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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT