Lawsuit over Idaho’s sex-offender registry laws expands to 134 plaintiffs
A lawsuit filed last year by 104 sex offenders challenging Idaho’s laws that require registration and community notification of sex offenders has been expanded to 134 sex offenders.
They say the laws violate an array of constitutional rights, from the prohibition on double jeopardy to freedom of religion.
Twin Falls attorney Greg Fuller filed an amended complaint April 27 in U.S. District Court in Boise on behalf of 134 unnamed sexual offenders, identified as John or Jane Does 1-134.
The plaintiffs come from across the state and country. Most were convicted of sexual offenses in the 1980s and 1990s. One of their major complaints is that amendments since then to Idaho’s sex-offender registry laws amount to retroactive punishment, which is unconstitutional.
For example, plaintiff John Doe 109, of Boise County, was convicted in 2002 in Connecticut of possession of child pornography, a felony. After serving 13 months in prison, he moved to Idaho. Under changes to Idaho’s law, he has been required to register as a sex offender since 2010.
Plaintiff John Doe 122, of Nez Perce County, was convicted in 1998 in Idaho of lewd conduct with a child under age 16. In 2001 and 2009, Idaho changed its laws making his offense an aggravated one. He is now required to register for life as an aggravated offender.
The 145-page amended complaint names more than 35 defendants, including Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, the Idaho Department of Correction, the Idaho State Police, the Idaho Sex Offender Management Board and the sheriffs of the 25 counties where the plaintiffs reside. The lawsuit seeks a permanent order to stop the state and its counties from enforcing some portions of the law.
Fuller filed the lawsuit in September but never served the defendants, instead notifying the court that he intended to file an amended complaint later.
The Idaho Attorney General’s Office said Monday that it could not comment because it had not yet been served with the complaint.
Here is how the sex offenders say their constitutional guarantees are violated:
▪ Double jeopardy: The laws impose new punishments on sex offenders previously convicted based on the crime originally committed.
▪ Religious freedom: Some churches and other places of worship fall within the places certain sex offenders cannot be, thereby interfering with offenders’ rights to practice religion.
▪ Due process: Idaho law is vague, and it reassesses offenders and subjects them to new restrictions without a hearing.
▪ Equal protection: The laws are designed to burden an unpopular group.
▪ Cruel and unusual punishment: The laws impose excessive punishment, community-notification requirements that can subject sex offenders to violence at the hands of vigilantes.
▪ Contracts: The laws impose new non-negotiated terms on previously negotiated plea agreements.
▪ Takings: The laws place residential and movement restrictions on sex offenders, restricting property rights.
▪ Separation of powers: The laws vacate earlier court judgments setting sex offenders’ classifications, community-notification requirements and length of times sex offenders must register.
I love hearing about these kinds of cases because one of the reasons these things get applied retroactively is becasue the logistics of treating each person on the registry separately and applying separate guidelines for each person is almost impossible for any state. This is a good thing becasue the states are left with only a few choices. Remove everyone that falls into that category or remove the restrictions for everyone…and in reality anyone subjected to restrictions that occurred after they were adjudicated is in this category even if it wasn’t decades ago. If a law was passed the day after you were sentenced then applying it to you is retroactive and unconstitutional. Baby steps….
I do understand; however what about situations where municipalities have enacted ordinances which can’t be fought on ex post facto grounds to do their offence occurring on or after the date of enactment … this Idaho lawsuit seems to be forwarding the legal arguments to challenge facial application of such restrictions
Why couldn’t we take this lawsuit here in florida and use it’s language and causes if action against these banishment ordinances that are in Orange, Seminole, and Brevard Counties… I am very interested in how the Takings clause is being presented because, many of us who are registrants do have decent incomes but cannot find housing to improve our quality of life. These municipalities do these Ordinances in the name of local governance without any empirical data to even have cause to supeceed the state law.
Maybe we as register citizens should all get together as a group the more the better and file a Lawsuit let’s find a lawyer or contact the ACLU We can file it as almost as a Class action law suit. Let’s do it !!!!
We have organized such a lawsuit. If you want to contribute, you can go here:https://floridaactioncommittee.org/donations/ and select “Ex Post Facto Legal Challenge”
My exact sentiments, when are we going to see change in Florida. In the next year I plan to sell my house of 20 yrs so I can legally stay with my wife. Ive been out for 5 yrs. now and donot foresee any change for the better.
IF we know people who can put their names on this lawsuit as victims of the harsh laws, where do we go?
The lawsuit would first have to be crafted to Florida’s laws as any quasi State/Federal claim considers the state law as applied when comparing that to federal constitutional issues