JB et al v New Jersey State Parole Board

Does this decision violate a person's right to NOT CARRY the government's message?

To Commenter: Burglary data and parole data is not part of this discussion, nor do I even mention anything similar.

11-26-2013 New Jersey:

JB et al v New Jersey State Parole Board

Appellants J.B., L.A., B.M., and W.M. are individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses, have completed their respective prison terms, and are now being monitored by respondent New Jersey State Parole Board (the "Parole Board") as offenders who are subject to either parole supervision for life ("PSL") or its statutory predecessor, community supervision for life ("CSL"). N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. Represented by the same attorney, appellants challenge the constitutionality of certain terms of supervision the Parole Board has imposed upon them. Similar conditions have been imposed on other offenders subject to CSL or PSL, although appellants have not filed a class action.

The terms of supervision mainly being challenged in these related appeals1 are (1) the Parole Board's restrictions on appellants' access to social media or other comparable web sites on the Internet; and (2) the Parole Board's authority to compel them to submit to periodic polygraph examinations. One of the appellants, L.A. , also contests the Parole Board's imposition upon him of a Halloween curfew and an electronic monitoring condition.

For the reasons that follow, we reject appellants' facial challenges to the Internet access restrictions, subject to their right to bring future "as-applied" challenges should they avail themselves of the Parole Board's procedures for requesting specific permission for more expanded Internet access and are then denied such permission.

We do not decide at this time the merits of appellants' constitutional attack upon the polygraph requirements. Instead, we refer that subject matter to the trial court for supplemental proceedings, pursuant to Rule 2:5-5(b), for the development of an appropriate record, including scientific or other expert proofs, and for fact-finding. Such proofs and fact-finding shall focus upon the alleged therapeutic, rehabilitative, and risk management benefits of polygraph testing when it is conducted within the specific context of post-release oversight of sex offenders.

FR v ST Charles County Sherrifs Dept

1-12-2010 Missouri:

This post will only address the Halloween Restrictions Issue
FR v ST Charles County Sheriffs Dept -AND-
State of Missouri v Charles A. Raynor
(301 S.W.3d 56 (2010))

In the first of these cases, F.R., a convicted sex offender, challenges the constitutional validity of section 566.1471, Missouri's "School Residency Law," which prohibits convicted sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of any school or child-care facility. Because F.R. was convicted and sentenced before the "school residency law" was enacted, section 566.147, as applied to F.R., is unconstitutionally retrospective in its operation.

The circuit court entered judgment against F.R. The judgment is reversed.

In the second case, Charles Raynor, a convicted sex offender, challenges the constitutional validity of section 589.426, which prohibits convicted sex offenders from going outdoors, turning on their outdoor lights and handing out candy on Halloween, and which requires them to post a sign stating "no candy or treats at this residence." Because Raynor was convicted and sentenced before section 589.426 was enacted, section 589.426, as applied to Raynor, is unconstitutionally retrospective in its operation.

The circuit court entered judgment for Raynor. The judgment is affirmed.

...

Facts and Procedural History of Raynor v. State

Charles Raynor is a registered sex offender in Audrain County pursuant to section 589.400(7) and 42 U.S.C. section 16913 due to a 1990 conviction in the state of Washington for indecent liberties with a child younger than 14 years old. Missouri's legislature enacted section 589.426,7 effective in August 2008, imposing certain restrictions on registered sex offenders' conduct on Halloween night.

On Halloween, October 31, 2008, Mexico public safety officers checked registered sex offenders' residences for compliance with section 589.426. When an officer arrived at Raynor's registered address, the officer observed a woman passing out candy to children. She informed the officer that Raynor was inside the house, but that they both believed he was in compliance with the statute because he was not handing out candy. No sign was posted at the residence stating "No candy or treats at this address." Raynor was charged with a class A misdemeanor for failure to comply with section 589.426.

Raynor moved to dismiss the charges against him as being unconstitutionally retrospective in violation of article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court sustained his motion to dismiss and held that the statute unconstitutionally created new obligations on Raynor with respect to his past actions. The state appeals.

....

Conclusion

The new obligations and duties imposed on F.R. and Raynor are solely the result of their past criminal acts, and the failure to perform these new duties and obligations carries a criminal penalty. The obligations and duties, imposed after the fact of their criminal convictions and based solely on those prior convictions, violate F.R.'s and Raynor's rights under article I, section 13. (State Constitution)

As applied to F.R., the school residency requirement of section 566.147 is unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

As applied to Raynor, the Halloween requirements of section 589.426 are unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

See Article: Is the recent Missouri Supreme court decision -as to Halloween restrictions- correct for all Missouri sex offenders?