June 19, 2017
SCOTUS Rules NC Statute Restricting Internet for Sex Offenders Violates First Amendment
In the United States Supreme Court unanimous decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, the Court found that the state statute, NCGS § 14-202.5, making it a felony for registered sex offenders to access commercial social networking sites, violated the First Amendment. This outcome was predictable given the then-eight Justices' skepticism during the oral arguments in February. Recall that Packingham was convicted of the North Carolina felony for his Facebook page on which he wrote " Thank you Jesus. God is good" regarding a result on his parking ticket.
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, is a mere 10 pages. The Court not only stresses the breadth of the North Carolina statute, but highlights the role of the Internet in "our modern society and culture" as vital to the First Amendment: ..Continued..
March 3, 2017
Now the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to back her up
3-3-17 North Carolina:
Robin Hudson could have gotten smeared for siding with sex offender Lester Packingham. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to vindicate her – and remind us all of the dangers of a politicized judiciary.
Hudson, an N.C. Supreme Court justice, was in fact smeared when she dissented in a separate case in 2010 involving child molesters. In her 2014 re-election bid, Hudson faced a half-million dollars worth of TV attack ads from special interests that twisted that dissent and portrayed her as soft on sex offenders.
It was a real threat to her career, but she had made the decision on principle, then survived the political onslaught.
Then, a little over a year ago, she was faced with a similar conundrum with the Packingham case. The N.C. Supreme Court debated whether North Carolina’s law banning sex offenders from being on social media was constitutional. The majority upheld the law. Hudson dissented, saying it was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.
It was a risky move in this political day and age, because it could again make her appear soft on sex offenders, just as the earlier dissent led outsiders to portray her that way.
Now, it seems Hudson was right on the N.C. social media law. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Monday. Packingham had been convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 2002. He received a suspended jail sentence and stayed clean until 2010, when he was arrested under the social media law for writing a post on Facebook celebrating that his traffic tickets had been dismissed.
A majority on the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to side with Hudson and strike down the law and the N.C. court’s majority. Six justices expressed concerns about the law. They did so on the grounds that it is overly broad and violates the offender’s First Amendment rights beyond what’s needed to pursue the state’s interest of protecting children. It’s likely that at least five justices will vote to overturn it.
Whatever one thinks of sex offenders and social media, the case and the one before it point to the courage it takes for a justice to make a ruling that might be legally correct but politically unpopular. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its lifetime tenure, is protected from such pressures, but elected N.C. Supreme Court justices are not.
It helps that Hudson doesn’t face reelection for 5 more years. But the danger is that justices, who are supposed to be inoculated from politics, could instead allow political calculations to sway their legal reasoning. With millions of dollars of special interest money now flowing into Supreme Court elections each cycle, justices take a risk every time they vote in a way that could be construed as soft on crime, regardless of the legal details.
The legislature’s current move to make district and superior court races partisan would make it even more difficult for judges to rule on principles, not politics. We appreciate judges, like Hudson, who manage to do just that. ..Source.. by The Observer editorial board
January 24, 2017
Lawsuit contends N Carolina sex offender law goes too far
1-24-17 North Carolina:
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Convicted sex offenders are pushing back against North Carolina laws they contend deprive them of constitutional rights without protecting children.
Two anonymous sex offenders and a Raleigh-based national nonprofit that advocates for them filed a federal lawsuit on Monday challenging the state laws. It's part of an effort to trim sex registry laws that now require more than 800,000 convicts nationwide to register their names, addresses and photographs, perhaps for as long as they live.
A spokeswoman for state Attorney General Josh Stein did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
The offenders contend that North Carolina's law violates the U.S. Constitution by imposing added penalties after conviction and sentencing, for example by extending the years an offender must register. The lawsuit says they are unconstitutionally banned from practicing their religion by being forbidden from entering churches, and from petitioning their government representatives by orders to stay out of the General Assembly building.
The law also violates constitutional due process rights, by depicting all offenders as dangers to young children, and doesn't provide any way for offenders to challenge such a claim, the lawsuit said.
"In fact, the individual Plaintiffs in this case have already been found not to be a danger to children, yet they are subjected to a serious deprivation of liberty despite that determination," the lawsuit said.
Though most people would believe the registries are designed to protect the public against child molesters, states have expanded the crimes requiring recording to include sexually active teenagers and even public urination, said J.J. Prescott, a University of Michigan law professor who studies post-release sex offender laws.
Judges, meanwhile, have increasingly noted studies finding no public safety benefit many aspects of these registries, even as they cause collateral damage to the friends and family of offenders, he said.
"I think there has been a shift in the mood on these cases," Prescott said.
A spokeswoman for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said no one was available to comment Tuesday. Messages were not returned by spokesmen for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network and Parents for Megan's Law, named for the 1996 federal law that provided for public release of state sex offender registries.
The two offenders asked the court to remain unidentified, citing fears that they and their families risk harassment and abuse.
"John Doe 1" was convicted in 2009 of two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery against a 30-year-old woman and is not on probation or subject to any court-ordered restrictions, the lawsuit said. "John Doe 2" was convicted in 2011 of misdemeanor sexual battery after sex with a 16-year old girl he had coached, the lawsuit said.
Similar lawsuits challenging sex offender restrictions and registries have been filed in the past two years in Illinois, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Nevada and Idaho.
In August, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that significant changes to Michigan's sex offender registry law cannot be applied retroactively to thousands of sex offenders because the revisions would unconstitutionally stiffen their punishments after their convictions.
In December, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, deemed unconstitutional provisions of North Carolina's law prohibiting registered offenders from going to places where minors gather for educational, recreation or social programs, or being within 300 feet of locations where children are supervised.
The U.S. Supreme Court next month takes up a free-speech challenge to the North Carolina law that bans sex offenders from using Facebook and other social networking sites that minors can join. ..Source.. by Emery P. Dalesio
January 7, 2017
Petitions to Terminate Sex Offender Registration: Moir Tiers
Last month the supreme court decided State v. Moir. It is a case about how a state sex crime—namely, indecent liberties with a child—fits within the offense tiering system set out in the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).
It has been a while since I last blogged about this topic, so let’s start with some background.
Sex offenders who aren’t required to register for life can petition for removal from the registry 10 years from the date of initial county registration. G.S. 14-208.12A. The superior court judge hearing that petition may grant relief only if, among other things, doing so would “compl[y] with the provisions of the federal Jacob Wetterling Act, as amended, and any other federal standards applicable to the termination of a registration requirement or required to be met as a condition for the receipt of federal funds by the State.” G.S. 14-208.12A(a1)(2).
As noted on this blog since 2009, that finding, which I’ll call the Wetterling finding, effectively incorporates an important bit of federal law into our state sex offender registration regime. As a matter of state statute, a judge can’t let someone off the registry if doing so would violate relevant federal laws and regulations—even though North Carolina hasn’t enacted other state laws incorporating those federal standards explicitly. (Even now, only 17 states are substantially compliant with SORNA, and North Carolina isn’t one of them.) ..Continue.. by Jamie Markham
December 24, 2016
NARSOL to Supreme Court: Throw out social media bans on SO’s
On December 22, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL), formerly known as Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL), filed a brief of Amicus Curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court in conjunction with North Carolina RSOL (NCRSOL) and the Association for the Treatment of Sexual abusers (ATSA) on behalf of the petitioner in Packingham v. North Carolina, a case concerning the rights of registered citizens to access social media websites. Packingham is set for oral argument on February 27, 2017. ..Continued.. by Robin
December 5, 2016
Two Federal Courts Call BS on Banning Sex Offenders From 'Child Safety Zones'
Rulings deem Indiana and North Carolina laws unconstitutionally vague and unjustifiably wide.
A couple of years ago, Brian Valenti, a registered sex offender who lives in Hartford City, Indiana, received a citation for sitting in his brother's car. The car was parked outside his brother's house, which happens to be across the street from a school. By sitting in it, Valenti violated a local ordinance prohibiting anyone convicted of a sex offense involving a minor from entering a long list of "child safety zones"—including schools, parks, libraries, swimming pools, athletic complexes, movie theaters, and bowling alleys— or "loitering" within 300 feet of those locations. Because of Hartford City's ordinance, Valenti, who committed a sex offense 28 years ago in California, was not allowed to visit his daughter's school, go to the library with her, visit local parks, join the YMCA, enroll his daughter in activities there, go bowling with his family, or vote at his designated polling place.
Under a similar law in North Carolina, registered sex offenders whose crimes involved minors or violence are forbidden to venture within 300 feet of "any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors." They are also required to stay away from "any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs." Five sex offenders who challenged the law said it prevented them from attending church, visiting their children's schools, participating in adult softball games, going to events at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds, eating at fast food restaurants with play areas, attending town council meetings held near a library, and visiting the state legislature, which meets in a building near a natural history museum that attracts children. The plaintiffs also worried that they were committing felonies by working on construction projects within a 300-foot zone or by going shopping or commuting to work, since they could easily drive by forbidden locations on the way. ..Continued.. by Jacob Sullum
December 1, 2016
Court agrees some NC sex offender limits unlawful
See also: Janice’s Journal: The Many Wonders of a 4th Circuit Decision and 4th Circuit strikes down North Carolina residency/movement restrictions on sex offenders and Fourth Circuit panel rejects North Carolina's efforts to defendant constitutionally hinky provisions of state sex offender rules and Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Absurdly Repressive North Carolina Sex Offender Law12-1-16 North Carolina:
RALEIGH, N.C. A federal appeals court has upheld lower court rulings that found portions of North Carolina law restricting where registered sex offenders can gather are unconstitutional because they're overly broad or vague.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Doe v Cooper) in Richmond, Virginia, on Wednesday affirmed the federal lower court decisions, which the state appealed.
One provision successfully challenged by several registered offenders who sued in 2013 prohibited them from going to places where minors gather for educational, recreation or social programs. The other restriction prevented them from being within 300 feet of certain locations where children are cared for or supervised.
The legislature last summer approved replacements for the challenged laws while on appeal. The appeals court didn't consider the amended laws. ..Source.. by AP
November 30, 2016
Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of Sex Offender Premises Restriction
11-30-16 UPDATE: Doe -v- CooperOriginal Date 12-20-15 North Carolina:
The State of North Carolina requires persons convicted of certain reportable sex offenses to register as “sex offenders.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.6(4); id. § 14-208.7(a). For persons convicted of a subset of those reportable sex offenses, North Carolina restricts their movement relative to certain locations where minors may be present. See id. § 14-208.18(a) (2015).1
John Does #1 through #5 (collectively, the “Does”) challenged these statutory restrictions as either overbroad, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or unconstitutionally vague, under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court agreed with the Does as to two subsections of the statute and permanently enjoined enforcement of section 14-208.18(a)(2) and section 14-208.18(a)(3).
For the reasons set out below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
(Thanks to RSOL for the Opinion link)
A federal judge has permanently enjoined all North Carolina district attorneys from enforcing G.S. 14-208.18(a)(3), the law intended to prohibit certain sex offenders from being at places where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs.
The case is Doe v. Cooper (UPDATE Above), No. 1:13CV711 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2015). In it, five registered sex offenders filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of all three premises restrictions of G.S. 14-208.18. As many readers know, that law has three subdivisions that spell out three types of places certain registered sex offenders may not “knowingly be”: ..Continued.. by Jamie Markham
October 28, 2016
Sex Offenders to Lobby High Court on Social-Media Ban
10-28-16 Washington DC:
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether North Carolina can ban registered sex offenders from using social media websites and other sites that allow minors to have accounts.
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a law in 2008 that bans the use of "commercial social networking websites" by registered sex offenders.
Lester Packingham had been convicted six years earlier of a sexual offense and was a registered sex offender under state law.
In 2010, a Durham, N.C., police officer began investigating whether sex offenders in the state were using social media, and found a Facebook profile page belonging to Packingham, according to court records.
In one post, which the cop found, Packingham celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, No court costs, no nothing spent....Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" (Emphasis in original.)
Packingham was indicted later that year for violating N.C.G.S. 14-202.5, the law banning social media use for sex offenders, and a jury found him guilty in May 2012. The trial court gave Packingham a suspended sentence and he was placed on probation.
He appealed, and in 2013 the North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated Packingham's conviction for accessing a social networking website as a registered sex offender, finding that the law at issue is unconstitutional.
The state appeals court found that the statute "is not narrowly tailored, is vague, and fails to target the 'evil' it is intended to rectify," and that it "arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal."
A divided North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the appeals court a year ago, ruling 4-2 that N.C.G.S. 14-202.5 "is constitutional in all respects."
"[The law] is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest, and leaves available ample alternative channels of communication. Defendant has failed to meet the high bar necessary to mount a successful facial challenge," Justice Robert Edmunds Jr. wrote for the state's high court.
Packingham appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition for writ of certiorari filed in March of this year.
"The statute singles out a subclass of persons, who are subject to criminal punishment based on expressive, associational, and communicative activities at the heart of the First Amendment, without any requirement that their activity caused any harm or was intended to," Packingham's petition states.
According to the petition, the North Carolina law bans registered sex offenders from accessing "a wide array of websites—including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com—that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is 'know[n]' to allow minors to have accounts."
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether N.C.G.S. 14-202.5 is constitutional, both on its face and as applied to Packingham.
Per its custom, the nation's highest court did not comment on its decision to hear the case. ..Source.. by KEVIN LESSMILLER
October 27, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court to consider reviewing North Carolina
7 PM UPDATE: US Supreme court WILL REVIEW NC case!10-27-16 Washington DC, North Carolina:
The U.S. Supreme Court will
The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a state law in November that prohibits registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. In Packingham v. North Carolina, Lester Gerard Parkingham Jr., a registered sex offender in the state, was charged after Durham police found a Facebook page he created. He was convicted based on a post in which he celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”
If the Supreme Court took the case, it would determine the constitutionality of the law that makes it a felony for all registered sex offenders to access such sites, including YouTube and nytimes.com. ..Source.. by Melissa Boughton
August 28, 2016
National scrutiny grows in trooper’s shooting of deaf Charlotte motorist
Growing national scrutiny of an N.C. state trooper’s killing of a deaf Charlotte motorist last week has prompted the State Department of Public Safety to issue a statement asking the public not to rush to judgment in the case.
The State Bureau of Investigation, a separate agency, is conducting a criminal investigation into the shooting of motorist Daniel Harris, 29, but the agency has been reluctant to release details, including whether or not Harris was armed or threatened the trooper in some way.
In the mean time, media speculation had grown that it could be another case of law enforcement over reacting, with tenuous suggestions that the shooting is not unlike recent high profile cases of African-Americans being killed by police.
“Any loss of life regardless of the circumstances is truly a tragic and sad event for all involved. Let us all refrain from making assumptions or drawing conclusions prior to the internal and independent reviews,” said Department of Public Safety Secretary Frank L. Perry in a statement issued Tuesday.
“While the Highway Patrol, the State Bureau of investigation and the District Attorney’s Office conduct their respective reviews, we are keeping all those affected by this tragedy in our thoughts and prayers.”
The State Bureau of Investigation has said little about what led Harris to be shot by Trooper Jermaine Saunders of the North Carolina Highway Patrol during a traffic stop Thursday on Seven Oaks Drive. The SBI has said it is seeking witnesses to the chase as part of its investigation.
Harris was driving on Interstate 485 last Thursday when Saunders tried to pull him over for speeding, the highway patrol said. He fled and led the trooper on a seven-mile chase. Troopers said the driver, later identified as Harris, got out of the vehicle, and that led to an “encounter” where a shot was fired. Harris died at the scene.
Trooper Saunders was placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure after an officer-involved shooting.
The case has earned both national coverage and international attention, including varying details published in African, Russian, Australian and British newspaper and Web sites. In some cases, its reported Saunders says he shot Harris because the deaf man was advancing and not following commands.
One Web site, the JD Journal in Utah, states: “When Harris finally pulled over just outside his home, he exited the car and was immediately shot by trooper Jermaine Saunders.”
Others claims Harris may have been gesturing in sign language when he “jumped” out of the car, fueling suspicious Saunders was not trained in with deaf motorists. North Carolina’s State Highway Patrol officials did not return calls about its training.
Harris’ family issued a statement earlier this week calling for more training for police in dealing with deaf drivers, and that call was echoed by other advocates for the deaf, including the Ruderman Family Foundation, a national leader in disability inclusion.
“The growing unaddressed problem with policing across the United States is the lack of training police receive in how to interact with people with disabilities in high stress encounters,” said Jay Ruderman, president of the Ruderman Family Foundation.
“People with disabilities will be safer the more the police are properly trained in this regard, and it needs to happen now before more tragedies occur.” ..Source,, by Mark Price
December 20, 2015
Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of Sex Offender Premises Restriction
A federal judge has permanently enjoined all North Carolina district attorneys from enforcing G.S. 14-208.18(a)(3), the law intended to prohibit certain sex offenders from being at places where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs.
The case is Doe v. Cooper, No. 1:13CV711 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2015). In it, five registered sex offenders filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of all three premises restrictions of G.S. 14-208.18. As many readers know, that law has three subdivisions that spell out three types of places certain registered sex offenders may not “knowingly be”: ..Continued.. by Jamie Markham
December 9, 2015
The Online–Sex Predator Panic
12-9-2015 North Carolina:
Laws Against Online Luring Harm Children
North Carolina’s Supreme Court just upheld a law making it a crime for a former sex offender to use social media that minors also use—that is, any social media.
In New Hampshire a judge rejected the appeal of Owen Labrie’s conviction for using a computer to “lure” a fifteen-year-old girl into sex. If Labrie, the prep school senior whose rape trial made national headlines, had called the girl on the phone instead of making arrangements on Facebook and by text, he would not have been breaking the law. The computer-related conviction will put the nineteen-year-old on the sex offender registry for life; he could also serve years in prison.
And the district attorney in Cañon City, Colorado, is mulling over whom, among a hundred or so high school students caught trading naked pictures of themselves via smartphone, to prosecute on child pornography charges.
Laws such as these, against “electronic solicitation of a minor” and online trading of child pornography, are troublesome for many reasons. For one thing, they are easy to abuse in order to load on penalties when the state is frustrated by an acquittal or lesser conviction than it sought. That is what happened in New Hampshire, where Labrie was acquitted of felony sexual assault but found guilty of misdemeanor statutory rape.
For another, because we all increasingly—and kids almost exclusively—rely on social media to conduct our family, social, business, and, yes, sexual lives, enforcement of these laws would require NSA-like blanket surveillance and would seriously damage freedom of speech. Indeed, challengers to North Carolina’s law argue that it is an unconstitutional curtailment of sex offenders’ First Amendment rights.
And then there are the patent absurdities created by such laws—signs that legislators, in search of novel ways to torture so-called sex offenders, have abandoned consideration of efficacy or justice. In the case of underage sexting, for instance, a person is both offender and victim at the same time.
But here is the deeper problem: the online offender statutes—not to mention press coverage, social analysis, education, parenting advice, and general fretting that go with them—are built on nothing but fear.
The underlying assumption is that Internet communication is fundamentally different from other means of communication. But not just different, the laws suggest. It is more dangerous. Specifically, it is dangerous to children, and in a particular way: sexually. The stated intent of these laws is to protect children from “Internet predators”—even if those predators are themselves. But as a growing body of research shows, the Internet is not especially sexually dangerous for kids—not more dangerous than anywhere else.
Online sexual solicitation of minors is rare and getting rarer. A comparison of three successive national surveys of kids aged ten to seventeen found that those receiving such come-ons dropped 50 percent from 2000 to 2010, to just 9 percent. At the same time, “the proportion of such crimes committed by offenders who use the Internet to meet victims is quite small in comparison to sex crimes against children overall,” according to a 2010 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and Medicine. During the period studied, the mid-aughts, there were 615 arrests for such offenses. Meanwhile, an estimated 14 million young people aged twelve to seventeen were accessing social media sites.
The study is part of ongoing research on online sexual and criminal behavior conducted by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center, considered a foremost authority on such matters. The researchers there also found that adults who meet minors online for sexual purposes “are not different or more dangerous” than those who seek sex with kids they already know, either online or on terra firma.
Contrary to the image of the grizzly fifty-year-old satyr scattering emoticons across the screen like a middle-schooler, hardly anyone is deceiving anyone about their age or sexual intentions. In fact, the only people routinely lying about their identities are vice cops lurking in chat rooms posing as thirteen- or fourteen-year-olds. In the 2010 study of adult-minor sexual contacts through social media, almost three-quarters of the cases originated with investigators in sting operations, closer examination of which frequently reveals entrapment. ..Continued.. by Judith Levine
November 11, 2015
North Carolina’s law banning registered sex offenders from social media is “bad law, bad policy,” according to ACLU
11-11-15 North Carolina:
On Friday, North Carolina’s state Supreme Court ruled that banning registered sex offenders from social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter is constitutional, reversing an earlier decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
In 2008, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a package of laws supported by Attorney General Roy Cooper barring registered sex offenders from using social media networks. The laws also included sentencing for “pornographers and child predators who use Internet websites to target victims,” according to a statement from Cooper's office. In 2012, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender from Durham, successfully challenged the law; the state Supreme Court reversed that ruling last week.
“Our laws bar convicted sex offenders from living near schools and working with young people in real life, and it’s just as important to protect kids in the online world,” Cooper said. “I pushed for this law to put another barrier between sex offenders and potential victims, and I’m pleased that the court has agreed with our arguments to keep this law in place.”
But civil liberties advocates say this kind of law infringes on peoples’ constitutional right to free speech and creates impediments to convicted offenders who are trying to reintegrate into society after serving prison time.
“Some of these social media platforms have become the new Town Square, where people interact with family members, where people have political discussions and organize protests and where they connect with friends and loved ones who live far away,” says Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberty Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, who is based in New York.
“In today’s digital age, some social media platforms are some of the most consistent forms of free speech and association people are having, and by blocking people from using them, the Legislature and the courts are chilling their ability to engage in First Amendment protected activity.”
Wessler says this kind of legislation, though well-meaning, is over-broad; it misidentifies a problem it is directed at solving by banning everyone on the state’s sex offender registry, regardless of whether they are likely to use social media to commit a crime.
“What we know about sex crimes directed at children is, they are often perpetrated by family members and acquaintances,” says Wessler. “It comes up with a solution that doesn’t narrowly target the danger, and by blocking these people from using these platforms after they serve their time, it makes it more difficult for them to find employment and maintain strong family connections, important factors in making sure they can reintegrate and participate in all kinds of modern life.”
Wessler says other states have seen this kind of legislation, or variations on it where people report their social media user names to the government for monitoring. In states with an all-out social media ban like North Carolina’s— in Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, Utah, Louisiana and California, for example—Wessler says that’s parts of those laws have been struck down. ..Source.. by Jane Porter
November 6, 2015
North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook
UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook11-5-15 North Carolina:
UPDATED 11-7-15 NC Supreme Court bars registered sex offenders from some social media sites
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – The North Carolina Supreme Court has upheld a state law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using social networking sites such as Facebook that allow minors to join.
The court issued an opinion Friday that reversed a lower court ruling that found the law unconstitutional.
The 2008 law was challenged by registered sex offender Lester Gerard Packingham, who was convicted of an additional offense after Durham police found his Facebook page.
His attorney had argued the law was too broad and could prohibit routine Internet activity, such as a Google search.
Packingham was convicted in 2002 of taking indecent liberties with a child. For his 2012 conviction related to the Facebook page, he received a suspended sentence and probation.
A lawyer for Packingham didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment. ..Source.. by News13.com
September 11, 2015
ALERT: A Former Sex Offender's Case Has Been Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court
UPDATED 12-16-15: Court refuses to hear case! Petition DENIED9-11-15 Washington DC, North Carolina:
A case from North Carolina has been appealed to the high court.
David Paul Hall, Petitioner v. North Carolina
Case no: 15-57 Docket
The state on 7-21 filed a "Waiver of right of respondent North Carolina to respond filed." and the high court on 9-9 set a date for them to respond "Response Requested . (Due October 9, 2015)."
So it will be awhile before we hear anything. Will be checking and update as needed.
Lower court decision HERE
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
September 4, 2015
Teen Being Charged For Possessing Nude Pictures...Of Himself
Cormega Copening is a 17-year-old from North Carolina who is facing up to 10 years in prison for sexually exploiting a minor--himself. Copening and his 16-year-old girlfriend are legally able to consent to have sex with each other in the state of North Carolina, yet the fact that they sent nude pictures of themselves to each other (or, in Copening's case, kept them on his phone) means that they are now both being charged with a crime.
Robby Soave over at Reason has more:
But first, to recap: Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening’s phone and discovered them.What a nightmare.
Why did they search his phone? It’s not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening’s phone.
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.
But consider this: North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.
While it's generally not the best idea to exchange nude photos with someone, it's absolutely absurd that Copening could be facing jail time–and a lifetime on the sex offender registry–for having racy pictures of himself on his cell phone. North Carolina law makes it so that Copening is considered an adult perpetrator yet simultaneously a minor victim. This is insane. A person is either a minor or an adult. They cannot be both. This isn't a "Schrödinger's sext" situation.
Copening's girlfriend was able to plead guilty to lesser charges and avoided a lifetime on the sex offender registry. (Think about that: she faced a lifetime on the sex offender registry, listed among child molesters and rapists, for sending and storing nude pictures of herself.)
Sure, sexting is bad. But consensual, non-shared sexts between a boyfriend and a girlfriend shouldn't be a criminal charge--and neither should taking a racy picture of yourself. This isn't making the community safer from a sexual deviant--it's potentially ruining someone's life for an act that didn't harm anybody. North Carolina's laws need to be examined and updated. These potential penalties are way too harsh for the "crime." ..Source.. by Christine Rousselle
September 3, 2015
Wrongly convicted brothers each get $750,000 in compensation
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — When two brothers were released after three decades of wrongful imprisonment, they struggled to adapt to an outside world neither had experienced since they were teenagers. The older one has managed to adjust and keep his "head up high," but the younger one, according to his family, is a broken man.
On Wednesday, the state of North Carolina sought to make amends, awarding each man $750,000 for the time they spent behind bars after they falsely confessed to taking part in the killing of an 11-year-old girl.
Henry McCollum, 51, appeared calm as a state official approved the maximum payout under the law to him and half-brother Leon Brown, 47. Brown did not attend the hearing; he is in the hospital, suffering from mental health problems including post-traumatic stress disorder, the brothers' lawyer said.
McCollum and Brown were released last September after a judge threw out their convictions, citing new DNA evidence that points to another man in the 1983 rape and slaying of Sabrina Buie. McCollum had been the longest-serving inmate on North Carolina's death row. Brown had been sentenced to life in prison.
They were pronounced innocent in June by Gov. Pat McCrory, who issued pardons that made them eligible for compensation.
McCollum, who has been living with his sister in the Fayetteville area, said the money will enable him to support himself and help his family.
"My family, they have struggled for years and years," he said. "It's hard out there for them, and I want to help them."
Their attorney said the money will be put in a trust and invested so that the brothers can live off the earnings and won't have to work.
North Carolina is among 30 states that have laws for compensating people wrongfully convicted, according to the Innocence Project. But North Carolina stands alone with its Innocence Inquiry Commission, set up to investigate disputed cases. It performed the DNA testing that set the brothers free.
Sabrina's body was found in a soybean field in rural Robeson County, with a cigarette butt, a beer can and two bloody sticks nearby.
Attorneys for the two brothers say that they were scared teenagers with low IQs and that investigators berated them and fed them details about the crime before they signed confessions saying they were part of a group that killed the youngster. McCollum was 19, Brown 15.
But the DNA on the cigarette didn't match either one of them, and fingerprints on the beer can weren't theirs either. No physical evidence connected them to the crime.
The current district attorney for Robeson County, who didn't prosecute McCollum and Brown, has said he is considering charging the man whose DNA was found on the cigarette butt. That man is in prison for another murder.
McCollum listed some of the things he enjoys about freedom: "Being out here, to be able to breathe the air. To be able to walk around as a free man. To be able to walk down that street with my head up high."
Meanwhile, Brown has been hospitalized at least six times in the last year for mental health problems that include hallucinations and deep depression, attorney Patrick Megaro said.
Both men were bullied and attacked behind bars, and Brown was sexually assaulted repeatedly by other inmates, according to a lawsuit brought by Megaro against county authorities and others.
The brothers were initially given death sentences. In 1988, the state Supreme Court threw out their convictions and ordered new trials. McCollum was again sent to death row, while Brown was found guilty of rape and sentenced to life.
The Associated Press normally does not identify victims of sexual assault, but Megaro said Brown and his family were willing to make the information public to show how he suffered.
The men's sister, Geraldine Brown, said her brother Leon is "really sick" from his time in prison.
"He did not go in that way," she said. "They snatched him from my mother as a baby." ..Source.. by JONATHAN DREW
July 28, 2015
High court: Sex offender can challenge GPS monitoring
This is a catch-up case which was missed in March 2015.3-31-15 North Carolina:
The justices said the state's highest court must reconsider whether North Carolina violated Torrey Dale Grady's constitutional rights when it ordered him to wear the ankle bracelet beginning in 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a North Carolina sex offender should have another chance to challenge an order that he wear a GPS monitoring bracelet around the clock and for the rest of his life.
The justices said the state's highest court must reconsider whether North Carolina violated Torrey Dale Grady's constitutional rights when it ordered him to wear the ankle bracelet beginning in 2013.
North Carolina is among at least eight states that have a system for lifetime monitoring for convicted sex offenders. More than 40 states impose some kind of monitoring as a condition of probation or release from prison.
Grady was convicted of a second-degree sex offense in 1997 and then again of taking indecent liberties with a child in 2006. The second conviction qualified Grady as a repeat offender. After serving nearly three years in prison, Grady was ordered to start wearing the GPS bracelet 24 hours a day in 2013 so officials could keep track of his movements.
Grady argued that the state's lifetime GPS monitoring system is unreasonable because it allows state officials to enter his home — with or without his permission — to maintain a GPS monitoring base station. Grady also complains that he must charge the bracelet every day by plugging it into a wall outlet for four to six hours at a time.
State courts rejected his claims, but the Supreme Court said the monitoring qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and likened it to its last case on GPS devices three years ago.
"The state's program is plainly designed to obtain information," the court said in an unsigned opinion. "And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject's body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search."
In 2012, the court ruled that placing the tracking units on cars to follow their movement is a search. That case did not decide whether attaching the devices without a search warrant violated the Constitution. On Monday, the justices said in their unsigned opinion that the state court should weigh whether North Carolina's tracking of sex offenders is reasonable.
State officials argued that Grady's complaints are based on outdated descriptions of the monitoring program. They said he presented no evidence of the interruptions to his daily life, how often officials must visit his home or what use North Carolina makes of the information it collects from the ankle bracelet. ..Souce..
June 19, 2015
Court of appeals sends sex offender back for new sentence
In two decisions this week, the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a sex offender must be placed on lifetime monitoring, and that an Alamance County judge was correct when he sentenced a woman for absconding probation.
ON APRIL 27, 2007, James Aubrey Featherstone, 66, pleaded guilty to two counts each of second-degree rape and second-degree sexual offense. He appeared in Alamance County Superior Court on May 27, 2014, to determine whether and how long he would be on satellite-based monitoring.
The court ordered Featherstone to enroll in 30 years of satellite-based monitoring. Featherstone appealed, arguing that he should be placed on lifetime satellite-based monitoring because second-degree rape is an aggravated offense under N.C.’s sex offender laws.
State law allows those sentenced to lifetime monitoring to petition the courts to be removed from monitoring. Someone given a finite amount of time on monitoring can’t petition for removal.
The court ruled Featherstone should be under lifetime monitoring based on state law because second-degree rape is an aggravated offense.
Featherstone must appear again in Superior Court to be placed on lifetime satellite-based monitoring. ..Source.. by Michael D. Abernethy







