Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and articles, and "Active Lawsuits." All can be useful in framing arguments for new court cases. i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform court and simply to learn whats happening to others. If you know of a case or lawsuit not listed, please let us know. Leagle is our main resource.
View decisions by the Federal Circuit States belong to.
NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Travel Restrictions (Apparently Eff. 2013)
NEW: Border Patrol Checking
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

California's High court rejects appeal on sex-offender rules

4-23-2014 California:

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review a lower court's ruling striking down sex-offender restrictions in Orange County that were among the strictest in the state.
Lower court ruling was People v Godinez which the DA appealed but the high court has refused the appeal leaving Godinez controlling the issue.
The move means that local bans in dozens of California communities are trumped by state law, as the 4th District Court of Appeal found in January.

"We're obviously disappointed," Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of staff for Orange County's district attorney, told City News Service. "We put our heart and soul in every brief and every argument to protect the children of Orange County from dangerous sex offenders. ... We still believe it was the right thing to do."

Orange County's restrictions passed in 2011 barred offenders from parks and beaches unless they had written permission from the sheriff.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Carriere man gets life without parole in sex-offender registry case

4-17-2014 Mississippi:

Donald Caves prosecuted as habitual offender

A Carriere man has been sentenced to life without parole for conviction of failing to register as a sex offender, District Attorney Hal Kittrell said Tuesday.

Donald Allen Caves, 45, was found guilty April 9. Judge Anthony Mozingo deferred sentencing for a pre-sentence investigation.

Kittrell said a Pearl River County jury believed testimony that Caves changed his address and failed to notify authorities.

He was convicted of touching a child for lustful purposes in 1990, accessory after the fact to auto burglary in 1998 and felon in possession of a weapon in 2005.

His latest felony investigated by the Pearl River County Sheriff's Office and prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys Kim Harlin and Lauren Harless.

"Repeat offenders such as Donald Caves pose a threat to the safety of our community and should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole," Kittrell said in a news release. ..Source.. by ROBIN FITZGERALD

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Bleeke v State

4-11-2014 Indiana:

Bleeke v State (Supreme ct)

Bleeke v State (Court of Appeals)

In this case, a parolee convicted of a sex crime against an adult female challenges a number of his parole conditions, including several that prohibit him from having contact with children—even his own. He also challenges the constitutionality of a state treatment program for sex offenders that he must participate in as part of his parole, claiming that under the program he is required to provide self-incriminating statements about his underlying offense and sexual history without immunity and under the threat of being found in violation of his parole.

We conclude that some of his parole conditions are impermissible on several grounds, but find no fault with the remainder. We likewise find no constitutional flaw in the state treatment program.

... ... ...

Conditions 4, 5, 17, 19, and 20, which we have laid out above, are all broadly aimed at restricting Bleeke from being near, communicating with, or associating with, children (and, until the injunction became permanent, from being near, communicating with, or associating with, his own children). Bleeke argues that there is no evidence whatsoever that he poses a risk to any minor, and that these conditions therefore are not reasonably related to his successful reintegration into the community.

We agree with Bleeke. None of the evidence presented at his individualized hearing or designated before the trial court in support of—or in opposition to—his motion for summary judgment indicates that Bleeke is, was, or will be a threat to children—either his own or otherwise. In fact, the evidence uncontrovertibly shows the opposite: that Bleeke is affirmatively not a threat to children, nor is he likely to be. The Parole Board’s only evidence to the contrary apparently consisted of a general study of cross-over offenders. But we note, as the Court of Appeals did, that the study itself was not made part of the record on appeal. Bleeke, 982 N.E.2d at 1049. This makes it impossible to assess whether the study raises a genuine issue of material fact as to the likelihood of Bleeke himself crossing over from an adult victim to a child victim.

Parole Stipulation form 49108 ...

Wednesday, April 16, 2014


2-27-2009 Maryland:


In this case, we are called upon to decide whether a circuit court judge, in a defamation action, appropriately denied a motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding a subpoena requiring, Independent Newspapers, Inc., a company that commissioned an Internet forum (for which it required participants to register), to identify five Internet forum participants known only by their pseudonyms or usernames. Independent Newspapers appealed the denial of the motion, and we granted certiorari, Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, 405 Md. 505, 954 A.2d 467 (2008), prior to any proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals to address the following questions:

  • 1. May a court breach the constitutional right to speak anonymously and order the identification of Internet speakers who are alleged to have violated the plaintiff's rights without a factual and legal showing that the plaintiff has a supportable claim on the merits?
  • 2. Did plaintiff Brodie make the required showing in this case?

We shall conclude that the circuit court judge abused his discretion when ordering the identification of the five anonymous Internet forum participants, because the three participants sued, concededly, did not make the alleged defamatory statements, while the other two anonymous participants, who allegedly made the actionable remarks, were not sued by Brodie.

For guidance to the trial courts, we, nevertheless, will discuss the standard that should be applied to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation.