The internet is where modern life happens: work applications, medical portals, bank logins, even your smart refrigerator’s support connection. For people forced to register under Pennsylvania’s SORNA framework, those everyday clicks collide with law. A recent Pennsylvania trial court decision involving Commonwealth v. Michael William Diebold tackled a deceptively simple question with massive implications: what, exactly, must a registrant report about their online activity? The court’s answer was blunt—Pennsylvania’s “internet identifier” requirements are so unclear that they are unconstitutional.

In this article, we unpack the case’s background, why the court ruled the way it did, how the doctrine of “void for vagueness” protects due process, and what this means for registrants, law enforcement, and lawmakers. You’ll learn how the Commonwealth’s shifting positions undermined its prosecution, why daily life online makes vague laws untenable, and what likely comes next.

The Case in Brief: Diebold’s Internet Use Becomes a New Charge

The case stems from a prior prosecution where Michael Diebold pleaded guilty to failing to register a particular username and email address. Later, while litigating a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on constitutional grounds, Diebold produced a list of 66 websites he had used—including Craigslist—and an email exchange about a brush-cutting job. That disclosure triggered new charges: the state alleged he failed to “provide accurate registration information” by not reporting those sites.

At the heart of the new case was a disputed term: “internet identifiers.” A state trooper testified that registrants must register every site and app they use. But the Commonwealth had also told the court in the earlier habeas matter that the law only requires reporting identifiers used to actively communicate or post—explicitly not every website used. The trial judge pressed on this inconsistency and concluded the requirement was unconstitutionally vague.

What Is an Omnibus Pretrial Motion—and Why It Mattered Here

Diebold’s defense filed an omnibus pretrial motion to narrow issues before trial. In criminal practice, omnibus motions consolidate common pretrial questions: motions to suppress evidence, dismiss charges for failure to state an offense (prima facie defects), discovery disputes, motions in limine to exclude prejudicial material, and more. The goal is judicial efficiency and clearer boundaries for trial.

In Diebold’s case, the court did not need to address every raised ground (due process, mens rea, de minimis arguments, malicious prosecution, and more). One issue was dispositive: the meaning (and clarity) of “internet identifiers.”

The Statutory Problem: What Is an “Internet Identifier”?

Pennsylvania’s SORNA statutes require registrants to appear in person within three business days to update changes to “email address, instant message address, or any other designations used in internet communication or postings,” and to provide “designations or monikers used for self-identification.”

That language might sound precise, but ordinary life online exposes its ambiguity. Does “designation” mean just an email address? A username? The handle on a forum? The user ID at a job portal? What about services that generate relay emails (like Craigslist “gigs” addresses) that the user didn’t create? Does a shopping site account count even if the user never posts? What about IP addresses and device identifiers? When the law fails to draw clear lines, people must guess—risking felony charges for guessing wrong.

The Commonwealth’s Shifting Theory—and Why It Backfired

The record shows the Commonwealth took inconsistent positions:

  • In the habeas matter, it conceded the law doesn’t require reporting every website or every account, only identifiers used to actively communicate or post.
  • In the new prosecution, it argued that reporting every site was necessary—or, alternately, that registrants must specify which sites each username links to so police can verify.

The court wasn’t persuaded. The state “cannot have it both ways.” If prosecutors and police can’t articulate a coherent, consistent rule, people of ordinary intelligence cannot be expected to comply.

Void for Vagueness: The Due Process Backstop

Under the Due Process Clause, a criminal statute is void for vagueness if its language is so unclear that people of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ on its application. Two core harms arise:

  1. Lack of fair notice: People cannot tell what conduct is required or prohibited.
  2. Arbitrary enforcement: Police and prosecutors gain unchecked discretion to decide, after the fact, what the law means.

The judge observed that most folks would understand they must report email addresses and perhaps usernames. Beyond that, the statute fails to tell them what else counts. That is not acceptable in criminal law, where liberty is at stake.

Everyday Absurdities Reveal the Defect

To test a law’s clarity, courts often consider real-life scenarios:

  • If a registrant visits several discrete websites daily, and each must be “registered” within three business days, the law effectively compels constant, in-person reporting—an impossibility.
  • Vacationing out of state while researching sightseeing would risk noncompliance; the three-business-day rule would require in-person updates registrants cannot meet.
  • Relay addresses (like Craigslist’s auto-generated “gigs” emails) are not created or controlled by the user; prosecuting failures to “register” those is, in the court’s word, “absurd.”
  • Modern life demands dozens or hundreds of logins—from job applications to medical portals. If every account or site constitutes an “identifier,” compliance becomes a full-time job.

These examples mirror the court’s own reasoning and research: there is no uniform definition in SORNA or in the Commonwealth’s filings for the key internet terms. Even the state’s witness struggled to define what must be reported and why.

The Ruling: Unconstitutionally Vague—Facially and As Applied

The court held the internet registration requirements are unconstitutionally vague on their face and as applied to Diebold. The statute fails to give fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement. Given the Commonwealth’s own inconsistency and the trooper’s broad interpretation (register “every” site or app), the judge found the law’s terms—“designations,” “monikers,” and “internet identifiers”—do not meet due process standards.

What Happens Next? Likely Appeal—and a Tough Road

Expect an appeal. But the trial court’s decision is careful, grounded in due process doctrine, and supported by the Commonwealth’s contradictory statements. Appellate courts ask whether a statute provides sufficient clarity; here the record shows confusion among officials, shifting positions by the state, and everyday scenarios producing absurd results. That is strong ground for affirmance.

Practical Implications for Stakeholders

  • For registrants: This decision underscores the need for clear, written guidance and statutory precision. Reporting obligations should be limited to identifiers actually used for communication or postings—not every account or site visited.
  • For law enforcement: Verification must be tethered to clear definitions. Vague, maximalist interpretations risk reversals and chilled compliance.
  • For prosecutors: Consistency matters. Taking different positions across proceedings undermines credibility and due process.
  • For lawmakers: Update statutory language to define “internet identifier,” “designation,” and “moniker” with precision. Limit reporting to communication handles under the registrant’s control. Create practical reporting mechanisms that reflect reality (e.g., secure online updates for changes rather than constant in-person appearances).

Added Context: How Other Jurisdictions Navigate This

Across the country, courts scrutinize criminal statutes that intersect with digital life. Terms that seemed sufficient in 2000—email, messaging, postings—now collide with platforms, apps, device IDs, and automated aliases. Clear definitions often hinge on control (what the individual creates or controls), function (used to communicate or post), and materiality (actually linked to the registrant’s online speech).

Requiring disclosure of every login or passive account is overbroad and unworkable. Targeted disclosure of user-controlled communication handles is more defensible and enforceable.

Actionable Takeaways

  • For policymakers: Redraft “internet identifier” to mean user-controlled handles used for communication or posting; exclude passive accounts and third-party-generated relay addresses.
  • For defense attorneys: Press the fair notice problem with concrete, real-life examples and highlight contradictory enforcement positions.
  • For registrants: Maintain a list of actual communication handles you actively use and seek written guidance from counsel about reporting obligations.

Conclusion: The Law Must Keep Pace with Digital Life

The Pennsylvania trial court’s decision is a reminder that constitutional due process doesn’t disappear online. If the state cannot say with clarity what must be reported, it cannot prosecute people for getting it “wrong.” In an era where each of us accumulates hundreds of logins and incidental identifiers, the law must distinguish between meaningful communication handles and the noise of modern life. Precision is not a luxury; it is a constitutional requirement. Expect an appeal, but also expect this core message to endure: clarity first, enforcement second.