4-21-15 Louisiana:
A New Orleans man convicted in Alabama of transmitting obscene material to a minor is challenging the constitutionality of recent Louisiana sex offender registration statutes in federal court.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday afternoon (April 21) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the plaintiff identified only as "John Doe" asks a federal judge to strike down two Louisiana statutes that he says violate his rights to equal protection and to freely travel that are guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments. The suit claims two state laws illegally intend to dissuade convicted sex offenders in other states from moving to Louisiana.
The suit, which names Gov. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison, Department of Public Safety and Corrections secretary Jimmy LeBlanc and other state officials as defendants, asks a federal judge to strike down two state laws.
The first requires an offender's registration period to be that which would be required by Louisiana or the jurisdiction of conviction, whichever is longer. The second requires lifetime sex offender registrants who have moved to Louisiana to make in-person renewals every three months, regardless of whether terms were less onerous for Louisiana residents or in the state that convicted them.
New Orleans defense attorney Craig Mordock filed the lawsuit on behalf of "John Doe," who Mordock described as a father of two who merely wants to be treated fairly by his adopted home state.
"Every time somebody wants to look tough on crime, the legislature passes a restriction on sex offenders," Mordock said. "And, because (registration) is viewed as administrative and not punitive by the courts, a lot of it really can't be challenged. But on this one, I think the legislature and the governor crossed the line. They specifically said when the bill passed that the goal was to make it harder for out-of-state sex offenders to move here."
Indeed, in a newsletter posted on his official state website on June 4, 2012, Gov. Jindal lists among his selected highlights of the 2012 legislative package the passage of House Bill 558. Jindal wrote that the bill, sponsored by Rep. Joseph Lopinto (R-Metairie), "discourages out-of-state sex offenders from moving to Louisiana by requiring them to register for the time period provided by their state of conviction or as provided by Louisiana law, whichever period is longer."
Efforts to contact Lopinto for comment on the federal lawsuit Tuesday were unsuccessful. However, a spokesman for Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the state law would be vigorously defended.
"We are in the process of reviewing the lawsuit," said Aaron Sadler, communications director for the Louisiana Department of Justice. "But we will aggressively defend against any challenge to laws enacted to make Louisiana safer for our children and families and to protect our citizens from sexual predators."
Mordock said his client would have been subjected to lifetime sex offender registry in Alabama, but only 15 years as a registrant if convicted of the same crime in Louisiana. Mordock said "John Doe" already was commuting between the states and had moved full-time to Louisiana prior to sentencing. He transferred his registration to Louisiana, but appealed his new home state's requirements on the basis that he already was a Louisiana resident before the law went into effect on May 14, 2012.
However, an administrative judge ruled that Mordock's client could not have legally established residency in Louisiana until after Alabama sentenced him in June 2012, meaning the new law applies.
"He was found guilty of a non-contact crime," Mordock said. "It was a police sting operation in Alabama. He got caught up on it, he pled guilty, he did his time, and he recognizes that he is going to have to be on the registry for some period of time. But it doesn't seem fair that he's on the registry in Louisiana, where there's some economic opportunity for him, for the rest of his life, whereas somebody in a similar situation who is from Louisiana would only be on for 15 years."
Mordock said his client was left with no choice but to challenge the constitutionality of the state laws in federal court.
"Mr. Doe, had he been convicted of the same offense in Louisiana, would only be required to register for 15 years, and would only renew his registration in person once every year," the suit says. "He is thereby treated more harshly than his fellow Louisiana citizens because of his decision to migrate to Louisiana."
That seems to have been the point of the new law, after all. But Mordock said such intent, coupled with the lack of public sympathy for registered sex offenders, doesn't make the statutes constitutional.
"We can't just disregard the law because we don't feel sorry for someone, or pick and choose what laws apply to what people," he said. "The law is designed to protect not just people you have sympathy for, but everyone. And if the law doesn't protect people you don't have sympathy for, then I don't know what the point of the law is.
"This statute was passed, clearly, to prevent people from moving to Louisiana. And the United States' constitution says you can't do that. This law violates the constitution, and it is unfairly punishing the plaintiff in this case." ..Source.. by Ken Daley
April 21, 2015
Alabama sex offender files suit challenging Louisiana registry laws in federal court
December 19, 2012
Judge refuses to toss suit over La sex registry
12-19-2012 Louisiana:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that seeks to have removed from the state's sex offender registry roughly 400 people who were convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled in April that the names of nine plaintiffs who were convicted of the same offense must be stricken from the registry. A separate suit, filed after Feldman issued his decision, says the ruling should be applied to anyone in the same position.
Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell's office urged Feldman to dismiss the latest suit, arguing that a recent change in state law leaves the potential class members without any valid claims.
Feldman rejected that request after challenging Phyllis Glazer, a lawyer for Caldwell's office, to explain why the hundreds of potential class members aren't immediately entitled to the same relief as the nine plaintiffs who sued last year.
"Sometimes I wonder if anything the state has done in this case has passed the laugh test," he said.
Feldman expressed frustration at the pace of the process for deciding whether people already have a right to have their names removed from the registry
"I am incredulous and very concerned about why this process has been dragged out against the backdrop of politics for so long," he said.
The state Legislature amended the 200-year-old law last year so that anyone convicted of a "crime against nature by solicitation" no longer will be required to register. But the legislative change didn't apply to the nine original plaintiffs or roughly 484 other people statewide who already were registered.
Feldman's earlier ruling said state lawmakers had no "rational basis" for requiring people to register as sex offenders if they were convicted of violating the law. The judge said the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to register if instead they had been convicted of soliciting sex for money under the state prostitution law.
Several weeks after that ruling, state lawmakers changed the law again. Glazer said the change requires people to prove they didn't solicit sex from a minor before they can be removed from the registry.
"The Legislature made a concerted effort to provide relief to the people it applied to," she said.
Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Quigley said virtually all of the potential class members are people who were arrested in sting operations for soliciting sex from undercover police officers.
"It's never a minor," he said in an interview after the hearing.
Quigley said dozens of people already have gone to court since Feldman's April ruling and successfully petitioned to have their names removed from the registry, but many don't have the means to follow suit.
Feldman said he has tried to bring a "commonsense approach" to his review of the case.
"Equal protection of the law in not rocket science. It's commonsense," he said. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
November 3, 2011
Judge to rule on sex offender Internet ban
11-3-2011 Louisiana:
BATON ROUGE — A constitutional question of whether the state's new law banning the use of certain Internet sites by sex offenders is in the hands of a federal judge.
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of two anonymous sex offenders challenges the constitutionality of the law, promoted as banning sex offenders who target children from using social media sites, such as Facebook and MySpace.
U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson on Wednesday took under consideration arguments by attorneys representing the state and the ACLU as to whether HB55 (Act 26) by Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, violates First Amendment rights of such convicted felons. The law also includes those convicted of video voyeurism.
Jackson said he is concerned that "unchecked, the statute in its current form is constitutionally problematic."
Thierry, an attorney, contended during legislative debate that it was constitutional to ban access to sites that could be used to lure children. She said it was not her intent to ban the use of all sites, such as ones that could be used to find jobs and access news and other information.
ACLU attorney Justin Harrison, representing complainants John and James Doe — convicted sex offenders in East Baton Rouge and Iberia parishes — said the law is overly broad and applies to any website in which visitors can leave comments. He said that applies to newspaper sites and numerous others that have nothing to do with personal communications.
Jackson said it also appears to prohibit access to the federal court's website.
Assistant Attorney General Kurt Wall said Corrections Secretary James le Blanc has implemented rules that restrict how probation and parole officers are to enforce the law. The regulations define what kind of sites are off-limits.
But Jackson pointed out that the regulations do not apply to police and district attorneys, who don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. Harrison contended that the law has "a chilling effect" because there is "a credible threat of prosecution" for visiting a seemingly harmless site. He said the law, in effect, bans sex offenders from using the Internet and limits their ability to obtain and hold jobs.
Jackson posed the question, "When is the law violated?" He asked if it is when an offender "accesses a site or when a proper authority discovers improper use of the Internet?"
Wall responded, "It's not what they're going on there to do. It's that they're there, period."
He reminded the court that there is a provision in the law that allows accessing sites if an offender asks a probation or parole officer or to the court where the judgment was rendered for an exception.
Harrison said that presents a problem because a sex offender "doesn't know if he's reached a prohibited site until he's there. By showing up, he's committed an offense."
The law says conviction of the crime of unlawful use or access of social media carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years. A second conviction requires at least five years in prison and a maximum of 20 years.
Jackson gave the attorneys until Nov. 23 to file final statements. He said he would issue a ruling after weighing those arguments. ..Source.. by Mike Hasten
November 2, 2011
La. law on sex offenders, Facebook argued in court
See earlier articles11-2-2011 Louisiana:
BATON ROUGE, La. -- A federal judge says a Louisiana law that bans certain sex offenders from Facebook and other social networking sites is "constitutionally problematic."
U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson in Baton Rouge heard arguments Wednesday from a lawyer representing two convicted sex offenders who want to overturn the law, and from the attorney general's office defending the statute.
The law makes it a crime for those convicted of a sex offense against a minor or video voyeurism to use networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks.
Lawmakers said it would keep sex offenders from preying on children in online forums.
The ACLU of Louisiana says the law violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Jackson said he'll make a ruling after final arguments are filed by Nov. 23. ..Source.. by MELINDA DESLATTE
Sex Offenders-Facebook
Governor dismissed as defendant in Facebook case
(AP) - A federal judge has dismissed Gov. Bobby Jindal as a defendant in a civil suit alleging that a new state law unconstitutionally bars sex offenders from Facebook and other person-to-person Internet sites.
Chief U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson also postponed Tuesday's scheduled bench trial in the case until Nov. 2.
Jackson ruled in Baton Rouge the governor should not be a defendant in the case because he has nothing to do with enforcement of the disputed law.
Postponement of the trial was announced after a medical emergency prevented an appearance by one of the attorneys for John Doe and James Doe, two unidentified sex offenders pursuing the civil suit against state officials. ..Source.. by Talk 107.23FM
September 15, 2011
ACLU challenge to limits on social networking for sex offenders is set for federal court hearing
9-15-2011 Louisiana:
A federal court judge has set an Oct. 18 hearing on a revised lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging a new state law that prohibits some sex offenders from accessing Internet social networking sites and chat rooms. The lawsuit, originally filed Aug. 15, contests the legality and constitutionality of the law, which was backed during the legislative session by Gov. Bobby Jindal.
The statute prohibits persons convicted of any sex offense against a minor or those found guilty of four specific crimes -- indecent behavior with a juvenile, pornography involving juveniles, computer solicitation of a minor and video voyeurism -- from having access to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.
The revised lawsuit added a second plaintiff, identified only as James Doe, an Iberia Parish man who was convicted in another state 20 years ago of having sex with a co-worker when he was 20 and she was 14. He served four years in prison and is required by state law to register in Louisiana as a convicted sex offender.
The suit was originally filed on behalf of a Baton Rouge man identified only as John Doe, who served four years for possession of child pornography and is required to register as a sex offender.
Justin Harrison, one of the ACLU lawyers working on the case, said that besides Jindal and state Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, three other defendants are being sued: Department of Public Safety and Corrections Secretary James LeBlanc; East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore and 16th Judicial District Attorney John Philip Haney, whose jurisdiction includes Iberia, St. Mary and St. Martin parishes.
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Jackson will hear arguments at 9:30 a.m. Oct. 18 on the ACLU's request for preliminary and permanent injunctions to block enforcement of the law and for a trial on the merits of the lawsuit.
Caldwell spokeswoman Amanda Larkins declined to comment on the lawsuit and said the office will file a response by the court-imposed Sept. 23 deadline.
Larkins said the new law is in effect and will remain in effect pending the outcome of the litigation.
The law, the outgrowth of House Bill 55 by Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, allows the sentencing court or a sex offender's probation or parole officer to grant waivers approving the use of a chat room or social networking site, but the lawsuit claims those procedures are not spelled out clearly enough.
Violations of the new law call for a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years on a first offense; repeat violations call for a minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison, and a maximum fine of $20,000.
The lawsuit claims the new statute is overbroad and unconstitutional because it does not clearly define terms such as accessing social networking sites and does not clearly define what a social networking site or a chat room is.
It says the new law can be used to prohibit offenders from using or looking at sites like nola.com, YouTube, Yahoo, Gmail, Twitter, Hotjobs, eBay and a host of other news and jobs-related Web sites. The lawsuit said the law could even be read to prohibit an offender from checking the state's hurricane preparation site, Getagameplan.org.
The suit said the Baton Rouge plaintiff works as a computer technician and writes a blog that helps paroled prisoners become functioning members of society. The ban would prevent him from doing his job and "his efforts to remain a productive contributing member of society will be severely hampered."
James Doe of Iberia Parish, the suit said, holds "a dangerous, highly-specialized job in an industry critical to Louisiana's economy," but did not specify the job.
The suit said he often spends long periods of time working away from home in areas where the "Internet is frequently the only means of communications."
The suit said the new law would hurt "his ability to receive news and other Internet-based speech" and to communicate with his company and family by email and other electronic means. ..Source.. by Ed Anderson, The Times-Picayune
August 19, 2011
Judge refuses to block La. from enforcing new law limiting sex offenders' Internet access
Lawyer asked for injunction to STOP the Governor and the State Attorney General from enforcing this new law? Dear Lord, please say the lawyer didn't do this, because it is obvious that laws are enacted by the Legislature, and, the Gov. and State AG have no power to stop the Legislature. This lawsuit is in trouble from the get-go. Thankfully the court recognized that, and allowed the action to continue.8-19-2011 Louisiana:
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge refused Friday to temporarily block Louisiana officials from enforcing a new law that limits sex offenders' access to social networking websites and other online forums.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana sued Gov. Bobby Jindal and Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell this week and asked U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the state from enforcing the law, which took effect on Monday.
But the judge ruled Friday that Jindal and Caldwell — the only defendants named in the suit — don't have the authority to take the action that the ACLU is seeking.
"The defendants lack original jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions pursuant to (the new law) and also lack the authority to order those with such original jurisdiction not to exercise it," Jackson wrote.
Marjorie Esman, the ACLU chapter's executive director, said in response to the ruling that the group may amend the suit to name additional defendants.
"We'll do whatever is necessary ... to make sure we can get the kind of relief our plaintiff needs," she said.
The ACLU sued on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff who is a registered sex offender, living in East Baton Rouge Parish.
The new law prohibits "unlawful use or access of social media" by convicted sex offenders whose victim was a child. Probation, parole officers and judges can make exceptions, but the ACLU says the law doesn't specify any procedures for obtaining permission.
The ACLU claims the law is overly broad and unconstitutional. The group says the law may have targeted sites like Facebook and MySpace but also blocks access to newspaper sites, job databases and other websites.
In a statement earlier this week, Jindal said he will fight the ACLU's suit "with everything I have" and called their challenge "a disturbing break from reality, even for the ACLU."
The plaintiff was convicted of possessing child pornography and served four years in prison. He has worked as a computer repair technician since his 2006 release but will be unable to perform his job under the law's restrictions, the suit says.
The ACLU had asked Jackson to issue the restraining order pending an Aug. 26 hearing on the group's request for a preliminary injunction. Jackson's order Friday doesn't pass judgment on the merits of the ACLU's claims that the law is unconstitutional. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
August 18, 2011
Sex Offender Challenges State's Internet Law
8-18-2011 Louisiana:
BATON ROUGE (CN) - Louisiana enacted an unconstitutional law that makes it a felony for sex offenders of minors to read anything at all online, including help wanted ads and The New York Times, a sex offender says in a federal complaint.
John Doe sued Gov. Bobby Jindal, who signed the law on June 14, and Attorney General James Caldwell.
Doe was convicted of possession of child pornography and spent 4 years in prison. He says he does not challenge the state's attempt to bar sex offenders from pornographic websites, but that criminalizing the reading of nonpornographic websites, and social media, is unconstitutional.
"On June 14, 2011, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law La R.S. §14:91.5, creating the offense of 'unlawful use or access of social media,'" Doe says. The law bars Doe and others like him "from 'using' or 'accessing' 'social networking websites,' 'chat rooms' and 'peer-to-peer networks,'" the complaint states.
It adds: "The statute will ban affected registrants from likely targets Facebook and MySpace. However, it will also make it a felony for registrants to browse the rest of the Internet, severely curtailing their First Amendment freedoms in ways that bear no relation to the state's legitimate pursuit of public safety."
The law, which took effect Monday, Aug. 15, criminalizes Internet browsing by registered sex offenders who have been or will be convicted of sex offenses involving minors, including computer-aided solicitation of a minor, indecent behavior with juveniles and viewing child porn, the complaint states. It bars them from "using" or "accessing" "social networking websites," "chat rooms" and "peer-to-peer networks."
"However, the statute does not define 'use,' 'access' or other included terms, and defines 'social networking website,' 'chatroom' and 'peer-to-peer network' so broadly as to render unlawful virtually all internet access by registrants," according to the complaint.
Among the websites that affected registrants will not be allowed to access are CNN.com, FoxNews.com, ESPN, BBC or Reuters, NYTimes.com, Politico.com, Newsweek, The Economist, The New Republic, YouTube and National Geographic, "because they - along with virtually every other news website - 'offer a mechanism for communication among users' in the form of comments and content forwarding," the complaint states.
The law also bars them from browsing "Getagameplan.org - Louisiana's official hurricane preparedness website, because it permits 'communication among users' in the form of emails, tweets and instant messages that warn of impending storms;" it bars them from "Twitter, Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, Comcast and AOL, because, in the language of §14:91.5, they too 'Offer a mechanism for communication among users, such as a forum, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messaging';" it bars them from "Hotjobs.com, Careerbuilder.com, LinkedIn, Monster, Indeed.com and even USAJOBS.gov - the federal government's own employment database - because such websites not only allow users to communicate via text, they also 'Allow users to create web pages or profiles about themselves that are available to the general public or to any other users';" and it bars them from "Craigslist, eBay, Amazon, Zagat, Urbanspoon, Yelp, Consumerist, or any other website that allows user reviews of products, restaurants, movies, books or music."
Does says the law "does incorporate a clause that will allow plaintiff to seek an exception to the statute's proscriptions; however, that exception clause is vague and ultimately meaningless. It reads:
"'§14:91.5(B): The use or access of social media shall not be considered unlawful for purposes of this Section if the offender has permission to use or access social networking websites, chat rooms, or peer-to-peer networks from his probation or parole officer or the court of original jurisdiction.'
"As written, the exception clause sets forth no procedure for obtaining permission from one's probation or parole officer or from the court of original jurisdiction. Furthermore, it provides no standards by which parole or probation officers must abide in granting exceptions, leaving open the possibility of purely arbitrary decision-making."
Doe says the statute violates the First and 14th Amendments. He wants it enjoined, and nominal damages.
He is represented by Justin Harrison with the ACLU in New Orleans. ..Source.. by SABRINA CANFIELD
August 16, 2011
State to defend sex offender law
8-16-2011 Louisiana:
BATON ROUGE — A legal challenge to a new state law forbidding sex offenders who have targeted children to use social media sites to trawl for new victims "is insulting," Gov. Bobby Jindal said Monday.
He described the lawsuit filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana as "a disturbing break from reality, even for the ACLU."
The author of Act 26, Rep. Ledricka Thierry, D-Opelousas, said the ACLU challenge "doesn't surprise me," although she was surprised that no one challenged it during House and Senate committee debate.
Thierry, an attorney, said she had been in court all day and hadn't heard about the suit being filed, but "I know that the attorneys we have representing the state of Louisiana will be successful in defending this law."
The ACLU lawsuit says the law is too broad and it's unconstitutional to ban sex offenders' access to social networking websites and other online forums.
Thierry said it is tailored to a specific type of sex criminal — one who has targeted children.
Providers of the affected social media sites "say sex offenders are not allowed on their sites," she said. But when she checked just in Lafayette Parish, "we found about 100 of them. They were using their real names, not even aliases."
Jindal and Attorney General Buddy Caldwell are named defendants in the federal lawsuit.
"As governor and the father of three young kids, I will fight the ACLU every step of the way and do everything I can to keep our kids safe from the monsters who want to harm them," the governor said. "If these people want to search the Internet for new victims, they can do it somewhere else."
"It is frankly insulting for the ACLU to claim it is a convicted sex offender's 'First Amendment right' to use Facebook, MySpace, and Craigslist," Jindal said.
The suit, filed in Baton Rouge, says the law is broader than advertised. Although it was geared to sites like Facebook and MySpace, it also blocks access to newspaper sites, job databases and other websites that allow users to communicate, the suit charges.
Marjorie Esman, ACLU Louisiana executive director, said the state has a legitimate interest in preventing sex offenders from using the Internet in ways that can harm children.
"This goes way beyond that," she said. "This blocks access to probably any Internet at all. It needs to be narrowly tailored to actually accomplish the goal."
Thierry's legislation prohibits the use or access of social networking websites, chat rooms, or peer-to-peer networks by a person who is required to register as a sex offender because of either being previously convicted of indecent behavior with juveniles, pornography involving juveniles, computer-aided solicitation of a minor or video voyeurism, or was previously convicted of a sex offense in which the victim of the offense was a minor.
The new law provides an exception for those sex offenders who have permission from probation or parole officers or a courts of original jurisdiction to access social networking websites, chat rooms or peer-to-peer networks.
The exception was placed in the law so convicted sex offenders cold use such sites to find jobs.
The law, Act 26 of 2011, became effective Monday. ACLU's filings request a federal judge to immediately block enforcement of the law pending the outcome of a judicial review.
The lawsuit says the anonymous plaintiff is a registered sex offender who lives in East Baton Rouge Parish and served four years in prison on a conviction for possessing child pornography. He has worked as a computer repair technician since his 2006 release but will be unable to perform his job under the law's restrictions.
His "efforts to remain a productive, contributing member of society will be severely hampered," the suit adds.
Jindal said the lawsuit seeks to allow "exactly what we designed our new law to prevent."
Thierry said the state has laws "telling sex offenders how far to stay away from our children" on playgrounds or schoolyards. "We should tell them how far they have to stay away from our children on the Internet. This is just another way to protect them." ..Source.. by Mike Hasten
August 15, 2011
ALCU sues over limits on sex offenders' Web access
Folks can read the ACLU Complaint HERE8-15-2011 Louisiana:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana sued Monday to block enforcement of a new state law that limits sex offenders' access to social networking websites and other online forums, claiming the restrictions are overly broad and unconstitutional.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is named as a defendant in the federal suit, said he will "fight this with everything I have."
"If these people want to search the Internet for new victims, they can do it somewhere else," Jindal said in a statement.
The suit, filed in Baton Rouge, says the law may have targeted sites like Facebook and MySpace but also blocks access to newspaper sites, job databases and other websites that allow users to communicate.
Marjorie Esman, the group's executive director, said the state has a legitimate interest in preventing sex offenders from using the Internet in ways that can harm children.
"This goes way beyond that. This blocks (their) access to probably any Internet at all," she added. "It needs to be narrowly tailored to actually accomplish the goal."
The ACLU is asking a federal judge to immediately block enforcement of the law pending the outcome of a judicial review
Jindal, who signed the measure into law in June, said the lawsuit is "a disturbing break from reality, even for the ACLU."
"As governor and the father of three young kids, I will fight the ACLU every step of the way and do everything I can to keep our kids safe from the monsters who want to harm them," he added.
Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell also is named as a defendant in the suit. A spokeswoman for Caldwell's office said they hadn't seen the suit and couldn't comment on it.
State Rep. Ledricka Thierry, an Opelousas Democrat who sponsored the legislation in the House, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
The anonymous plaintiff is a registered sex offender, living in East Baton Rouge Parish, who was convicted of possessing child pornography and served four years in prison. He has worked as a computer repair technician since his 2006 release but will be unable to perform his job under the law's restrictions, the suit says.
His "efforts to remain a productive, contributing member of society will be severely hampered," the suit adds.
The law prohibits "unlawful use or access of social media" by convicted sex offenders whose victim was a child. Probation, parole officers and judges can make exceptions, but the ACLU says the law doesn't specify any procedures for obtaining permission.
The ACLU also argues that the law's definition of a social networking website could be interpreted to include "most of the Internet."
"Just about every website in existence incorporates a 'mechanism for communication' among users, whether that mechanism is as simple as a 'comments' section or as complicated as a web-based email service, such as Yahoo or Gmail," the group wrote in a court filing.
A first conviction for violating the law carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. A second conviction is punishable by at least five years and up to 20 years in prison. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
August 11, 2011
Federal judge hears arguments about sex offender registration for people convicted of crimes against nature
8-11-2011 Louisiana:
Lawyers for the state on Wednesday continued their push to defend a Louisiana law that requires some people convicted of selling sex for money to register as sex offenders, but not others.
During oral arguments, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman continually pressed Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Glazer on why the law does not require all people convicted of selling sex to register as sex offenders.
"How is that not a violation of the equal protection clause?" Feldman asked, referring to the constitutional requirement that laws be applied equally to all people.
Glazer responded that the state requires all people convicted of soliciting "crimes against nature" to register regardless of their race, gender or religion.
Historically under Louisiana law, people convicted of selling oral or anal sex could be prosecuted either under prostitution laws or the state's unique "crimes against nature by solicitation" statute. If convicted under that law, the defendant would be required to register as a sex offender. People convicted of prostitution, which can involve the same sex acts, were never required to register.
In February, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit challenging the law, arguing it is unconstitutional. During the recent legislative session, the state lawmakers agreed, removing the registration requirement for anyone convicted of crimes against nature in the future.
The new law, which goes into effect on Monday, only applies prospectively. Attorneys supporting the challenge say about 400 people will remain on the sex offender registry because of their previous convictions for soliciting crimes against nature.
In New Orleans, almost 40 percent of people registered as sex offenders are there because of crimes against nature convictions. About 75 percent of these people are women, according to the original lawsuit against the law.
Feldman asked Glazer, who filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the state, about why there isn't an equal protection issue raised by the fact that people convicted of a crime against nature in the past will be treated differently than those who are convicted of the same acts after the new law goes into effect on Aug. 15.
"The August 15th date to me seems pivotal," Feldman said.
Glazer responded that the Legislature simply didn't have enough money to make the law retroactive. It would be expensive for Louisiana State Police to review the cases of any people on the sex offender registry to ensure they were solely convicted of crimes against nature by solicitation, she said.
A fiscal note attached to the original version of the bill, which did make the law retroactive, estimated it would cost about $37,000 annually to hire an analyst to review the files. The note also said the Department of Public Safety and Corrections indicated that the department could have current personnel perform the work, but it might slow them down on other tasks.
Alexis Agathocleous, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said his clients want Feldman to issue an injunction requiring the state to remove them from the registry.
Feldman ordered both sides to submit further written briefs about the issues, saying he will rule at a later date. ..Source.. by Laura Maggi, The Times-Picayune
February 17, 2011
Louisiana's sex laws challenged
2-17-2011 Louisiana:
SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) – The law that requires prostitutes to register as a sex offender, if they're caught a second time soliciting oral or anal sex, is being challenged (To read complaint).
In Louisiana those sex acts as opposed to so called normal sex acts are considered a felony.
"These guys are asking the federal courts to do is tell the Louisiana supreme court hey you guys are wrong," said Caddo Parish Sex Crimes Division Prosecutor, Hugo Holland says prostitutes are often arrested in the Ark-La-Tex, sometimes even in stings, but he says felony charges are rare.
"There are very few jurisdictions that have a tradition with charging prostitutes unless they're multiple offenders with felony offenses for soliciting for oral sex or anal sex," said Holland.
The lawsuit refers to Louisiana law but many consider it to be city-specific to New Orleans, and not necessarily Shreveport, but it is causing legal waves in Shreveport.
"The reason I take exception to the lawsuit is because in my mind it is up to the elected representatives of the people to decide what should be legal and what shouldn't be legal and it shouldn't be left to some appointed federal judge that nobody got to vote on.," said Holland.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision years ago that says the states cannot make consensual sex between adults illegal unless it's prostitution.
The Louisiana Supreme Court re-drafted laws to reflect those changes, but Crimes Against Nature laws remain on the books. ..Source.. by Fred Childers
Sodomy Rule Challenged as Unconstitutional
NEW ORLEANS (CN) - Nine people, including a grandmother, a mother of four, and three transgendered women, challenged a state law that requires people convicted of having oral or anal sex for money to register as sex offenders. The plaintiffs say the law is discriminatory. Penalties in Louisiana for prostitution involving conventional sexual intercourse do not require sex-offender registration, no matter how many times a person is convicted.
All nine plaintiffs have been convicted of a "crime against nature."
Registering as a sex offender causes humiliation and puts at risk people's employment, housing, neighborhood affiliation, and puts them at risk of physical attack, according to the federal complaint.
The plaintiffs - eight women, three of them transgendered, and a man - sued Gov. Bobby Jindal, Attorney General James Caldwell and other officials, including police, parole and Motor Vehicle chiefs.
"In 1982, Louisiana expanded its crime against nature statute to specifically criminalize 'solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,'" the complaint states. "In doing so, Louisiana became the first and only state in the nation to adopt a freestanding statute that specifically criminalizes offering or agreeing to engage in oral or anal sex for a fee."
The complaint adds: "The only possible explanation for the inclusion of the crime against nature by solicitation statute in the registry law is that it targets non-procreative sex acts traditionally associated with homosexuality."
Forty percent of sex offenders in Orleans Parish are on the registry as crime against nature by solicitation offenders, according to the complaint.
"The Louisiana Legislature recently equalized the penalties associated with a first conviction for prostitution and a first conviction of crime against nature by solicitation. However, the statutory penalties for a second prostitution conviction and a second crime against nature by solicitation conviction differ in critical ways, thereby subjecting individuals convicted of allegedly soliciting oral or anal intercourse to far harsher punishment than those convicted of soliciting vaginal intercourse," the complaint states.
The amendment made it no longer necessary to register as a sex offender for a first conviction of a crime against nature, but a second offense still requires registry. "Conversely, no number of convictions for prostitution requires registration as a sex offender, and never has."
Plaintiff "Audrey Doe is a grandmother in her mid-50s." She was convicted of crime against nature by solicitation on at least two occasions. She says that "since her release from prison, Audrey Doe has spent hundreds of dollars to comply with the registry law's fees and notification requirements. These expenses have included the cost of printing and mailing notification postcards to neighbors and the fee for placing an announcement in the newspaper disclosing her registration as a sex offender."
She says that after sending out her sex offender notification, someone threw rocks through her windows.
"On another occasion, a group of youths threw rocks at Audrey Doe and yelled at her to 'suck [their] dicks.'" (Brackets in original).
Plaintiff "Becca Doe is a mother of four in her mid-50s." She has three convictions for a crime against nature. After her first conviction she "was sentenced to 40 months imprisonment with hard labor and required to register as a sex offender for 15 years."
Another plaintiff "has only a single crime against nature by solicitation conviction, but because her conviction precedes recent legislative amendments, she continues to be subject to the registration requirements. Other plaintiffs have multiple convictions of crime against nature by solicitation, and as a result must register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives."
The plaintiffs say registering as a sex offender affects "every aspect of their lives, including housing, employment, travel, access to identification documents, family life, and evacuation in the event of an emergency or natural disaster.
"For example, registrants must carry a state driver's license or non-drivers' identification document which brands them as a sex offender in bright orange capital letters. Like individuals on the registry as a result of having committed offenses involving children, violence, or lack of consent, individuals convicted of mere solicitation of oral or anal sex for compensation must disclose that fact that they are registered as a sex offender to neighbors, landlords, employers, schools, parks, community centers, and churches.
"The requirement that individuals convicted of crime against nature by solicitation appear on the sex offender database, known as the Sex Offender and Child Predator Registry ... has had devastating consequences for plaintiffs. For example, many plaintiffs have been unable to secure work or housing as a result of their status as sex offenders. Audrey Doe has been physically threatened by neighbors. Eve Doe has been refused residential drug treatment because providers will not accept sex offenders."
Seventy-five percent of people convicted of a crime against nature in Orleans Parish are women, and 79 percent are black, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs add: "Requiring individuals convicted solely as crime against nature by solicitation to register as sex offenders serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Plaintiffs pose no danger to anyone. They have not been convicted of any criminal offense involving force, use of a weapon, coercion, lack of consent, or a victim who is a minor."
The plaintiffs want the law enjoined as unconstitutional, and want their names expunged from the registry. They are represented by William Quigley with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. ..Source.. by SABRINA CANFIELD
