Can SC keep sex offenders on public registry after they move? SC high court says ‘yes’
People convicted of sex crimes can’t get their names removed from the sex offender registry simply by leaving the Palmetto State, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled.
(Read the full story at the Post and Courier).
In a federal lawsuit, “John Doe” and the American Civil Liberties Union alleged the State Law Enforcement Division policy unconstitutionally punishes people who no longer live in South Carolina.
A federal court asked South Carolina justices to weigh in on whether state law allows the public registry to include information on people who don’t live here.
The high court answered with a resounding “yes.”
“We conclude South Carolina has a legitimate and fundamental interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, regardless of imaginary boundary lines between states,” Justice George James wrote in the unanimous opinion.
While the convicted offender may no longer be a South Carolina resident and no longer need to show up in person to register his whereabouts, “he or she could easily travel to and from South Carolina at convenient times for licit and illicit purposes,” the opinion continues.
Allowing sex offenders to get their names deleted by moving would ignore the reason for the law, James wrote.
In a statement to The Post and Courier, attorneys for the ACLU of South Carolina said they’re disappointed by the state’s answer to the U.S. District Court’s question.
But we “look forward to vindicating our client’s constitutional rights when the case returns to federal court,” they said.
More than 8,000 people on South Carolina’s public registry don’t live there, the ACLU told the federal court last year.
“Some of these individuals — like John Doe — are listed on our registry despite no longer being required to register as a sex offender anywhere in the world,” the ACLU said in a court filing. “Because these individuals are not actively registering with law enforcement, their registry information is necessarily stale, inaccurate, and irrelevant to the safety and welfare of South Carolinians. And although publication of out-of-state offenders provides no discernible benefit to law enforcement or the community, it inflicts profound damage on the lives and reputations of the out-of-state individuals that are listed.”
Well, Florida does the same thing.
Why would SC and Fl do this? Really only one reason. Money. Cut the Federal and State $ and bureaucracy to manage this program and watch how fast these laws fall apart.
Absolutely crazy! The state should have no Interest on people not in that Juridistiction. Same bull with Florida. It’s completely Punitive Harassment and I suspect tied to funding based on the amount of people listed. We need to stop tying financial incentives to these tactics. A good example when I did my time they would ask you to sign up for programs so they got paid then tell us we couldn’t go because of security and our charges or simply tell us to sign in at plumbing or electrical so the Prison got paid but we never got the classes! I even had an instructor say they didn’t want to pay him to teach he just kept the attendance and handed certificates at the end as we played in the yard. After release mandating everybody pay for Drug and alcohol classes without any history it’s just automatic.Trying to feed inmates for $1.73 a day by taking away as much food and ingredients as possible. Read the menu and then see what you get. It’s all money based the entire Florida DOC and I assume it’s the same in many others.
What a load of bull manure!
-“he or she could easily travel to and from South Carolina at convenient times for licit and illicit purposes,”
Let’s Pray!
-“look forward to vindicating our client’s constitutional rights when the case returns to federal court,”
“We conclude South Carolina has a legitimate and fundamental interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, regardless of imaginary boundary lines between states”
So, by that reasoning, wouldn’t it be possible for SC to require ALL convicted SOs – from the ENTIRE United States – to register in SC…. for public safety reasons… just in case any of those individuals happen to visit the State.” 🤷🏻♂️
Imaginary lines? They are called BORDERS Sir and they define sovereign limits what a bunch of morons 🙈 it’s always Bizzaro world when it comes to sex offenses
Anonymous
Right , since state borders are imaginary then let’s start cutting down all the signs along the highways that say entering or leaving such and such state. Also you can refuse to pay state taxes in one state and say no this place is actually not what you say but what I say so the tax will go to my state of choice.
What David is describing is what Florida already does— require life registration by all out-of-state visitors of three days or more.
I stand clear with the law as written and should remain in place for the greater good of others. If they reverse this law then others should be able to challenge this reversal based on being a Convicted Felon for Life and be removed from Public records too.
Registries are for morons. But sure, let’s all keep pretending they do something good and are intelligent.
Not sure I understand what you mean? Convicted felon for life? What about that one paid their debt to society?
D,A, Dorsett
I agree with you . I stand for the law also. The law as stated in the Constitution that all states are supposed to support. And child safety is also our top priority. But when they break the constitutional mandates by initiating laws based on falsehoods saying the registry protects children without a single example but thousands of examples to the contrary and they call punishment not punishment so they can keep adding to subjects restrictions and requirements even years later, after their original sentence has been completed. That is not safety, that is not constitutional. That is not upholding a law . That is abusing the law and using it for personal self gratification. Driven by greed, selfish gratification to give them a feeling of superiority and power over others.
Yep. And don’t forget the money. The Registries are for money. Greedy people love them.
And then the great state of Florida wonders why people who have sex offenses on their record just don’t tell them that they are in their state visiting. *rolls my eyes* Yes lets subject someone who doesn’t live here to our laws because damnit they are a danger to our society. Lest we forget that what was it something like 95% of new sex crimes are committed by *gasp* people who have no history of a sexual offense. I have long grown tired of the back and forth bullshit that goes on in ANY state let alone Florida when it comes to who is and who isn’t a dangerous sexual predator.
Here is an idea. How about we follow the due process laws and after someone is convicted of a sex crime hold another court hearing to where the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a high risk of reoffending BEFORE we place them on the registry. To easy? Yeah I thought so.
Bingo👌🏼
You can’t even die in the state of Florida and be taken off the list.
the judges comments on South Carolina’s legitimate and fundamental interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, regardless of imaginary boundary lines between states is nonsense because if a RSO goes to another state they have to register there no matter what so they will be on the registry one way or another and if they decide to visit SC they have to inform the local authority who then alerts SC that they are coming. On the other hand if the RSO is removed off of the registry in the state he or she goes to then that should be the end of it(unlike Florida where your on it for life) Where are the common sense Judges???????????????????????????????
Just follow the money my friends.
The more names on the list the more money the state(Florida is a great example) gets to cry to congress for more funds to manage all of these “dangerous sex offenders”.
When you take that into consideration, it starts to make sense as to why they want the registry to be in perpetuity for for life. The longer one has to live by the excessive and arbitrary registry requirements, the more likely it is that you might violate.
Which leads to the next cash cow of privately contracted prisons(I worked in a couple of these when I was younger because they paid for my tuition). That’s why every violation is some level of felony. Felonies generally make you skip jail and put you straight into state penitentiaries.
It’s all a rich man’s game, and sex offenders; or as I like to call us “The Quintessential Boogeyman” is a cash cow and vote winner.
” 15 years after completing their punishment. ”
You see, they admit it’s punishment! But they get around that pesky cruel and unusual thingy by calling it “civil.”
They’re protecting that lie because it creates jobs, power, influence and profit!
While the convicted offender may no longer be a South Carolina resident and no longer need to show up in person to register his whereabouts, “he or she could easily travel to and from South Carolina at convenient times for licit and illicit purposes,”
First, I’m at a loss as to what exactly the public safety issue is if a prior registrant returns to South Carolina for licit purposes.
Second, in the extremely unlikely event that a prior registrant would return to South Carolina solely to commit another sex crime or any other illicit purpose, how exactly would an obsolete registry entry prevent or hinder him? What exactly would the obsolete entry contribute to the investigation? And even if South Carolina law requires him to update his registry information when he reenters the state, how likely is that prior registrant to stop by the registry office? And again, even if he did, how would that stop his illicit purpose or aid the investigation of it?
I’ve grown accustomed to the linguistic gymnastics most courts use to justify their ludicrous holdings regarding the constitutionality of the sex offender registry and still marvel at how much more ridiculous they get every year. I can only hope the ACLU attorneys can demonstrate that to whatever federal court requested this opinion for the South Carolina Supreme Court.
But I think it is more likely that the federal court was unable to come up with a sound legal reasoning in the case there and solicited the opinion of the SCSC in search of one. I’m willing to bet that this opinion will be central to denying the ACLU’s claims in the next year or so.
Borders are “Imaginary lines”? South Carolina, World Police!
Hmmm imaginary lines ? Under that idea while on probation I should be able to go to any county or state I want with no issue. But try it and see just how fast the imaginary line becomes a real county / state boundary. Not to mention with an imaginary line we should be able to pick which state or county’s laws we want to go by but live in whichever county or state we want.