NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Forced to Carry Gov't Message Issue: See HERE
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

Doe v Virginia

4-12-2013 Virginia:

Doe v Virginia
713 F.3d 745 (2013)
(See text amendment)
(U.S. Sup court denied the appeal filed of this decision. see story below.)

Jane Doe brought a challenge to Va. Code sections 9.1-900 et seq. and 18.2-370.5, which, together, classify her as a sexually violent offender and prevent her from entering the grounds of a school or daycare without first gaining permission from a Virginia circuit court and the school board or the owner of the daycare. She also challenged the policy of the Spotsylvania County School Board (the "Board"), which she alleges does not allow her to petition anonymously for entry onto school property.

The district court dismissed all but one of her claims on the grounds that they were unripe and that she lacked standing. It determined that her remaining claim failed to allege grounds upon which relief could be granted, and dismissed it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Doe's complaint includes four counts:
  • she alleges that the defendants have violated her substantive due process,
  • procedural due process,
  • associational, and
  • free exercise rights.

The injuries she alleges with respect to the first, third, and fourth of these counts stem from impediments the Virginia statute and the Board policy place on her ability to access school and church property.

However, because she has not yet attempted to undertake the requisite steps to access these properties, she cannot demonstrate that these claims are justiciable at this juncture.

One component of her second count, her challenge to the law stemming from an alleged denial of procedural due process, on the other hand, is justiciable.

However, she fails to state a procedural due process claim upon which relief may be granted.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of her claims.

US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Sex Registry Case

3-24-2014 Washington DC, Virginia:

The Supreme Court has declined to take up the case of a Virginia woman who claims the state's sex offender registry law is unconstitutional.

The woman was reclassified as a violent sex offender 15 years after being convicted of unlawful sex with minor in a case that did not involve any violence. The reclassification subjects her to a ban on entering her children's schools without first seeking permission from state courts and the local school board.

The woman was identified only as Jane Doe in court records. She says the process unfairly risks revealing her children's identity and could take years to resolve.

Lower courts had rejected her case on procedural grounds, saying she failed to first exhaust state remedies. ..Source.. by ABC News

No comments: