ILNews

Judge: Sex offender law goes too far

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Those registered sex offenders who've served their time and are no longer on probation or under court supervision cannot be required to give blanket consent to authorities for home and computer searches, the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana's chief judge ruled late afternoon on June 24.

U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton in Indianapolis struck down a major portion of a new law set to take effect July 1, which would have required all convicted sex offenders to agree to have their personal computers searched at any time and allow Internet access to be monitored. That applied to all those on the statewide sex-offender registry, including those no longer serving sentences, on probation, or under any type of court supervision. Not complying would be a felony.

But the revised Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-8(b) goes too far, Judge Hamilton ruled in his 51-page opinion in John Doe and Steve Morris, et al. v. Marion County Prosecutor, et al., No. 1:08-CV-0436-DFH-TAB, a class-action suit filed in April by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana against all county prosecutors and sheriffs. Judge Hamilton heard arguments May 30.

The judge stopped short of striking down the entire statute, only declaring unconstitutional the portion that would have applied to convicted sex offenders no longer on probation, on parole, or under court supervision.

"The new law forces an unconstitutional choice upon these plaintiffs. They must choose now between committing a new crime by refusing to consent and giving up their Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and security in their homes, their 'papers,' and their effects," he wrote. "The unprecedented new law, however well-intentioned it may be, violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class, who have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation, parole, or any other kind of court supervision."

Judge Hamilton poked holes in the state's legal arguments, noting that there are no limits on the scopes of allowable searches under this law and citing City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 42 (2000), which involved random vehicle checkpoints designed to catch drug users and traffickers. The U.S. Supreme Court held that was unconstitutional and Judge Hamilton used that case to note that "a general interest in crime control" doesn't justify this consent law for sex offenders because it also doesn't justify abandoning the Fourth Amendment's requirement of individualized suspicion.

He also pointed out that the parties have not cited and he wasn't able to find any American law that "attempts to authorize such a broad intrusion on personal privacy and security, without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, for persons" not under the court's control.

The judge didn't rule on whether this law can be considered constitutional to other convicted sex offenders outside this plaintiff class, noting that is left "for another day."

The Indiana Attorney General's office is reviewing whether it will appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to spokeswoman Staci Schneider.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT