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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT