registration period of 10 years.
• Tier 2: More serious offenses with a 20-year registration requirement.
• Tier 3: The most severe offenses, requiring a lifetime registration.

This system represents a significant departure from the previous lifetime registration requirement for all individuals, providing a structured pathway for those who have rehabilitated to have their registration requirements reviewed and potentially lifted after a specific period.

The Importance of the Tiered System

The introduction of the tiered system offers several benefits, particularly regarding the reaffirmation of personal dignity for rehabilitated individuals. Here are some critical reasons why it is crucial to understand and leverage this opportunity:

Recognition of Rehabilitation

At its core, the tiered system provides a recognized path for individuals to demonstrate rehabilitation. For many, this is about reclaiming their lives and reintegrating into society without the constant shadow of their past mistakes.

According to the California Department of Justice, by May 2024, 104,894 individuals were required to register in California. However, only 8,006 petitions had been filed to terminate registration, of which 6,704 were granted. This staggering contrast highlights the broader issue of underutilization and societal stigma that prevents many from pursuing the relief available to them.

Focus on Public Safety

The tiered system also allows law enforcement to focus their resources effectively. By categorizing offenders based on risk, authorities can prioritize their monitoring efforts on high-risk individuals while allowing lower-risk registrants the chance to reintegrate into their communities. This targeted approach not only increases community safety but also enhances the overall effectiveness of the registry.

Despite the apparent benefits of the tiered system, many individuals fail to take advantage of it, often due to a lack of knowledge or fear of the legal process.

Complexity and Stigma

The belief that the process is too complicated or that seeking legal representation is financially daunting inhibits many from taking the first step. While some attorneys may charge upwards of $1,000 to $3,000 for petition services, there are also options that cater to different financial situations, including sliding scale fees based on income. It’s important to seek legal counsel to better understand one’s specific situation and the relevant tier status.

Awareness and Education

Fostering education on the tiered system is crucial. Many individuals may not even be aware of their eligibility for removal or the existence of the new tier system. This lack of awareness can perpetuate cycles of stigma and disenfranchisement. Community outreach and legal educational initiatives can bridge this gap, offering support and resources so that registrants can understand their rights and available pathways.

What’s Next for California’s Tiered System?

As California continues to navigate these changes, several questions remain. How can the state encourage greater participation from those eligible to petition for removal? Are there systemic issues within the registration process that need to be addressed to improve its utility?

To inform individuals about the potential benefits of the tiered system, continued dialogue is necessary. Public forums, workshops, and direct outreach to communities affected can play pivotal roles in increasing the utilization of this option.

Actionable Steps for Those Affected

If you or someone you know is impacted by the PFRO registration in California, consider the following next steps:

1. Seek Legal Counsel: Contact an attorney specializing in PFRO registrations to discuss eligibility and develop a personalized action plan.
2. Educate Yourself: Familiarize yourself with California’s tiered system and potential pathways for petitioning for removal from the registry.
3. Reach Out for Support: Engage with community organizations focused on reintegration for those with criminal records. They can offer resources, support, and a sense of community.

Conclusion

California’s tiered system of PFRO registration is not only a legal framework; it represents a shifting paradigm in how society perceives offense, rehabilitation, and human dignity. By embracing the potential of this system, individuals who have made mistakes can begin to reclaim their lives and redefine their futures.

It’s vital to close the gap between the creation of this program and its effective utilization. Awareness, education, and community support are instrumental in ensuring that those eligible reap the rewards of a fairer, more just legal system. Remember, the path to redemption is paved with opportunities for growth and change—seize them.

The legal precedent brought into focus, in this case, is Schillinger versus Haworth, wherein it was decided that a breach of attorney-client privilege due to deliberate eavesdropping by the government leads to an automatic presumption of prejudice toward the defendant. This ruling was largely due to the structural error doctrine that presumes prejudice resulting from intentional intrusion into the attorney-client relationship.

Hohn’s defense team leveraged the Schillinger’s precedent, contending the breach of confidentiality caused prejudice. However, despite this plea for fundamental fairness, the court contended that Hohn couldn’t prove a realistic probability that the prosecution benefited from hearing his attorney strategize.

The Implications of the New Rule

The new rule set forth by the court, thus, drastically shifts the burden of proof. Going forward, defendants must not just claim a Sixth Amendment violation but must also demonstrate how this violation tangibly prejudiced their case. This aligns with Supreme Court precedents requiring demonstrable, actual prejudice. While this new rule might appear more justifiable, it poses a fierce challenge to defendants unable to afford high-powered legal counsel.

The Need for Legal Safeguards

This case highlights systemic flaws in secure legal communication, particularly within private detention facilities. With the rise of technology, there are concerns that these instances of breach of attorney-client confidentiality will escalate. It’s thus imperative to ensure that attorneys and clients can communicate securely and honestly, fostering a sense of trust crucial to any defense strategy. Strong safeguards must be in place to prevent further gratuitous breaches.

The Way Forward

On a concluding note, this case is an urgent call for a critical review of the attorney-client confidentiality parameters and for transparency, particularly within privatized prison facilities. Stronger safeguards need to be implemented, and the burden should not fall solely on detainees to navigate these complexities. As we move toward an increasingly digital era, the legal system needs to adapt and protect fundamental constitutional rights from being undermined by technology. The delicate balance between guaranteeing surveillance for security and preserving the privacy of attorney-client communication must be struck. This is an issue that deserves further scrutiny and discussion among legal professionals, policy-makers, and society at large.

https://fypeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/RM-326-Final-Print-Copy-v-2.pdf

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are those of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west and possibly another west, maybe. We don’t know. Transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 326 this Christmas Eve Eve. Eve? Eve? I think I got that right?

[00:30] Larry: Maybe you did. [Andy: Larry, how are you tonight?] Alright. But you’ve already messed up the transcript because you said the way you did the episode number. You didn’t say episode 326.

[00:44] Andy: You know, it’s a good lesson for the transcription person to learn how to do it, like, right out of the gate in the first sentence. They have stuff that they have to work on. So, then you can know right off the bat whether the person’s actually listening and following along or not. I’m doing it for them for their training purposes, the training value.

[00:58] Larry: Well, I’ve learned that they don’t listen and follow along, and they miss these things in their opening paragraph. And so let me give Larry’s life lesson before you, before you move on.

[01:13] Andy: I’m not ready for this.

[01:18] Larry: Yes. Let’s do life lesson. If you’re doing if you’re doing work for me or just in general work, do your best in the first part of the job so that the person is less inclined to check your work. If you goof up in the first part and show slack, that is gonna cause someone like me to keep looking. So, if you want me not to look, impress me in the first part. And then you have to hope that I don’t start at the middle of the or the end of it, but you need to do it right up front.

[01:51] Andy: So, someone has made this much more concise. From Larry, the response is cheat late, not early. That’s really concise there. [Larry: Yes.] Well, please head over and show your support. Like, subscribe, 5 star ratings. If you leave a review, that would be fantastic. Please let me know because I don’t know if people leave reviews. But I would read it, and then maybe we read it on the on the podcast. We would read it on the show and all that. And then if you’re feeling generous, because it’s that time of year, it’s 501c3, this, Registry Matters, FYP education thing, you could go over there and you could make a tax-deductible contribution to support the program, and that would be amazing if you would do that. There’s also a donate button on fypeducation.org website where you could also buy merch, and there’s new stuff up there with some hoodies and some tumblers and a mouse pad. And they look awesome, And I will be decking out FYP Studios here with that, swag here shortly. What are we doing tonight?

[02:52] Larry: It’s me, Mr. Doom & Gloom again, for sure. But Chance is back with us if all the technological issues are resolved. And he’s gonna be doing a California coroner and he wants to discuss the removal from registration as it exists in California and that there are too few people taking advantage of this option. Either they don’t know, or they can’t afford those exorbitant fees that these attorneys are charging. We plan to take a look at the case from a case from United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That’s gonna be a blast. And then we’re teasing again about an upcoming episode we’re working on for international travel. And believe me folks, it’s gonna come together. There are some challenges because we wanna have 2 guests. 1 of them is on the other side of the globe in Germany. So trying to figure out how to set up all this and get to questions where we can do the answers for the things that we think we know. I can have something intelligent to say, I’m still working on it, but it’s coming.

[04:04] Andy: Well, very good. God, we got a bunch of people in here that I haven’t seen for quite some, some time. And I cannot remember who a couple of you are. So, welcome everybody that is here in chat. That is one of the perks of being a patron is to be able to listen to us do this whole thing live and, hear Larry off the cuff do life lessons. Life lessons. Shall we be shall we roll?

[04:28] Larry: Life lessons. I think we should have one of those every episode, but I need a scriptwriter to tell me what lessons I’m teaching each episode. But that would be good to have Larry’s lessons.

[04:38] Andy: We had one. We had one. Yes. And then also people get to make snark snarky comments. You probably don’t remember. This is a holiday episode, so I’m gonna try and have fun, Larry. But I don’t know. It was probably episode 20 or something like that, and the people in chat said, get Larry to say medulla oblongata and make it flow, and, like, I had to work this out. And I was like, do you think the attorneys are doing this because they have an enlarged medulla oblongata? And you were like, what? Yes. I got you to do that, and then people did that quite some time ago.

[05:11] Larry: Well, I still don’t know what it is, and I still can’t pronounce it.

[05:15] Andy: Right. Alright. Well okay. So here we have this thing that you put in here from the Tenth Circuit, affirms prosecutors listening to attorney calls. You know, Larry, this doesn’t sound right right out of the gate before we even go into it. But because I swear I thought that they can’t listen to you. That’s why they have, like, separate Hohn system. But anyhoo so a divided US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned its nearly 30-year-old precedent Monday in holding that a violation of the right to confidential attorney client calls occurs only if a defendant can show a realistic possibility the prosecution benefited from hearing the communication.

[05:55] Larry: That is correct. It’s not directly on point for PFRs, but it really is because a lot of PFRs are held pre adjudication of their cases. So today, in view of that, we’re discussing the United States versus Holland from the Tenth Circuit, and it rendered its opinion affirming the lower court’s decision. In fact, as Andy said, the Tenth Circuit overturned its 1995 decision in Schillinger v Haworth. And that decision was that a defendant is prejudiced and a Sixth Amendment violation occurs whenever the government deliberately and for no legitimate law enforcement purpose becomes privy to confidential attorney client communications. It was presumed prejudicial under Schillinger v Haworth.

[06:49] Andy: Are you ready to do a deep dive then?

[06:51] Larry: Not really. And that’s why we’ve utilized AI for this case. It’s 186 pages. And that’s too much for an old geezer like me to read. So, that’s what we did.

[07:04] Andy: Alright. Well, the AI says now to be fair, I wanna clarify this because, like, the AI did a lot of work for us, but I told it to not hallucinate, and I told it to only use what’s in this document and help us out. Help us out. Make it easier. Larry, can you mute your Hohn, please? It’s the not the Hohn, but I can turn off the computer. I hear what you’re complaining about, and I can turn that off. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Well, so the AI says it’s about attorney client privileges and whether the government can eavesdrop, just like it’s the net latest Netflix drama.

[07:40] Larry: Indeed. It, Andy, so you really don’t even need me. [Andy: We never need you, really.] Nonetheless, we’re discussing the court’s en banc decision in United States versus Hohn. And this case deals with significant Sixth Amendment implications, revisiting the precedent in Schillinger versus Haworth, I guess. And that’s h a w o r t h.

[08:05] Andy: Well, oh, goody. Another round of legalese. So, the government spied on some poor SAT and got caught? Tell me this isn’t as bad as it sounds?

[08:14] Larry: Well, I can’t tell you that because it’s worse in some ways. But let’s clarify. This isn’t just about spying. It’s about structural error and where the prejudice should be presumed when the attorney client confidentiality is breached.

[08:31] Andy: But let’s set the stage for this. Who is this? Is it Ho do you think it’s Hohn, h o h n?

[08:37] Larry: I would think so, but it could be a long o or a short o, but I think it’s Hohn.

[08:42] Andy: Alright. Well, I’ll call it Hohn. So, who’s the Hohn guy and what’s he accused of?

[08:51] Larry: Steven at Hohn was indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine

and firearm possession. While awaiting trial at a CoreCivic, which is a private detention facility, the government obtained recordings of his calls with his attorney. [Andy: And wait a second. They recorded his phone calls? How’s that even legal?] Well, it’s not. At least under the Sixth Amendment. The issue isn’t just that the calls were recorded. CoreCivic allowed detainees to privatize such calls. However, Hohn didn’t follow that process, and the recordings ended up in the prosecution’s hand. And I’m not sure what that means privatized. So what you did, you have to hit a button or something to say that this can’t be recorded? What does that mean? [Andy: Yes. I don’t well, could it be the Hohn systems part? I mean, I think all prison Hohn systems are privatized. That’s the only angle I can really see from that.] But it said it allowed detainees to privatize. I know that the correction facility privatizes because they make money. They get a flow back of, of, revenue. Oh. But it said it allowed detainees to deprive privatize such calls, and I’m not sure what that means.

[09:59] Andy: Yeah. I’m with you. Alright. Well, they were listening to his defense strategy, and that sounds kinda like cheating, which would sort of be the whole point of why you wouldn’t be allowed to have the prison people and the prosecution listen to your Phone calls with your defense attorney. So, did it affect this trial?

[10:15] Larry: Hohn admitted it didn’t. And the government didn’t use the call or, trial or during sentencing. But Hohn’s argument hinged on this 1995 precedent of Schillinger, which presumed prejudice for intentional breaches of the attorney client, privileged communication.

[10:36] Andy: Now, CoreCivic, aren’t they one of those for profit prisons? [Larry: Yes. ] Alright. And doesn’t that raise bigger questions about how these facilities handle detainee rights?

[10:49] Larry: Absolutely. Private prisons like CoreCivic introduce unique challenges. They contractually they’re contractually obligated to meet certain standards. But cases like this reveal systemic flaws, especially in safeguarding constitutional rights. And folks, based on the 2024 election results, you’re gonna see a whole lot more privatization of prisons.

[11:11] Andy: Yeah. I would imagine that. And then let me guess. So, this isn’t the first time that CoreCivic has been in hot water?

[11:18] Larry: Far from it. Private detention facilities like CoreCivic have faced scrutiny for years over issues ranging from inadequate healthcare to security breaches, inadequate training for their staff, horrendous turnover of their staff. I know that because we have facilities operated by them here in my state. And this case, though highlights how their policies or lack thereof could lead to constitutional violations.

[11:46] Andy: So, what should Hohn have done, differently? I mean, is it his fault for not privatizing the call?

[11:54] Larry: Well, again, that’s a bit of a gray area. CoreCivic had procedures to protect privileged calls, but the onus shouldn’t be solely on the detainees to navigate those complexities. I’m guessing off script here that he would have to arrange a scheduled attorney call, and he needed to, discuss with his attorney outside the protracted process of getting scheduled. And I suspect he used the regular phone system. This facility bears responsibility for ensuring robust protections are in place and they’re clearly communicated. Meaning that if I’m the prison administrator, I’m gonna tell you, you can use a regular phone system for your attorney calls, but you have no expectation of privacy, and I would have them sign that. So, you may end up hearing yourself record on those phone calls.

[12:43] Andy: I’m gonna go off script here for a second. I thought that you, you know, in the certain circumstances where you had to speak to your attorney, like, those numbers are registered in the phone system as being the attorney, and then they are, I guess, almost like in a best effort not recorded or they’re gonna be recorded, but then they’re not allowed to be used. Something like that that they’re somehow not available, whatever that would mean. But otherwise, you’d have to, like, fill out a request to be able to call your attorney and you go to a special room where there’s the special bat phone and that gets you in touch with your attorney that’s not on a recorded line. That’s what you’re supposed to do.

[13:18] Larry: And I’m guessing that’s what they mean that he had an option to privatize the call. He had the option to go through those steps. That’s my speculation. But again, due to short staffing that’s so common in these, prison facilities, both public and private, but more so in private, you don’t necessarily have 3 and a half weeks to wait for that approval to come down so they can schedule one of those. Totally.

[13:42] Andy: Yep. Yep. Yep. So, it’s but it sounds like though this is the blame the victim situation. Why aren’t these systems foolproof, do you think?

[13:49] Larry: It’s a great question. Many private facilities prioritize cost cutting over implementing robust legal safeguards. Remember, they owe their obligation to their shareholders, not to the people who are in custody. And when oversight is minimal, corners get cut as we see here, and we’ve seen oftentimes with private facilities.

[14:09] Andy: And what do we, what did the government actually do with these recordings? If they didn’t use them in court, then, well, who cares?

[14:17] Larry: Well, the recordings were reviewed by the prosecution team, which itself is a breach of the Sixth Amendment. Even if they weren’t directly used, the mere fact that the confidential strategy discussions were accessed creates a chilling effect on the defendant’s ability to trust the system. Imagine he’s having a conversation with his attorney about what plea offer he might accept. Wouldn’t it be a powerful tool for the prosecution to know how far he’s willing to go?

[14:45] Andy: Yeah. Totally. Totally. Totally. So, trust. So, it sounds like that ship has sailed. Do cases like this happen often, do you think? Or is Hohn’s case unique?

[14:57] Larry: Unfortunately, it’s not all that unique. There have been other instances where attorney client calls were improperly accessed. And we’re battling that here in my state. I see it on the listserv. Attorneys are reporting that they’ve they’re hearing themselves, and discovery that’s been provided. But this case is notable because it forces the courts to address whether these breaches automatically warrant relief or if defendants must prove, tangible harm. And it looks like based on the outcome of this case that we’ve got the answer that there’s no presumed harm.

[15:33] Andy: Alright. Well, then what’s the deal with this precedent? This is the case with Schillinger or whatever that that started this. What’s the legal equivalent of duct tape handy but not always reliable?

[15:45] Larry: Close. Schillinger established an intentional intrusion into the attorney client relationship without legitimate purpose constitutes structural error. And you’re gonna ask me what is structural error. So, I’ve used this opinion in simpler terms. It’s presumed prejudice, and the defendant didn’t have to prove harm. But quoting from this opinion, they are saying that the Supreme Court generally classifies an error as structural if, one, if the right at issue is not designed to protect the defendant from erroneous conviction but instead protects some other interest. Or 2, if the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure, this would fall with the number 2. We can’t measure the harm because we don’t know how it impacted them. Or 3, if the error always results in fundamental unfairness, so they that’s based on a US Supreme Court decision.

[16:42] Andy: That I mean, I guess that sounds like a solid rule. So why change it now?

[16:48] Larry: Well, the Tenth Circuit found that Schillinger, that decision, that precedent to be inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings like Weatherford v. Bursey. Those decisions require actual prejudice, a tangible impact on the defendant’s case that can be measured.

[17:06] Andy: So, what you’re saying is no harm, no foul? That’s a pretty high bar when your calls are being monitored.

[17:12] Larry: It is. But structural errors resolve for extreme cases like denying counsel entirely for prejudice is unavoidable. The court rule is, Schillinger as it as it was a precedent, it was far too broad, but no longer consistent with US Supreme Court.

[17:30] Andy: And what’s this new rule that you’re talking about?

[17:32] Larry: Going forward, defendants claiming a Sixth Amendment violation must prove how the intrusion prejudiced their case. And it’s a stricter standard, but it aligns with the Supreme Court precedent, which is ultimately who calls the shots. That’s why it’s important when you go in those polling locations, like on November 5, 2024, you take that into account when you pull the lever.

[17:58] Andy: I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a minute. Isn’t there a risk that this new rule lets prosecutors off the hook for intentional misconduct? Yeah. How would you know if they’re like, well, I didn’t mean to listen to them. Wink, wink, nod, nod. I totally did it on purpose.

[18:11] Larry: That’s a very valid concern. But courts still have tools to address intentional misconduct, sanctions, disciplinary action, or even barring the evidence, which is an extreme, remedy. But it used to be more common than it is now to bar the evidence altogether. It used to be referred to as a doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, but then they started carving out the good faith exception for law enforcement. But the difference now is that the focus shifts to measurable harm rather than presumed harm and the burden is on the defendant. I’m doubting the prosecution’s gonna be straight with us telling us what they learned as a result of the phone calls. They’re just gonna implement what they learned and use it. I don’t see any reason why they would tell us.

[18:54] Andy: Yeah. They would they would have no reason to tell you.

[18:58] 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 FYP.

[19:48] Andy: Can we, diverge for just a second? What is the Sixth Amendment? Because I sure as hell don’t remember. I’m gonna look it up if you don’t know it offhand. [Larry: I never can align those with numbers, so you go right ahead and look it up. It’s in the Bill of Rights.] Yeah. Yeah. Of course. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a series of rights to criminal defendants including right to a speedy public trial, I’m gonna skip all the details, right to an impartial jury, right to legal representation, right to be informed of charges, right to confront witnesses, and right to compel witnesses. None of those things in there, Larry, say anything about having the prosecution record your Phone calls.

[20:22] Larry: Well, it doesn’t say that they can’t either.

[20:25] Andy: Well, that’s I mean, that’s what I meant. Doesn’t say that they can’t record your Phone calls and then use that information against you in court, whether they admit to it or not.

[20:42] Larry: But it would be my position that there was a very little recording happening in colonial times. So therefore, this is a technology that’s evolved. So, we would have to do what the late justice Scalia said. We would have to look at the overall trajectory of what that would have meant at the time when they wrote that. And over time, I don’t think that the, that the founding framers would have intended for the prosecution to have access to defense strategy. I just don’t see that that would have promoted fundamental fairness.

[21:06] Andy: Now I gotta press back on that though. If they wanted to make it so that the prosecution couldn’t listen to your phone calls, they could have written that.

[21:14] Larry: But again, there was no listening through, recording devices in the colonial times. But like I say, Justice Scalia said, we would look at what those clauses meant at the time, and then we would look at the advent of new technology, and we’d look at the trajectory over time of what new technologies, how it would be interpreted. Well, if the intent was to provide a robust representation of fairness without the government having an advantage to convict innocent people, the trajectory over time would have been as new technologies come along, that we would adopt that role to include those new technologies like recording phone calls, surreptitiously, enlisting in with electronic devices that would pick up. We didn’t have a whole lot of ways to eavesdrop in the in colonial times. [Andy: Sounds like an evolving standard, Larry, and it’s not what’s written.] But I’m going by Scalia doctrine. He said that with new technology, we have to look at what the trajectory would be based on what that clause meant at the time and what the framers were thinking. I’m thinking the framers were thinking that we were going to have a fair process that didn’t prejudice the accused. So over time, if you take that to the horizon with the evolving of technology, it would be that we would give those protections for all sorts of technology to keep the attorneys’ consultations confidential.

[22:42] Andy: Gotcha. Well, what about the defendants who can’t afford board high powered legal teams to prove prejudice? Does, does this tilt the scales against those folks that get, like, public defenders or less capable attorneys?

[22:56] Larry: It’s a challenge, no doubt. The decision raises the stakes for defense attorneys to meticulously document how breaches impact their client’s case. The only problem is you can’t document if you don’t know about it.

[23:09] Andy: But it also Right. This is like this there was a supreme court case where the police were putting trackers underneath your car. To me, this is vaguely similar to that that that’s I know that’s search and seizure. However, they’re now monitoring everywhere you go without a proper search warrant to do it. And then they’re, like, well, we saw you at this place and that place, but you didn’t do that with legitimate authorized techniques. That’s what this whole thing is. The same thing. [Larry: It is the same thing.] And I interrupted you, and I’m sorry.

[23:47] Larry: But it emphasizes the need for stronger safeguards to prevent breaches from happening in the first place. But, I don’t know how the attorney can meticulously,

record these breaches because you don’t know about them. The prosecution is probably not gonna call you and say, Chance, I hate to tell you, good old buddy, but I’ve got 17 recordings that we intercepted, through the corporation of the prison, and we’ve learned a, b, c, and d, and e, and f. I just don’t think that you’re gonna be able to document that. It doesn’t seem rational to me that you would be able to. All you’ll know is that it seems like the prosecution is clairvoyant, but you won’t know how they know.

[24:19] Andy: Yeah. Totally. Now, this isn’t just about reigning, in courts. It’s about putting more responsibility on everyone involved, defense, prosecution, and even detention facilities. Don’t you think?

[24:32] Larry: I do. Exactly. The Tenth Circuit’s decision reflects the shift towards shared accountability. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a step toward balancing constitutional protections with a practical enforcement. And I think it’s tipped the scales. I disagree with AI. I think that this is not balancing the scales. If you have carte blanche to listen in, you’ve not balanced the scales because you’ve put the accused to an unfair disadvantage. Because we don’t know what you know and we don’t know how to attack what you know and how much prejudice we’ve suffered, I don’t know that I wouldn’t have got a better plea offer except for you knew how my far my client was willing to go. Because you listened surreptitiously without me knowing that. So, I don’t know how I would prove this stuff. It it’s causing me consternation to try to figure it out.

[25:22] Andy: Well, can we unpack this prejudice thing? And what does this actually, what does a defendant have to prove now?

[25:27] Larry: Well, prejudice in this context means showing that the intrusion directly impacted the trial’s outcome. For example, if the prosecution used confidential information to gain advantage in court, that would qualify. But, again, how are we gonna know? [Andy: And without proof, the government gets a free pass?] Well, in my opinion, yes. But not quite according to this. It says courts will still scrutinize intentional breaches. But remedies like dismissal or sentence reductions are reserved for cases where harm is demonstrable. And, you know, we’ve got that standard already, which is derived from, I’m guessing, from Strickland v Washington, which is ineffective assistance of counsel. Yeah. Well, you have to show that the errors were significant, and you have to show that but for those errors, that it the outcome likely would have been different. It’s pretty tough standard. Ineffective assistance claims are difficult to show. I think this is gonna make it very difficult for anybody to get any relief. Basically, the prosecution’s got carte blanche.

[26:42] Andy: And no more automatic penalties just for bad behavior then?

[26:48] Larry: Correct. This decision ensures the legal system focuses on fairness rather than punishing theoretical risk. So, fairness means that if you can’t show that they benefited, then it was fair. And that is just so ridiculously absurd. It suggests to me that none of these judge judges that were in the majority have ever practiced in criminal defense. That’s what it suggests to me.

[27:16] Andy: I gotcha. Well, do you wanna cover some of this then about what the big picture might be? Why would anyone outside of a courtroom care about this?

[27:31] Larry: Well, this case is certainly something, even if you’re not inside the courtroom, you should care about because it’s raised several concerns and unintended consequences. Those unintended consequences have led to discussions about the balance of power between the judiciary and the litigants, and potential impact on the fairness and predictability of legal proceedings. Additionally, this decision has been criticized for several reasons. Number 1, overturning precedent. The court chose to overrule Schillinger v Haworth precedent, which established the structural error ruling, which presume prejudice when the government intrudes into attorney client communications. Critics argued that this move undermines legal stability and predictability. I agree. And the burden of proof by requiring defendants to show prejudice from government intrusion into attorney client communications. This decision places an additional burden on defendants, which some believe is unfair and contrary to previous legal standards. I agree. And judicial activism. This decision can be seen as an example of judicial activism where the court took action on its own initiative to respond to raising concerns about judicial overreach and the balance of power between judiciary and litigants. Now we don’t like judicial activism. Now do we, Andy? [Andy: I’ve heard that we don’t like that.] But we do like it. That’s the thing that I hope that I’ve communicated on this podcast. We do like these things when it suits our purposes. It’s just like legislating from the bench. If we can’t win something through the legislative process, every one of us likes to legislate from the bench. So, but also it will have potential impact on future cases. The there are concerns about the broader implications of this decision on future cases, particularly those involving attorney client privilege communication and government surveillance. I would not want to be incarcerated right now being held, waiting for trial because this would scare me to the point that I would insist on my attorney coming to the facility. But you know what’s funny? They’ll just go ahead and record it in the facility based on this ruling. They’ll still do the same thing.

[29:51] Andy: Well, then, give me your opinion on what happens from here. What is your, what is your opinion?

[30:00] Larry: Well, this decision certainly reshapes the balance between protecting attorney client confidentiality and preventing unfounded claims of prejudice. And it underscores the importance of concrete evidence in Sixth Amendment violations. And this is very troubling to me. It was posted on our listserv here when it when it came out because we’re in the Tenth Circuit and that’s where I picked up on it and I find it very troubling.

[30:28] Andy: And then what’s next? Does this, set any new precedents? Does this carry, weight? I mean, you know, I what better word could I use besides that to ask that question?

[30:47] Larry: It does. It’s green lighted everybody in the, runs correctional facilities in the entire Tenth Circuit, both for ruling Schillinger. The Tenth Circuit brings its standards in line with the Supreme Court and expect future cases to hinge on clear demonstrations of prejudice rather than any presumptions. So that means that there’s a whole lot. I think it I read in the opinion, there was, like, a 100 cases out of Kansas that were where they were challenging these intercepting Phone calls. It flushes all those cases and no telling how anymore.

[31:08] Andy: Someone in chat says that you are the legal Grinch, so to speak, and I think that you should have come here bearing presents and good news for us, on this Christmas Eve, Eve, Eve, whatever that is. And it sounds like we’ve entered a new era for legal accountability. Anything else you wanna say about this before we head out?

[31:31] Larry: Well, just this, the attorney client privilege remains a cornerstone or should be of our judicial justice system. This decision refines the protections while demanding accountability for all parties. I’m not so sure that I believe it’s demanding accountability. I believe it’s demanding a standard for the defendant that can’t be met and virtually no accountability from the prosecution. But that’s, that’s the way I see it.

[31:56] Andy: Well, on that, Larry, I’m going to introduce you to a new word that some of you that listen to some tech podcast will have heard, and this is the inshitification of the legal system.

[32:06] Larry: I think you could, justify it justifiably describe it that way. This is not the best Christmas news I could have, but what about we’ve got thousands of listeners who are in custody right now and they need to know this. [Andy: There would be more cell phones.

[32:30] Larry: Yeah. But they need to know about this. They need to know that everything that they say in prison is subject to being used against them even in what should be a protected conversation. They need to know that. So that’s why I chose to do it on Christmas Eve.

[32:47] Andy: I I don’t see how those 2 are related. I mean, I see the importance of airing this, decision. I don’t see how this is the Christmas Eve present,

[32:57] Larry: It’s not a present, but I’m saying I think that if I let someone not have this information that hangs themselves between now and next year when we did this, we would feel bad that they didn’t have this information. Like I say, we’ve got tens of thousands of people in prison listening to us.

[33:11] Andy: Absolutely. I’m sure that they do. Because, Deputy is broadcasting us. He, you know, he was doing that. Did you hear that? That he was broadcasting us into prisons for a little while? I never did. I know nothing.

[33:23] Larry: I know nothing.

[33:29] Andy: Okay. Do you have any happy news to fill in before we would head out?

[33:35] Larry: I take it that we have not resolved our tech issues.

[33:39] Andy: I just spoke to him, like, ever so briefly, and the answer is no.

33:47] Larry: Alright. Well, then we will just say that for all of our support that we’ve received over the past year and several years, thank you. We wish you the best of holidays however you celebrate them. And we look forward to returning to the airwaves after the New Year with more vital information that helps the PFR community.

[34:13] Andy: And in this particular case, all of the people that are accused of things.

[34:17] Larry: Indeed. This is not just for PFRs, but I suspect there’s a higher percentage of PFRs held in pretrial detention than most other offenses except for maybe capital crimes. So, this is gonna have a disproportionate impact on the PFR community because now the Tenth Circuit, it’s free to do anything you wanna do.

[34:38] Andy: Can you can you just explain that? Can you expand on what you just said about in pretrial detention?

[34:43] Larry: Well, I believe that since we’re so sensitive to setting high bonds for people who are accused of sex offenses, that more of them were unable to make conditions of release. So, therefore, I think that this is a disproportionate impact on the PFR community because they set such ridiculous bonds that a lot of people were held in jail. And, therefore, this is gonna be you’re gonna be more vulnerable. If you’re post-conviction, you’re a little bit less vulnerable because you’ve already resolved your case.

[35:11] Andy: I see. And as you said, because now you’re being held in jail waiting, like you said, pretrial. I gotcha. And because the bonds are not $500. They’re 10- and 20-thousand-dollar bonds.

[35:21] Larry: And 250,000. And no bond holds and all sorts of things that, you know, the bond is very difficult here because we don’t even use cash bond much anymore. But getting pretrial release, they have to do an evaluation on this grid. And you love computers. This should just make your heart palpitate. So, they give you a score based on criminal history, the severity level of your offense. It all comes out on a grid, and the computer tells the judge if that person is releasable. And, if the computer says you’re high risk, you don’t get released. They don’t set a bond for you. They don’t set anything for you. They’re just, the state moves for pretrial detention based on your history, the severity of the crime, and what the score says on that on that, lovely system we have to determine if you’re releasable.

[36:12] Andy: You are seriously no fun, Larry. Alright. Well, okay. Are we gonna head on out?

[36:18] Larry: Well, unless you have anybody that wants to do a quick question or so, because we got a couple of minutes. But I’m happy to head out.

[36:29] Andy: No one has offered much. We can hang out for a little while after we stop recording and wish everybody a merry Christmas, happy New Year. Hanukkah starts on Christmas day, which is I as far as I remember, is one of the latest days I’ve ever heard of. I don’t remember Christmas, or excuse me, Hanukkah rolling into the next year. All of the Hanukkah’s I did as a child.

[36:49] Larry: I don’t know anything about that stuff.

[36:52] Andy: Oh, it’s all about that crazy lunar town. Well, I thank everybody for being a supporter and, hanging out with us on these crazy Saturday night programs that we do. And if you’re a patron, I can’t thank you enough for making this a fantastic year and showing sport and all that stuff. And I wish you all a happy New Year, and we will see you, the 1st Saturday of 2025. Wow. 2025, Larry. It’s coming. It’s right here. [Larry: Right around the door.] Well, have a good night and I will talk to you soon. Take care everybody. Good night.

[37:38] Announcer: You’ve been listening to F Y P.

Speaker A [00:00:00]:

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are those of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, F.Y.P.

Andy [00:00:13]:

Recording live from FYP Studios east and west and more west transmitting across the Internet, this is episode holy moly, Andy, I told somebody today, I think we’re on like 308 maybe, but it’s 315 this time. This is actually episode 315 of Registry Matters. Good evening. Has it cooled off yet over there?

Larry [00:00:35]:

Absolutely. It’s only like 85.

Andy [00:00:37]:

I mean, compared to whatever. What did you have? Like, what was the top that you saw? 110.

Larry [00:00:42]:

Well, not this season. Maybe 103, but it has been as high as 108 or 109 since I’ve lived here.

Andy [00:00:49]:

And have you gotten your heater fixed? Because you know that that’s coming soon. Are you going to still try to teach it a lesson?

Larry [00:00:56]:

No. Since natural gas is so cheap right now, I’m going to have it fixed because you can heat with natural gas for virtually nothing right now.

Andy [00:01:06]:

Wait, I thought inflation, everything. Wouldn’t that make all the things really expensive?

Larry [00:01:13]:

Oh, natural gas is dirt cheap right now. We’ve got a glut of it with all the oil. It’s a byproduct of production of oil. There’s so much natural gas on the market right now, it’s really cheap.

Andy [00:01:25]:

All right, well, moving over to the more west to Chance. Good evening, sir. How are you? That’s, that’s amazing. You know, I forgot to launch my other screen that will move the screen to your screen when we’re going. So, I’m going to, we’re going to start the show and I’m going to try and figure this thing out. But before I get all of that situated, make sure that you leave a five-star rating and show some love. There’s some goofy thing over on, on Apple stuff where in a podcast app, you have to do something with follow. Like, I don’t, can you go into your Apple app, whoever has an apple, and press that button that says follow this podcast so that it looks good on the numbers. And if you’re feeling super generous, head over to patreon.com and support the program for as little as a dollar a month. That would be most appreciated. And so, Andy, what are we doing tonight?

Larry [00:02:16]:

We have some good stuff for this episode, I think. We have a couple of listener questions. We have some clips from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sharing his wisdom. We have a case from the Illinois appellate court dealing with civil commitment, and Chance is back with us again this week. So we have a California court which actually extends beyond California because it deals with attorney selection.

Andy [00:02:46]:

Wow. All right. Well, then I believe that you have decided to give us another Andy’s general rules this week and shall I play the clip or shall I not play the clip?

Larry [00:02:59]:

Play a little bit of the clip, but I’ll set it up. People criticized me. I got an email saying that you’re always picking on dumb criminals. Why don’t you do something that’s funny? I said, okay, I’ll look for something funny. So, I think this is funny.

Andy [00:03:12]:

All right, well, tell me when you want me to stop and I’ll have to press lots of buttons to make it stop, but it’s only a minute long.

Larry [00:03:18]:

Okay, go for it.

Audio Clip [00:03:22]:

The Kroger executive admits to price gouging according to reports by Bloomberg and Newsweek. It happened in a hearing for an antitrust trial. Newsweek says Andy Groff told regulators that Kroger raised the prices of milk and eggs beyond the level of inflation. The report cites an internal email from Groff showing the price of those items were higher than necessary to turn a profit given the rate of inflation. In response, Kroger tells CBS News Detroit, quote, this cherry-picked email covers a specific period and does not reflect Kroger’s decades long business model to lower prices for customers by reducing its margins. It goes on to say retail prices include the cost to run a grocery store, including labor, transportation, advertising, and other costs. We work relentlessly to keep prices as low as possible for customers in our highly competitive industry. This is especially true for essential products like milk and eggs. Now this comes as Kroger is trying to merge with its competitor Albertsons, the FTC, and some states argue that would drive up prices. Kroger claims it would help them compete with retail giants like Walmart.

Andy [00:04:28]:

Now I just got to ask you though, this is not Economics Weekly. This is Registry Matters.

Larry [00:04:36]:

It was for the humor. I thought it would be funny because I’m always picking on dumb criminals with Larry’s general rules. So, my general rule for this episode would be very careful when you send an email. But beyond that, if you’re in the midst of an antitrust investigation where you have numerous challenges trying to block the merger, it’s probably not a good idea to send an email acknowledging that you’re recovering prices above inflation when that’s one of the chief arguments being used to block the merger. Therefore, that email should not have been sent. And so, mister Kroger executive, don’t send stupid emails.

Andy [00:05:25]:

Who’s the arbiter of what’s a stupid email or nothing.

Larry [00:05:29]:

If it can do something detrimental like this will have the potential to do. It’s not going to block the merger. It’s eventually going to be approved. They’ll probably have to do some divestiture if they’re going to have a large market share. For example, if Kroger and Albertsons are in markets where would have a huge, more than 50% of the market, after they merge, they’ll probably have to create a shell company and divest those stores. So, the merger is going to happen. Why did you want to bring extra scrutiny on yourself by putting out an email that admits that you’re raising prices above inflation? Don’t do stupid things, man. You’re paid good money to be smart.

Andy [00:06:06]:

Isn’t it because it’s the most efficient form of communication ever?

Larry [00:06:10]:

Well, I suppose it is, but the fallout is not so efficient.

Andy [00:06:16]:

Maybe it is efficient. All right, well, then move along. What is up with some Scalia clips?

Larry [00:06:24]:

Yes, we’ve had some people who misunderstand some of what is said on the podcast because we have new listeners and what we’ve played over the years is not really in their memory. We’re going to play just a couple tonight and maybe sprinkle in a few going forward for new listeners and new supporters. But we have this one here about the constitution is dead. Justice Scalia was one of those who believe that the Constitution does not evolve, that the words mean exactly what they meant 240 years ago when the constitution was written. And listen carefully, because this is not Registry Matters saying this, this is a conservative icon expressing what he believes about the evolution of the Constitution.

Andy [00:07:17]:

Very well.

Speaker [00:07:26]:

“The constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead.” Close quote, explain that one.

Antonin Scalia

Much of the harm that has been done in recent years by activist constitutional interpretation is made possible by a theory which says that unlike an ordinary law, which doesn’t change, it means what it meant when it was enacted and will always mean that. Unlike that, the constitution changes from decade to decade to comport with, and this is a phrase we use in our 8th amendment jurisprudence, we, the court does to comport with, quote, the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. In other words, we have a morphing constitution. And of course, it’s up to the court to decide when it morphs and how it morphs. That’s generally paraded as the quote living constitution. And unfortunately, that philosophy has made enormous headway, not only with lawyers and judges, but even with John Q. Public.

Andy [00:08:55]:

Well, first off, why do you put these things in here?

Larry [00:08:59]:

Well, I’m wanting the people to understand that we’re about to have an election here in less than 60 days. And if you believe that it’s important that the constitution be interpreted differently, then you’re going to have to elect someone who will appoint judges and justices who believe that way. The appointments that were made in the last administration would be in alignment with Scalia’s point of view. And if you believe that the Constitution does evolve with our standards of decency of a maturing society, then you probably would want to make a different choice. But if you heard the way he said that, there was just slithering sarcasm when he did the evolving standards of decency that mark maturing society, or whatever it was, he said, and I don’t know that I can fault his logic. I only wish that people who proclaimed that philosophy, if they employed it consistently, because there’s been plenty of activism from the court in recent years. It’s just activism in areas different than what, where we would like to see that activism. But there are plenty, plenty of activism, activist decisions coming out of the Supreme Court right now. So. But yes, we have another clip here of activist versus originalist, part two.

Andy [00:10:31]:

Can I ask Chance a question real quick, sir?

Larry [00:10:34]:

Sure.

Andy [00:10:34]:

Yeah. I’m just. I know that you’re from the super liberal, pointy-head state of California, but there has to be cases where you think a textual interpretation is the right way to go.

Chance [00:10:46]:

Well, you know, sometimes that’s true. I do think that. But, you know, that’s. That is part and parcel with the argument that the document’s dynamic. I am opposed to seeing that document as just sitting in place and stale, like over 200 and some odd years old society. It isn’t static or stale. It’s dynamic. And in order to make that piece of paper live and apply to what’s going on today, it has to move, too. And sometimes there are some very good precepts that need to be followed and precedents that need to be followed. And other times, because things have changed so dramatically, we need to move on. And that’s the beauty of that document. So, uh, I do not think the constitution is dead.

Andy [00:11:44]:

But there are mechanisms in place to change it, either by law or by amendment.

Chance [00:11:50]:

Not going to happen. And the reason it’s not going to happen is just take a look at where we’re living now. I mean, you know, no one can get anything done even in the, even in the most simplistic terms. That is a major heavy lift. So that document has to be dynamic. And anybody who says that, you know, the originalists stay original is wrong. And as Larry just said, you know, when it’s convenient for them to be active, they’re activists. And if it’s not, they’re originalists. I say, you know what? Get, you know, the middle and perhaps the edge is to agree on something that’s dynamic or apply a principle. But, you know, let’s be consistent in what we do.

Andy [00:12:32]:

Gotcha. All right. Well, then here is the next clip.

Scalia [00:12:35]:

You would think there would be some consensus on what we think we’re doing when we interpret the constitution. You know, I mean, these are wildly divergent views. Are we taking broad concepts such as equal protection and due process and asking, what should these concepts mean today? That’s one view. Or on the other hand, are we saying, what did these concepts mean when they were adopted? Now, as for the difficulty of figuring that out, the historical problem, yes, there is. I’m not pretending that doing it by text and the original meaning of that text is perfect, that it’s going to solve every problem, but it solves an awful lot of problems, especially the most controversial ones. It doesn’t take a whole lot of history to figure out that nobody thought the Bill of Rights stopped a state from prohibiting abortion. Nobody thought that the Bill of rights prohibited a state from criminalizing sodomy. Nobody thought that the Bill of Rights prohibited states from prohibiting assisted suicide. So many of the most controversial questions, it’s a piece of cake to decide it.

Larry [00:13:50]:

And that’s where I wanted to comment about this. I left the death penalty off because of the. It was too far out in the video. This is the conservative philosophy about things, including the death penalty. They say we should look at what the words meant at that time and that what people were thinking at the time, they put the constitution together. And you just heard him say that no one believed that these laws, the constitution would have, would have imposed anything that would prevent states from prohibiting abortion, prohibiting same sex relationships and all these things. He said that. And that’s what we will get depending on how you vote in 60 days, because there will inevitably be more openings on the Supreme Court. The nine we have serving now will not be serving indefinitely. If this is what you want, vote exactly this way. But this is what you’re going to get. So that was the whole point with.

Chance [00:15:01]:

One caveat, and that is that when it’s convenient and you want to lift somebody above the law. When you say nobody’s above the law, but you want to lift somebody above the law, even though the constitution or the Bill of Rights doesn’t say that, then you do that because it’s a tribal call. This is the inconsistency of it all, and that’s part of what you’re going to get when you vote a certain way. So, you know, I agree with you Larry. If you want things done and you want to make sure that they’re done with today in mind and what’s best for all of us, then that parchment’s got to be dynamic.

Larry [00:15:41]:

Well, since words don’t change, just out of curiosity, if you were living in 1974 and you said the word browser, what would the average person have thought in 1974 had they heard the word browser?

Chance [00:16:01]:

That would be referring to a peeping time, for Christ’s sake?

Larry [00:16:04]:

Well, the reason why that came up, because I was thumbing through a year-book from the 1970s, and I saw a furniture company that was advertising browsers needed looking for browsers. Now, the last furniture store closed about 30 years ago. Everybody does everything online. And I’m exaggerating, of course, but if words didn’t change in their meaning, how come browser, the way it’s used today, no one would ever think about someone browsing in a store. If you use the term browser day, what would come to your mind if you said browser today?

Andy [00:16:43]:

You obviously think of a computer web browser.

Chance [00:16:47]:

That’s a good point.

Larry [00:16:49]:

But Justice Scalia says what you would do is you would go look at what browser meant in 1974, if that was when it was written. And you would afford that document, that law, that provision, the meaning that it had in 1974. That’s what he says. That’s what you would do in his judicial philosophy.

Chance [00:17:09]:

Yep.

Andy [00:17:09]:

But we have the ability to go back and change them, so can’t we?

Larry [00:17:14]:

We could if. If we had the will. But amending the constitution was intended to be very difficult. That’s why it’s only been amended a small number of times.

Chance [00:17:23]:

Correct.

Larry [00:17:24]:

It’s intended to be very difficult, and passing laws is much easier, and that’s what’s happening. States are passing laws protecting the right to choice for women. They’re doing things as a result of Supreme Court decision. But that’s getting way off topic. The topic is that if this is the philosophy you like, vote this way. We don’t tell you how to vote. I’m just giving you information because we’re an education business here. This is what you’re going to get. If you vote the way that when they say, I’m going to appoint textless judges, I’m going to appoint originalists, this is what you’re going to get. And you shouldn’t be shocked when we don’t get the kind of relief we’re looking for on the litigation that we’re undertaking, because no one would have ever thought that merely providing your name to law enforcement would have been cruel and unusual punishment, as that term was understood back in colonial times. No one would have ever imagined that putting your name on a list of some sort would be, would be remotely cruel or unusual punishment. So, you never get where you’re trying to, trying to go.

Chance [00:18:31]:

And as Scalia says, there’s nothing, there’s nothing about that there in the bill of rights. So, you know, you’re out of luck.

Larry [00:18:39]:

So. All right, well, enough of that on Scalia. I’ve probably run off about half of our audience now.

Andy [00:18:44]:

That’s fine. All right, well, we can now move over to this listener question sent by a person named Richard? I was registered in New Mexico for about eight years. Then I moved back to California and was removed from the registry. I’m working with an attorney to have my felony dropped to a misdemeanor and then dismissed. I can’t get a straight answer from anyone, but do you think New Mexico would make me register if I were to move back after my felony has dropped and dismissed? Any info is appreciated. And then thank you. And that was, like I said by Richard. Interesting question. And it’s also interesting that it involves both of you.

Larry [00:19:26]:

It is interesting. I wonder what kind of quack attorney he had. But I think that was what he’s referring to as a wobbler that we talked about a few episodes back where it can be a misdemeanor of felony. Right.

Chance [00:19:39]:

He had a damn good attorney. Looks like he cleaned them up in California. Wow.

Larry [00:19:44]:

So. But I can answer the question. The answer would be, if you had to register in New Mexico eight years ago, there would be one determinative factor. Did they make an equivalency determination? We don’t have a substantially similar requirement. It has to be equivalent. Did they find your California conviction to be equivalent? If they did not do an equivalency determination, then you would have the option of coming, moving here, and thanks to our litigation and work that we’ve done here, we’ve got a protection in place for people who are not put on the public facing if they don’t believe that their crime is equivalent, or if they believe it is equivalent, but it’s one that doesn’t put them on the interface of the Internet. So, you’ve got all sorts of protections in place here, but if you are equivalent, you will register here. And that’s a two-prong analysis. They look at the offense first to see if this, if the statute language lines up with the out of state offense, if the elements are exactly the same, it’s equivalent. But if the elements are not the same, then we have to look at the conduct. I don’t think, regardless of how good your attorney was in California, that you’re going to be able to erase what the conduct was. So, the conduct, as Scalia says, would be the determinant factor. It was the same conduct that happened. Therefore, if it were something that was registerable, it would still be registerable today. You will not be able to erase the conduct facts. I don’t think that then the removal process, we’ve got a California attorney here. Do you get to go back and get a factual redetermination of what the underlying facts were that predicated that the plea rested upon? And you could, can you change those facts in a removal process or any of these processes? I don’t think so. But I’m asking the expert, without a factual change, you would have to register here. Can you change the facts, Chance?

Chance [00:21:53]:

Well, no, you really can’t. But here’s the caveat. The caveat is that it depends whether or not there’s any stipulated facts to begin with. Some pleas don’t have any. Sometimes a plea is done without that. I mean, it does happen. So, you know, you really have to look at what they’re going to look at in assessing that. Let’s just say the elements don’t line up and you don’t have any stipulated facts? That puts you into a different box. So, you’ve got to, you know, so that there’s, there’s a bit more, so it’s a bit more intricate. But, you know, as to your question letting you know, you can’t change the facts. The issue is, you know, what facts were exactly stipulated to or found as the foundation for the plea.

Larry [00:22:34]:

Well, in my decades of unauthorized practice of law, every felony plea that’s accepted, there has to be a factual basis, and the judge has to address the defendant in open court and determine that if those facts are correct and that if they’re doing the plea willingly and they go through all that stuff about drugs and stuff, are you telling me that judges in the great state of California are so lazy that they accept a plea without any factual basis to support the plea, whether it occurred in the jurisdiction or whether there were facts that would merit accepting a plea.

Chance [00:23:08]:

Well, most. Most of them have very good factual foundations for the plea, and they make sure that when the plea is given, they go through all this on the record and do that doesn’t happen all the time. Sometimes there’s mistakes made. Sometimes things are left out. Sometimes generalizations are made which. Where you can’t really determine what facts here are being stipulated to. So, you really need a close analysis of what you’re doing before you do it. And that’s why California, and I see this from other states as well. The states where, you know, those who’ve been convicted in other states want to come to California, and they get into the whole, you know, analysis that you just described with the California DOJ, same thing happens. It’s not something that’s consistent or automatic or always there. You know, there could be glitches or flies in the ointment. And that’s what I’m pointing out.

Larry [00:24:01]:

Well, once the California process is complete, if he wants to contact me for a nominal fee, I’ll be happy to help him with what he’s going to be facing. But I think I’ll probably know it as well as anybody here, since I had a big hand in developing our process. So, I know what. How we do it here.

Chance [00:24:20]:

Good.

Larry [00:24:21]:

How do you.

Andy [00:24:22]:

How do you do that?

Larry [00:24:24]:

How do we do what?

Andy [00:24:25]:

How do you have a big hand in doing stuff?

Larry [00:24:28]:

Because I’m an activist here.

Andy [00:24:31]:

Let me frame that a different way. You were just a moment ago talking about there’s an election in just. Did you say 60 days and just under.

Larry [00:24:38]:

Just under 60 days. Yes. So, I have served in the capacity of supporting an elected official here, but I’ve also been before that, I was decades in public policy formulation. It’s not just in the last decade or so that I’ve worked for a state senator.

Andy [00:24:55]:

And so along with that, though. But people, I think they generally think and Chance chime in, people think that once they go vote, their involvement in government policy pick all the terms after that, that’s the end of their civic duties.

Chance [00:25:17]:

They think that people believe. They believe that. Yeah, they do. It’s a generalization, but, yeah, I think in general, people do think that.

Andy [00:25:29]:

There was a NARSOL call during the week that I helped produce. And there was one particular individual, and he was adamant that Pennsylvania is a terrible place to be on the registry. And he’s wondering what anyone is going to do to fix it. And I’m just thinking to myself, first of all, check yourself. What are you doing? I mean, are you donating money to any of the advocacy organizations? Are you going down to the state capitol and testifying and doing those things like, what are you doing before you go call on everyone else to go help save you? But then I was like, holy moly. You think Pennsylvania is bad? You should go try, I don’t know, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.

Larry [00:26:08]:

Yep. Well, it’s all relative to what you people think, that Vermont is bad and Vermont is really not very bad at all.

Andy [00:26:18]:

All right, move along to this brochure.

Larry [00:26:21]:

Let’s do it. We have another question here.

Andy [00:26:23]:

Okay, well, and I’m sorry that if you can’t see what’s on the screen, I can’t help you. It’s very small letters. Would you describe this? Well, anyway, so I guess I’ll just start with this. I ran, I ran into this brochure. And so since Mister Doom and gloom, actually, I’m reading this as Jay. Jay wrote and he thought of Andy, mister Doom and gloom, and would love to pick this apart. This is the only state that I know of with a registry for other than SO offenses. Oh, a registry for other than SO offenses. I was offered, I was offered a paralegal job in Kansas. So, like always, I researched the laws, and I found this a bit disturbing, as always. FYP. Cause they’re even talking about some kind of like law enforcement person registry so that you don’t have some crooked cop going to a different jurisdiction. There’s domestic abuse. There are animal abuse ones.

Larry [00:27:16]:

Indeed, there’s, there are a lot of states. Montana has the sexual offenders and violent offender’s registry. It’s not unique to Kansas.

Andy [00:27:24]:

Um, so Jay has requested that you pick apart the Kansas registration act stuff. So, do you have any problem with their requirements?

Larry [00:27:34]:

Many.

Andy [00:27:35]:

Would you please? So, we like put a counter up on the screen. One, two, three. Would you begin?

Larry [00:27:42]:

Okay. All offenders must register four times a year in person at the registering law enforcement agency in any county where they reside, maintain employment, or attend school. This means that Kansas has far exceeded the very rigorous requirements of the federal Adam Walsh act. Only tier three offenders are required by that federal Adam Walsh act to register four times a year. Yet this is, you know, the feds get the bad rap for all these bad things. And here’s an example of your state did it, not the federal government. Next, they must report in the month of their birthday and every third and 6th and nine months thereafter. They must also be photographed, pay a registration fee of $20.00, and complete the registration form with all the information.

Andy [00:28:33]:

Out of curiosity, with something like this, what happens if you live and work in two different counties? Are you required to register in both?

Larry [00:28:39]:

Based on this brochure, it appears that you do.

Andy [00:28:42]:

Oh my God. So not only do you have to register four times a year, you have to register eight times a year?

Larry [00:28:47]:

Potentially that’s what it appears to be. But I’m not gonna, I’m not gonna say for sure because I don’t, I don’t live there, but it sure appears that way.

Andy [00:28:54]:

God. All right, well, so besides that, what else annoys you?

Larry [00:28:59]:

Well, the offenders must register in person at the registering law enforcement agency within three days of changes to the registration information. This includes changes of residence, employment and school attendance. This also includes such information as vehicles owned or operated, tattoos and license information. Now folks, we live in the digital era. Allow them to update electronically. This would be far more efficient.

Andy [00:29:29]:

I mean, if you can go to rocket mortgage or whatever and press a handful of buttons and submit enough paperwork to get a mortgage and sign your life away for 30 years, I would think that you could upload a photo and do these different changes on a web form and just press the button and go back to sleep on your Sunday morning and watch your cartoons or whatever, don’t you think?

Larry [00:29:49]:

Indeed.

Andy [00:29:52]:

So, could this in person requirement be designed to make it even more difficult?

Larry [00:29:59]:

Yes, there could be a sinister motivation behind this. Indeed.

Andy [00:30:03]:

So, you have extreme consternation on how states treat homeless PFRs, but what does Kansas do?

Larry [00:30:13]:

According to their brochure, if an offender is transient, they’re required to report in person with the registering law enforcement agency every 30 days or I emphasize here more often at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency. They’re also required to provide a list of places where they may be contacted and where they intend to sleep, and frequent during the period of time till the next registration date. This, more frequent than every 30 days at the discretion of law enforcement is probably unconstitutional because it’s void for vagueness. One of the primary considerations is the language has to be sufficiently clear for a person of ordinary intelligence to be able to conform their behavior to the requirements of law. So, this language says every 30 days. That’s pretty clear. We can 30 days as Scalia would tell you, hasn’t changed. 30 days is 30 days, but, or more often at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency is not clear. Does that mean every single day during the 30, does, what does that mean? And the other component of that constitutional test is whether it would lend a hand to law enforcement for arbitrary and capricious enforcement. I can visualize that this might very well if they didn’t like a particular homeless offender, and they wanted to run them to the next county and get them out of their county. They say, boy, you gonna have to come on in here even though the law says every 30 days, we need you in here every week. So yes, I think this is probably unconstitutional.

Andy [00:31:45]:

I just want to clarify that the reason why I laugh hysterically at these things because it’s just so awful and all I could, I guess the other thing I could do is pound my fist and cuss, but it’s just so over the top ridiculous. And that’s why I end up laughing.

Larry [00:31:59]:

Yep.

Andy [00:32:00]:

Well, what do you, what would you like to see challenged in all of this?

Larry [00:32:05]:

Oh, I’d like to see that provision challenge for sure.

Andy [00:32:07]:

And so how does, how does Kansas handle out of state convictions?

Larry [00:32:14]:

Well, this is even funnier. If an offender is convicted or adjudicated and required to register another state, Kansas will honor that registration requirement. The duration of registration will be the length of time the other state requires or what would be required under Kansas offender registration for a comparable offense, whichever is longer. Whichever is longer is quite funny to me. So, they don’t really believe in reciprocal treatment, although that’s what they’re trying to present here. They’re saying that we will honor the registration requirement, meaning we’re reciprocating. They believe in discouraging anyone from moving to Kansas. They don’t believe in the equal protection clause. Those people who pound that podium and say what conservative constitutionalists they are that run Kansas, which is a pretty red state, they really don’t believe in any of that stuff because we’ve got a serious equal protection issue here. If you move to Kansas because you were convicted of making obscene phone calls to a minor, Kansas shouldn’t register you because that is not a Kansas registerable offense. So, they’re giving you unequal treatment. If you came from Georgia and you had a car that you had to spend dollar 200 a year on an admission inspection, and they didn’t have that inspection regime in Kansas, they went and say, well, you came on in here, son, without your car, we don’t have to go ahead and get you to run the same kind of stuff here that you do in Georgia. You got to do that. That’s crazy. So yes, they missed. Kansas is all over the top in many ways with this. So, keep going.

Andy [00:33:44]:

All right, well, one of the bigger issues that people would have, I think, is marking licenses, driver’s licenses. So, does Kansas do that?

Larry [00:33:55]:

Yes, they do. PFRs are required to renew their Kansas driver’s license or state identification card annually. Remember, equal protection though, you got to do it annually where they, I’m sure they have at least a four or maybe eight-year license. The driver’s license identification card shall indicate that they’re a registered offender. In addition, if the PFR maintained their, maintains their primary residence in Kansas, he or she must surrender all other driver’s licenses and identification cards from other states, territories, and the District of Columbia.

Andy [00:34:28]:

Of course, if they’re putting it on your license, then what about your email and Internet restrictions? Do they exist?

Larry [00:34:35]:

Another potential constitutional challenge. Registered offenders must report to the registered law enforcement agency any and all email addresses, online identities, membership in any and all personal webpages or social networks and Internet screen names. So yes, I think this Kansas regime has got a lot of potential for challenge.

Andy [00:34:58]:

Does an expungement remove the obligation to register?

Larry [00:35:04]:

No, it does not. According to the KORA brochure, an expungement for the crime that requires registration does not terminate the registration obligation.

Andy [00:35:18]:

That’s insanity. Um, I, I, then I just have to ask. With all of Mister doom and gloom and the unshidification of the registry here, uh, in these rules, is there anything positive in Kansas?

Larry [00:35:30]:

Uh, not much, other than there are no residency restrictions or employment prohibitions in their law.

Andy [00:35:35]:

I suppose if you’re fearful of water, there’s not much chance of a flood if you’re in Kansas. Well, no, there are probably rivers that flood in Kansas. Never mind, I was just thinking of oceans.

Larry [00:35:45]:

So probably not much hurricane damage in Kansas.

Andy [00:35:49]:

But they do have tornadoes.

Larry [00:35:52]:

Indeed, they do.

Andy [00:35:53]:

Wasn’t that where wizard of Joliet? I can’t remember the name with. That’s definitely where Toto was from. Chance, did you happen to see the question I posted there to give you some heads up?

Chance [00:36:05]:

Yeah, I kind of did, but I’m not exactly sure what that all means, but explain it to me.

Andy [00:36:11]:

Well, that’s what I’m asking if you can explain it, because you’re the lawyer.

Larry [00:36:14]:

I just did. Did you not like mine?

Chance [00:36:16]:

No. I mean, I’m looking at this. And I’m saying explain voice for voice.

Andy [00:36:22]:

I’m sorry, I spelled it wrong there, there you go.

Chance [00:36:25]:

Yeah, Andy did explain that. But, you know, I can add to that rather than re explain what Andy said. Look, you know, it goes back to what Larry said originally and that is that, you know, in, in a state where, you know, there’s not much about this in the Bill of rights, you know, due process equals what, you know, your, your norms are going to be socially. And if that social dynamic doesn’t, doesn’t move or evolve, you know, then you know what you’re going to get these kinds of restrictions. So, you know, caveat emptor. You know, you’ve got, you’ve got a vote, and you’ve got a way of making a change and you can get involved and, you know, you can do something about this.

Andy [00:37:07]:

Gotcha. Well, anything else about Totoland before we move on?

Larry [00:37:12]:

No. Let’s get to Illinois. This is the main event.

Andy [00:37:15]:

Alright, well, the main event. All right.

Speaker A [00:37:18]:

Registry Matters Promo Deleted.

Andy [00:38:02]:

You have this article that you wrote for the NARSOL newsletter. The title is Hope for Civil Commitment Reform in Illinois. What is this about?

Larry [00:38:17]:

It’s a recent decision from the Illinois Appellate court, District One. The case is In Re Commitment of Johnny Butler, number 1-23-0567 the case offers some hope for those confined in Rushville. As a point of reference, the appellate court is the intermediate court of appeals for the state of Illinois, directly under the Illinois Supreme Court.

Andy [00:38:44]:

Well, let me set up the case, if you don’t mind. Shortly before Butler’s scheduled release from prison in 2008, the state filed a petition for commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment act. The petition stated that clinical psychologist doctor Ray Quackenbush evaluated Butler in May 2008 and diagnosed him with a paraphilia not otherwise specified, non-consenting persons, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial features. The state alleged that Butler was dangerous to others as he suffered from mental disorders that made it substantial, substantially probable that he would engage in acts of sexual violence. The jury found Butler to be sexually. Excuse me. Found Butler to be a sexually violent person, and the circuit court entered a judgment on the verdict and committed Butler. Now, did I do it at least a remotely decent job there.

Larry [00:39:37]:

Yes, you did. Johnny Butler is now 70 years old and was committed to a secure treatment facility pursuant to the act from 2008 until he finally obtained conditional release in 2023.

Andy [00:39:50]:

All right, so finally, at age 70, he was finally released. So that’s good, then. What’s wrong?

Larry [00:39:58]:

That’s where it becomes funny.

Andy [00:40:00]:

And I. Yeah, there’s not going to be anything funny about this, but okay, in your terms of funny, tell us what’s funny.

Larry [00:40:07]:

Butler was granted conditional release under a plan approved by the circuit court of Cook County. The release plan included 68 enumerated conditions, including no Internet access. Butler’s failure to abide by the conditions could and likely would be grounds for revocation of his conditional release.

Andy [00:40:24]:

Now, for context, I had 23 special conditions of probation, and most of them were pretty ridiculous, but this guy’s got, like, three ish times more than that. 68. So, you said 68 conditions?

Larry [00:40:37]:

I did, and that’s where it’s beginning to be funny. Despite the fact he had been in a secure treatment facility for many years, the proposed plan provided that Butler will be referred to for specialized sex offender treatment and an initial assessment for alcohol and substance abuse treatment. Now, please admit that’s funny. You’ve been in a secure facility that only houses sexual offenders, and they’re referring you after 15 or16 years for specialized sex offender treatment? Can you please admit that that’s funny?

Andy [00:41:10]:

What was he getting during the decade and a half that he was in the secure facility?

Larry [00:41:15]:

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. So that’s why it’s funny. But among other things, the Department of Human Services and Liberty Healthcare established a case management team to manage and contain Butler during his conditional release, and he will be subject to global positioning system tracking and random home visits. Butler was required to agree to abide by all of the conditions, and failure to do so would likely result in revocation of his conditional release.

Andy [00:41:42]:

And you mentioned no Internet. No interwebs.

Larry [00:41:46]:

Correct. No Internet access. But Butler filed objections to the proposed conditional release plan. He argued that the specified conditions: A, operated as unconstitutional, prior restraint or free speech, and B, were unconstitutionally over broad or vague, and C, could punish him for inadvertent innocuous conduct, and D, did not comply with the mandatory versions of the conditions set forth in the act, and E, were unreasonable as they imposed additional restrictions beyond the Act’s requirements without demonstrating the need for such restrictions.

Andy [00:42:25]:

These appeals are generally futile. What’s the legal standard for this? What do you call that standard? What’s the standard of review?

Larry [00:42:33]:

Yes, that is generally true. The administrative imposition is usually reviewed with a very low, I mean, a very high tolerance, very low chance of overturning it. But the appellate court noted, when considering an SVP’s challenge to the imposition of certain conditions in his conditional release plan, the Illinois appellate court in the case of In Re Commitment of Holt, and that was a 2022 case from the same court, noted that noted the varying standards of review at issue. For example, a circuit court’s decision regarding conditional release should generally be reviewed for abuse of discretion, whereas a de novo standard review applies to determination of whether individual constitutional rights have been violated. And de novo means a brand-new review without any deference to the previous decision. But the abuse of discretion means that they’re looking at it with a high level of deference, and unless there’s a demonstration that the judge abused the discretion, it’ll stand.

Andy [00:43:34]:

Now, you know, as soon as you start saying the whatever page number and paragraph, my eyes start rolling in the back of my head, and then I know that legal mumbo jumbo is coming up, so I just kind of tune out. So, what constitutes a reasonable condition?

Larry [00:43:47]:

Well, that would be dictated by Holt in that decision that was in that mumbo jumbo. The Holt court held to be reasonable, a condition must not be overly broad when viewed in the light of desired goal or the means to that end.

Andy [00:44:02]:

And you told me in show prep that Butler had won, and you mentioned something about laziness contributed to the outcome. Is this laziness on his part, the attorney’s part, judge’s part?

Larry [00:44:13]:

No, it’s on the state’s part. The case appears to have been reversed due to sloppiness or possibly laziness. The appellate court stated, quote, “our concern, however, is that the conditional release plan prepared for respondent Butler in this case appears to be adopted almost verbatim from the conditional release plan of another SVP. The circuit court case number of the other SVP was typewritten and then crossed out by hand on the initial page of the respondent’s conditional discharge plan, meaning Butler’s plan. Respondent Butler’s plan also included a notation on each page that the plan was revised on 722, even though the circuit court herein did not order preparation of conditional release plan until August, which is the 8th month of 2022.” And that’s on page eight to nine of the opinion. They simply inserted the conditional release plan of another person rather than individually tailoring the conditions to Mister Butler. Now, please, I want you to. Can you admit that that’s funny?

Andy [00:45:13]:

Not funny, Andy. You know, I should go back to the live recording at the conference and capture where they say, not funny, Andy, and have that on a speed button.

Larry [00:45:23]:

It’s funny to anyone that has a sense of humor. But anyway, the appellate court stated, based on our review of the record in the instant case, we are uncertain whether the plan submitted by Liberty Healthcare and DHS and approved by the circuit court, was properly designed for the control, care and treatment of respondent butler in the least restrictive manner, consistent with the requirements, and in accordance with the commitment order. And that’s on page nine.

Andy [00:45:50]:

I see in the court’s conclusion where they stated the act requires DHS to arrange for respondents’ control, care and treatment in the least restrictive manner consistent with his requirements and the commitment order. What happens next?

Larry [00:46:06]:

Well, he gets to go back to the circuit court, and they must reexamine the case. And the appellate court stated, to the extent that it may be questionable whether respondent’s plan complied with express mandate of Holt and otherwise provided for treatment in the least restrictive manner consistent with the requirements and the commitment order, we are compelled to remand this matter to the circuit court for additional proceedings. Judge, circuit Court, do your job. Individually tailor a plan to Mister Holt. Don’t accept a cut and paste job that’s got scratch marks through it. They pay you good money and do your job Judge.

Andy [00:46:48]:

And ultimately, this is great news for those in Rushville.

Larry [00:46:53]:

Yes, but you missed a paragraph there.

Andy [00:46:55]:

Oh, that’s all? Oh, I did. I jumped down too far. So, we’ve not discussed the Internet prohibition. What did the appellate court have to say about that?

Larry [00:47:04]:

Well, they stated any provisions of the plan regarding respondent’s Internet access must comply with Holt. As the Holt court noted, respondent’s conditional team can monitor and limit his Internet usage in many ways while running afoul of his rights. Furthermore, as discussed above, the circuit court may impose conditions in addition to those explicitly enumerated in section 40 of the act. The conditions should be drafted such that the respondent may understand exactly what conduct the conditional release plan may prohibit, restrict, or require, and should be narrowly tailored to that desired goal. It’s not that hard, folks.

Andy [00:47:46]:

And now it’s great news for those in Rushville.

Larry [00:47:49]:

It’s good news. I think I’d tone it down a little bit. It means that if you are in the posture of possibly getting conditional release, they will not be able to cut and paste 68 conditions. They will have to abide by Holt. I don’t think that the, the appellate division is going to want to see another case like this. Chance, you could probably expand on that. But they’ve, they’ve decided Holt now they’ve remanded a case based on Holt. I don’t think they’re going to be amused if another case comes with a cut and paste job. What do you think, Chance?

Chance [00:48:23]:

No, no, I don’t think they’re going to be amused about that. The jack’s already out of the box here.

Larry [00:48:29]:

So, so, yes, they’re going to have to do their work. So, it means that these people are going to have a Chance to have an individualized, individually tailored release plan constructed for them.

Andy [00:48:41]:

Well, I guess we can now head over to the infamous California corner. Are you ready, chance, for some California cornering? All right, well, today we’re going to, today we’re going to discuss an important topic, the steps to take when selecting a lawyer for your criminal case. Now let’s dive right in. Chance, what’s the first step someone should take when researching and evaluating attorneys?

Chance [00:49:05]:

Yeah. Well, this section is how to avoid 68 freaking conditions. Let’s talk about the first step. Okay. The first step is to evaluate their experience. The more experience a lawyer has in criminal law, for instance, the more likely they are to succeed in your case. So experienced lawyers have seen it all and know how to handle even the biggest obstacles, from the pre-arraignment investigative phase to post conviction cleanup.

Larry [00:49:30]:

Well, that makes sense but how can someone properly assess an attorney’s level of experience? They don’t have that tattooed on their forehead.

Chance [00:49:37]:

No, they don’t. That’s a good question. So, you, as a good consumer, have to ask the following questions. For instance, is criminal law and this is what you ask them, you know, because you’re being a good consumer and you’re, you’re interviewing this attorney. They are. Chance: You should ask the following questions: Is criminal law one of the main practice areas they focus on as a lawyer? How many years has the attorney been handling these types of cases? Does the attorney have extensive trial experience. When I ask, does the attorney have extensive trial experience, especially if you have issues that may be or may end up going to trial, you want to make sure that they know how to, how to pull the trigger, because if they don’t have trial experience and you’re headed toward a trial, then you’ll get short shirted and often the worst deal in the whole world. And then you’ll be calling me saying, my attorney screwed me. So, you don’t want to do that. You want to ask that question. Also. You might want to ask, are they well recognized and well respected in the criminal law community? Now, not that that’s a necessary thing, but it’s always good to know. And you can do this by scanning the Internet, whether or not they’ve made some headway and have shown some, some leadership in some way and have, and have maybe carved out some things in the law that are seminal. I mean, if you’re looking for someone who’s going to do something for you and they have that kind of recognition, that is really good. And also, have they ever been disciplined by the state bar? If so, for what reason? I mean, you know, there’s all kinds of discipline. But look, if they’ve been disciplined for fraud or they’ve been disciplined for case mismanagement or they’ve been disciplined for, you know, commingling funds and doing those types of things, I think you want to avoid them like the plague.

Andy [00:51:44]:

Specifically on that last one, how would you do that? Is there like the lawyer registry, so to speak?

Chance [00:51:52]:

That’s a good question, Andy, and the answer is, of course, we’re in the California corner, and the California state bar provides all that information upfront and it’s easy to access it. So that’s the answer here in this state. And I’m sure other states have their ways, too, but that’s a big assumption. California puts it right out in front.

Andy [00:52:13]:

Well, okay, so with all those great questions that we just had, what’s the next step in the lawyer selection process?

Chance [00:52:19]:

Okay. The next step is to ensure that they have a strong track record for success. Experience alone isn’t enough. You need to know if they’ve consistently met their client’s objectives. So, review their evaluations posted online, if they have any, and ask yourself, have they consistently met their client’s objectives? Are their former clients satisfied with the results? And this is perhaps the most important thing because client satisfaction is, of course, a direct reflection of what the client wanted in the first place. And thirdly, would their former clients recommend them to others. Those are really important questions you have to ask yourself after looking at all the information you can glean on the Internet and anywhere else you can find it.

Larry [00:53:09]:

Well, I like where you’re headed with that. It is certainly crucial and important to know that attorney has history of success. We talked a little bit about newbies, but what should someone look for in terms of how an attorney engages with them? Suppose it’s a relatively new attorney, and so what would you look for in terms of how that attorney is engaging with you when you’re trying to make that decision?

Chance [00:53:33]:

This is probably one of the most important questions you can ask, and I think this is what I think. But, you know, everybody has their own way of assessing things, but you want to pay attention to how they engage you. Trust your own judgment. The attorney-client relationship is so important, so make sure you like the way you’re being communicated with and treated by that attorney. Consider asking these questions of yourself. Are they ready and willing to answer any questions you have. Are they friendly and professional? Are they strong communicators? Do they seem genuinely concerned about your well-being?

Andy [00:54:13]:

Communication is key in any relationship, especially with your attorney. What about understanding their payment model?

Chance [00:54:20]:

That’s a good question, too. And it’s an essential question because, I mean, that’s where the rubber meets the road. It’s essential to understand their payment model, which means read the fine print carefully to ensure there are no surprises later. Ask questions like, do they offer a free initial consultation? Do they work on a flat fee basis? What costs, if any, are not covered by that flat fee?

Larry [00:54:48]:

Well, and that’s good advice as well, because in this complicated era we’re living in with forensics and expertise needed in so many cases. So what additional resources should someone consider when selecting attorney? We’re not in 1967 now. We’re living in a totally different world. So, what else should they consider about the law firm or the attorney’s resources.

Chance [00:55:11]:

When you’re considering what additional resources they offer. Think about it this way. Some criminal law firms provide a higher level of assistance with various elements of the case, creating a smoother experience overall. So, ask, do they have professional, do they have a professional investigator they use to help you prepare a defense early on? This is really important in the investigative phase, pre-arraignment, and they help you find a psychological evaluator who is well respected in local legal culture. What do I mean by that? I mean that when you take that evaluation before a judge, the judge doesn’t just think it’s someone that, you know, you hired to write this thing, and you told them what to write. It’s someone who’s well respected for their opinion and is able then to be persuasive when you’re trying to work out some kind of disposition. Ask this, can they assist with referrals for additional services related to your case to achieve postconviction relief? That is vision, and that is the type of thing you need to ask upfront because you don’t want to be stuck with something that’s going to get you nowhere.

Larry [00:56:15]:

Well, I’ve got, I’ve got another question here. Is it better to have a lawyer that’s experienced with your type of case or a lawyer who’s more familiar with a specific court you’ll be heard in? I have my own opinion, but this is your show here. So, what do you think?

Chance [00:56:30]:

Well, I think that it’s kind of a hybrid of both. I think, one, it’s a necessity to have a lawyer who’s experienced in your type of case, because if you don’t, the outcome is going to go south and you’re going to call me and say, my attorney screwed me. What can you do to help me out? The other thing is that it’s nice for an attorney to be familiar with the specific court that the case is going to be heard in. Every court in every different place has a different legal culture. Those legal cultures exist in a way that outside lawyers coming into that culture don’t understand. But there are some lawyers who understand how to plug into those cultures and get that information through association so that they can step into that court and be familiar with it. So, you want to get someone who’s so experienced, one, they know, they know and they have handled your type of case. And two, they know how to plug into that legal culture no matter what court it’s in and get the best result possible for you.

Andy [00:57:36]:

To sharpen that question a little bit because this came off of discord, is that the person is trying to do a petition to remove for removal from the registry. I would think that you would want as local to where it all went down as possible. You don’t want somebody that in your case like lives, I don’t know, what, 700 miles north in the north part of the north part of the state?

Chance [00:57:55]:

Well, it depends who that is. I mean, there are some people who live 700 miles north that know exactly what to do in your particular case for your particular removal, and it’s worthwhile hiring them. [Andy: probably more expensive.] Not necessarily. And here’s, here’s the reason why, if we’re talking about California, we’re talking about the possibility of a remote hearing. And the most important thing in a removal process is all the pre-hearing stuff you do in order to get to the objective outcome before you have to have a hearing so that you don’t have one. Think about it.

Andy [00:58:31]:

I’m with you. I’m with you on that. Is there anything else before we close this out?

Larry [00:58:37]:

Well, I would just like to expand on that. I think it’s in my opinion, although Chance, you said it very well. It depends additionally. There are cases where you do not want to bring in an outsider because that community is so close minded and there’s an inherent bias, and you would railroad your client. And you’ve got to be mature enough to analyze that. If I come in here in this rural community as somebody who doesn’t talk the way, address the way these people do, that can be a problem. And on the other hand, if on a removal petition, the way the process works in most of the jurisdictions except California is somewhat unique. You’re kind of in a buddy system to some, at some level. An attorney who’s well connected to that local culture and how things are done and knows everybody might have a slight advantage, assuming you have good facts. If you have crappy facts, it’s not going to matter. But it’s one of those things where you have to evaluate whether an insider or an outsider would be better. And so there’d be instances where you could go either way, because it would be dependent on the facts of the case, whether an insider or an outsider would be better.

Chance [00:59:50]:

And, Larry on all fours, you are absolutely correct. That is a correct assessment.

Larry [00:59:58]:

All right.

Andy [00:59:59]:

As always, Chance, thank you for sharing these super valuable insights. And it’s so important how to select the right lawyer. And it’s a critical step in ensuring the best possible outcome for your case.

Chance [01:00:10]:

You are absolutely welcome. Well said.

Andy [01:00:14]:

Andy, you have like 400 articles here.

Larry [01:00:19]:

We’re doing none of them tonight.

Andy [01:00:21]:

I didn’t think so, and I did not have time. I got held up at dinner in a conversation with some out-of-town guests. And I’m putting together the new patrons because we had three, I think. Yes, we have a john. Oh, boy. Where was the other one? I think I’m trying to remember. I’m trying to remember. I’m trying to remember. And I’m sorry I don’t have your names super handy. But you’ve been recognized, and we appreciate you. Is that good enough? Andy?

Larry [01:00:56]:

We do indeed. And we need more of them because FYP is trying to grow, we’re trying to serve more people. And of course, it’s more inspiring when we have more income, but it’s also it’s inspiring to know that our reach is growing.

Andy [01:01:14]:

What could we do if we had more money?

Larry [01:01:18]:

We could party.

Chance [01:01:20]:

Yeah. Yeah, right.

Andy [01:01:24]:

So, there was a Michael, a JT, and I guess that’s it. The other one goes back far enough. So, it was just two, I suppose. I think someone changed their, their contribution. Yeah, that must be what it was.

Chance [01:01:36]:

All right.

Larry [01:01:36]:

Someone did.

Andy [01:01:37]:

Yes. Okay. And so that’s all we got, right? Are we done?

Larry [01:01:41]:

We’re done.

Andy [01:01:43]:

I’m a little discombobulated because, like, I had to get set up super fast and it’s just been kind of a whirlwind of a show and clips didn’t go right. Anywho, hey, we’re back. Thanks, guys. I appreciate you coming out and all the people in chat. We had a whole bunch of people in chat. Head over to registrymatters.co for the show notes. And then also, I never say this, but go over to FYP education for the transcript. And I post, I’ve been trying to but it’s hard to do. I post blog posts and some other things. And then there are extra YouTube clips that come out every now and then. You can leave a voicemail for us at 747 227-4477. Send an email to cranky Larry. Just kidding. It’s registrymatterscastmail.com. And then you again, I said it before, support us on patreon@patreon.com/registrymatters for just a buck a month. And you can listen to us live. And I will guarantee you that I will get you into ask Chance and Larry questions when we record live. So, without anything else, gentlemen, is there anything else that I can offer you and we could talk about for 10 seconds? Andy, 10 seconds.

Larry [01:02:51]:

I’m ready to say good night to the massive studio audience.

Andy [01:02:55]:

All right, well, your time’s up. Chance, you can take ten minutes if you want.

Chance [01:02:59]:

Concur. Thank you so much for joining us. That’s all I want to say.

Andy [01:03:05]:

Great. Thanks, guys, very much. I appreciate it. And again, thank you, everyone, for listening live, and we will see you in a week. Have a great night, everybody, and we’ll talk to you soon.

Announcer [1:04:05]:

You’ve been listening to FYP.

In a significant legal development, Illinois inmates at the Will County Adult Detention Facility (WCADF) have achieved a partial victory in their ongoing battle for civil rights. A federal judge in Chicago ruled that several of the jail’s media and mail policies violate inmates’ constitutional rights. This decision marks a crucial step forward in the fight for the humane treatment and civil liberties of incarcerated individuals. In this article, we will delve into the details of this case, the policies in dispute, the court’s findings, and the broader implications for the rights of inmates.

The Policies in Dispute

The lawsuit challenged three specific policies at WCADF:

1. The Sexual or Inappropriate Content Policy: This policy allows mailroom staff to ban photographs or other materials deemed to contain sexual or otherwise inappropriate content at their discretion.
2. The Media Policy: This policy prohibits all materials printed from the internet, media articles, or pages torn from books or magazines.
3. The P.O. Box Policy: This policy bans any mail to or from a person, publisher, or business with a P.O. Box return address, regardless of its contents or the identity of the sender.

Judicial Review and Initial Findings

U.S. District Judge LaShonda Hunt, appointed by President Joe Biden, reviewed these policies and found that they placed unconstitutional barriers on inmates’ access to certain forms of media and mail sent from P.O. Boxes. However, she upheld the jail’s ban on “sexual and inappropriate material.”

The Origins of the Case

The case originated in 2017 when a Will County inmate sued the jail after being denied mail due to the jail’s restrictive media policies. These restrictions included bans on newspapers, internet printouts, social media materials, and all mail from P.O. Box return addresses. Over nearly four years, the case evolved into a class action, gaining momentum in federal court.

Expansion of Claims

By September 2021, U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood, appointed by President Barack Obama, certified a class of current and future WCADF inmates affected by the media restrictions. The plaintiffs expanded their claims to challenge unreasonable delays in mail processing and the ban on sexual or other materials deemed inappropriate by mailroom staff.

Personal Testimonies

Inmates provided testimonies about the arbitrary enforcement of these policies. One inmate claimed that the jail used the “inappropriate” rule to confiscate pictures of his wife. Another inmate, who initiated the 2017 lawsuit, stated he was unfairly denied a book on the history of tattoos under the same rule.

The Turner Test and Judge Hunt’s Decision

Both the inmates and the jail moved for summary judgment, leading to Judge Hunt’s split decision. Judge Hunt applied the “Turner test,” a four-factor standard established by the 1987 Supreme Court case Turner v. Safley, to evaluate the prisoners’ claims. The Turner test assesses whether a prison regulation is justified and whether there are workable alternatives if a regulation negatively impacts prison staff or inmates.

Key Findings

Judge Hunt’s findings were as follows:

1. Media Policy: The ban on internet materials and other media content was found to be unjustifiable. While the jail argued that the bans were necessary to prevent conflicts over personal beliefs, gang affiliations, and sexual preferences inferred from media consumption, Judge Hunt concluded that these security concerns did not outweigh the inmates’ rights. She noted that the jail could still review media that prisoners accessed, ensuring safety without infringing on constitutional rights.
2. P.O. Box Policy: The ban on mail from P.O. Boxes was also found to be unconstitutional. Judge Hunt emphasized that this policy, as applied, violated inmates’ rights to receive religious literature, as mail from identifiable senders with P.O. Box addresses was still being denied.
3. Provocative Mail Ban: The ban on inappropriate material was upheld, as Judge Hunt conceded that security interests outweigh prisoners’ First Amendment rights in this context. The regulation was broader than just banning sexual content; it included prohibitions on gang signs, symbols, graffiti, and other materials that could jeopardize the facility’s order and security.

Implications of the Decision

This ruling underscores the delicate balance between maintaining prison security and upholding inmates’ constitutional rights. Judge Hunt’s decision reaffirms that prison walls do not form a barrier separating inmates from constitutional protections, including the First Amendment.

Summary Judgment and its Effects

The summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs signifies a pivotal moment for the rights of inmates at WCADF and potentially other facilities with similar policies. Judge Hunt stated, “without more evidence, Defendants fail to meet their burden of proving a compelling government interest and that their policy is the least restrictive means to further such an interest.” Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim.

Broader Impact

This decision sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving inmate rights. It highlights the importance of scrutinizing prison policies to ensure they do not infringe upon fundamental rights without compelling justification. Inmates, despite their incarceration, retain their constitutional protections, and any limitations on these rights must be carefully justified and narrowly tailored.

Conclusion

The partial legal victory for Illinois inmates at WCADF is a testament to the enduring fight for civil rights within the criminal justice system. By challenging and overturning unconstitutional policies, this case emphasizes the necessity of maintaining a balance between security and individual rights. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this ruling serves as a reminder that justice must be upheld for all, including those behind bars.

Final Thoughts

The road to justice and reintegration for incarcerated individuals is fraught with challenges. However, rulings like this provide hope and pave the way for a more equitable system. It is essential to continue advocating for the rights of inmates, ensuring that their dignity and constitutional protections are preserved. As we reflect on this victory, let us remain vigilant and committed to fostering a just and humane correctional system.

https://youtu.be/BVWwlJR0Nn0