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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT