Sex-offender magazine at gas station

April 2, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The next time you go into a Speedway gas station, you can pick up a candy bar, giant fountain drink, and possibly a sex-offender registry magazine.An Indiana man who was abused wants convicted sex-offenders names and pictures to be more accessible to residents. He told an Indianapolis television station that he doesn’t think the online registry is “in your face enough” and a lot of people “turn a blind eye” to it.For $1.25, you can pick up a copy in Indianapolis or Fort Wayne, but he wants to expand to other cities. Ideally, the man would like to make the publication free. He charges to cover printing costs and says he’ll donate any profits to a counseling service for child abuse victims.

The publication offers safety tips, and he publishes it in hopes of preventing abuse to children.

But can he even publish this magazine in the first place? On that, I’m unclear. An online search yielded a Web site or two claiming under the Adam Walsh Act that only authorized agencies could collect and publish that data. The argument is if someone is removed or needs information corrected, the agency could do it quickly on the online database. (That’s if they even know how to go about fixing errors. There’s a lawsuit pending on that issue in federal court.) I checked in with the ACLU of Indiana and they didn’t know offhand of any laws preventing this type of publication.

Anyone more familiar with the laws and can say whether this is allowed? Is the idea behind it really any different than local newspapers publishing “Most Wanted” mug shots?

I’d prefer to log on to the sheriff’s Web site and check things out for free, but there may be people out there who are willing to spend the money to have a hard copy of this information. Next time I’m at a Speedway, I’ll have to pop in and see if I can find a copy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT