Doe v Foster et al

This action is in court right now, no decision yet.

4-21-15 New Hampshire:

In April 2015, the ACLU of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of RSA 651-B:4-a – a law passed in 2009 that restricts the legal and constitutionally-protected speech of all registered sex offenders in New Hampshire. Similar laws in California, Nebraska, Georgia, and Michigan have been struck down.

RSA 651-B:4-a requires anyone who is a registered sex offender – even people with decades-old, low-level offenses like misdemeanor lewdness and people whose offenses were not related to the Internet – to turn over a list of all their online identifiers to law enforcement. While the law is written very unclearly, this likely includes email addresses, usernames and other identifiers used for online political discussion groups, book and restaurant review sites, forums about medical conditions, and newspaper or blog comments — all innocent online speech that has nothing to do with criminality. Under the law, more than 2,700 Granite staters must immediately provide this information to law enforcement, and must report any new accounts before they are even used, even if the new screen name is their own real name. Violations can result in years in prison.

California court blocks requirement of sex-offenders to report changes of Internet providers

11-18-2014 California:

Doe, Roe, CA-RSOL -v- Harris

A federal appeals court has continued to block a voter-approved measure requiring registered sex offenders to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said the requirement violates free speech rights. The ruling upholds a lower court decision in 2013 that put the requirements on hold.

The reporting provision was part of Proposition 35, which 81 percent of voters passed in 2012 and toughened penalties for human trafficking. The harsher prison sentences remain in effect.

But the appeals court said the requirement of sex offenders to report on their Internet activity is too vague and that offenders' anonymity is insufficiently protected. The court also said requiring offenders to report to authorities with 24 hours was too onerous. ..Source.. by The Republic see also

California court blocks requirement of sex-offenders to report changes of Internet providers

11-18-2014 California:

A federal appeals court has continued to block a voter-approved measure requiring registered sex offenders to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday said the requirement violates free speech rights. The ruling upholds a lower court decision in 2013 that put the requirements on hold.

The reporting provision was part of Proposition 35, which 81 percent of voters passed in 2012 and toughened penalties for human trafficking. The harsher prison sentences remain in effect.

But the appeals court said the requirement of sex offenders to report on their Internet activity is too vague and that offenders' anonymity is insufficiently protected. The court also said requiring offenders to report to authorities with 24 hours was too onerous. ..Source.. by The Republic

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS INC -v- BRODIE

2-27-2009 Maryland:

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS INC -v- BRODIE

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.

Doe v Harris

Now see Doe v Harris 7-1-2013 (California Sup Ctr)

1-11-2013 California:

Doe v Harris (Order Granting Preliminary Injunction) No. C12-5713 TEH.
On Appeal see below:

This matter came before the Court on December 17, 2012, on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs challenge several provisions of the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act ("CASE Act" or "Act") that require registered sex offenders to provide certain information concerning their Internet use to law enforcement. Having carefully considered the parties' written and oral arguments, the Court now GRANTS preliminary injunctive relief for the reasons explained below.

On November 6, 2012, California voters approved the CASE Act, which appeared on the ballot as Proposition 35, with approximately 81% of the vote. Ex. D to Intervenors' Req. for Judicial Notice at 1.1 Plaintiffs John Doe, Jack Roe,2 and the non-profit organization California Reform Sex Offender Laws filed this action on behalf of present and future California sex offender registrants the following day, when the Act was to take effect.3 See Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(a). They contend that California Penal Code sections 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6), as enacted by the CASE Act, violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to free speech and free association. They further contend that the provisions are void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment.

California's sex offender registration program is governed by California Penal Code section 290 et seq. The CASE Act added the following items to the list of information registrants must provide "upon release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation":

(4) A list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person.

(5) A list of any and all Internet service providers used by the person.

(6) A statement in writing, signed by the person, acknowledging that the person is required to register and update the information in paragraphs (4) and (5), as required by this chapter.

Cal. Penal Code § 290.015(a). In addition, items (4) and (5) must be reported as part of the annual registration process. Id. § 290.012(a).

The Act defines "Internet service provider" as "a business, organization, or other entity providing a computer and communications facility directly to consumers through which a person may obtain access to the Internet," except for any "business, organization, or other entity that provides only telecommunications services, cable services, or video services, or any system operated or services offered by a library or educational institution." Id. § 290.024(a). "Internet identifier" is defined as "an electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, instant messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication." Id. § 290.024(b).

The CASE Act also added a provision that requires registrants to notify law enforcement within 24 hours of any changes in the Internet information subject to registration:

If any person who is required to register pursuant to the Act adds or changes his or her account with an Internet service provider or adds or changes an Internet identifier, the person shall send written notice of the addition or change to the law enforcement agency or agencies with which he or she is currently registered within 24 hours. The law enforcement agency or agencies shall make this information available to the Department of Justice.

Id. § 290.014(b). This section further requires all registrants to "immediately provide" the required information to law enforcement upon the effective date of the Act. Id.

...(Additional facts are long but interesting, should be reviewed), ...

Accordingly, with good cause appearing for the reasons stated in this order, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Kamala Harris and her officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with her, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6), as enacted by the CASE Act.17

2. Defendant Harris shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statutes or from otherwise collecting registered sex offenders' information. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice on or before January 28, 2013. Alternatively, the parties may file on or before that date a stipulation and proposed order that local law enforcement will not enforce the enjoined provisions even in the absence of receiving actual notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

On Appeal: No. 09-17362.
We certify to the California Supreme Court the question set forth in Part II of this order. All further proceedings in this case are stayed pending receipt of the answer to the certified question. This case is withdrawn from submission until further order of this Court. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings.

I
Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, before which this appeal is pending, certifies to the California Supreme Court a question of law concerning the interpretation of California plea agreements. The decisions of the Courts of Appeal of the State of California provide no controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the answer to which may be determinative of this appeal. We respectfully request that the California Supreme Court answer the certified question presented below. Our phrasing of the issue is not meant to restrict the court's consideration of the case. We agree to follow the answer provided by the California Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court declines certification, we will resolve the issue according to our perception of California law.

II
The question of law to be answered is:
Whether, under California law, the default rule of contract interpretation is

• (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or
• (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.

...continued...

Doe v Nebraska

Nebraska Case:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 12-21-2012
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:10CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 0-17-2012
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:10CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

ORDER 7-23-2012
(No. 8:09CV456.)

ORDER 7-13-2012
(No. 8:09CV456.)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6-29-2012
(No. 8:09CV456.)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6-29-2012
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6-1-2012
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 5-14-2012
Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005

ORDER 2-27-2012
No. 8:09CV456.

ORDER 1-10-2012
No. 8:09CV456.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 9-19-2011
Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6-15-2011
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6-20-2011
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

ORDER 4-25-2011
(No. 8:09CV456.)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 4-19-2011
Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 8-16-2010
734 F.Supp.2d 882 (2010)
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3004, 4:10CV3005.)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1-27-2011
(Nos. 8:09CV456, 4:09CV3266, 4:10CV3005)

Doe v Nebraska 12-30-2009
(No. 8:09CV456.)

This is a very complicated case with many issues, read it if you wish. Accordingly I am posting only what is relevant in this 12-30-2009 decision:

The specific statutes that are challenged by Plaintiffs, and an abbreviated summary of the reasons for the challenge, are set forth below:

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4001.01 through 4006, and 4009 through 40131 amount to the ex post facto imposition of punishment;

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006 provides for unreasonable searches and seizures;

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4009 and 4013 unreasonably eliminate individual assessments to determine the level of community notification and unreasonably impose website notification for all registrants;

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001.01 employs vague definitions, making the laws susceptible to arbitrary enforcement and inadvertent noncompliance;

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 2 creates a new crime and wrongly criminalizes certain types of speech and infringes upon the right of association; and

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4001.01 through 4006, and 4009 through 4013 improperly and retroactively modify the terms and conditions of plea agreements and violate separation of powers doctrine.
(See Filing 1, Complaint at CM/ECF p. 4 n.1.)

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction (filing 4) is denied except as provided below:

1. Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the following statutes against persons who have been convicted of sex offenses but who have completed their criminal sentences and who are not on probation, parole, or court-ordered supervision, to wit: (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2) (West, Operative January 1, 2010) (requiring consent to search and installation of monitoring hardware and software) and (2) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative January 1, 2010) (making it a crime to use Internet social networking sites accessible by minors by a person required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act).

However, Nebraska went much further and added a "consent to search" and "monitoring" requirement, to wit:

When the person provides any information under subdivision (1)(k) or (s) of this section, the registrant shall sign a consent form, provided by the law enforcement agency receiving this information, authorizing the:

(a) Search of all the computers or electronic communication devices possessed by the person; and

(b) Installation of hardware or software to monitor the person's Internet usage on all the computers or electronic communication devices possessed by the person.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2) (West, Operative January 1, 2010).

In addition to the "consent to search" and "monitoring" requirement, Nebraska—and, again, unlike SORNA—has now made it a crime for certain offenders who must register to access certain Internet sites. That is:

(1) Any person required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act who is required to register because of a conviction for one or more of the following offenses, including any substantially equivalent offense committed in another state, territory, commonwealth, or other jurisdiction of the United States, and who knowingly and intentionally uses a social networking web site, instant messaging, or chat room service that allows a person who is less than eighteen years of age to access or use its social networking web site, instant messaging, or chat room service, commits the offense of unlawful use of the Internet by a prohibited sex offender:

...(Crime codes omitted)...

(2) Unlawful use of the Internet by a prohibited sex offender is a Class I misdemeanor for a first offense. Any second or subsequent conviction under this section is a Class IIIA felony.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative January 1, 2010).
Thus, for offenders who must register, but who have served their sentences and are no longer on probation, parole, or court-ordered supervision at the time these new laws become effective, they face onerous new restrictions on their daily lives. They are burdened with the obligation to consent to the search of any computer they possess; they are required to allow the installation of software and hardware monitoring equipment on computers they possess; and many of them are prohibited, upon pain of an additional prison sentence, from using social networking websites, instant messaging services, or chat room service. When these restrictions are coupled with the fact that all registrants are also required to report in person, sometimes more frequently than once a year, it is likely that Nebraska's registration scheme, when applied retroactively to citizens who have completed their criminal sentences and who are no longer on probation, parole, or court-ordered supervision, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. SeeSmith v. Doe, 538 U.S. at 101 (holding that Alaska registration scheme did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause because registrant was "free to . . . live . . . as other citizens, with no supervision") (emphasis added). Put more simply, Nebraska has now retroactively imposed a probation-like regimen that is nearly identical to the supervised release orders I enter on a daily basis for federal criminal defendants who have committed "kiddie porn" crimes. In either context, those restrictions are clearly "punishment."


... ... ...

---

Earlier Filings:

---

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 12-22-2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 12-21-2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 12-18-2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 12-17-2009

There is more on this case HERE

---

PDF 12-30-2009

Doe -v- Shurtleff

10-26-2010 Utah:

Doe -v- Shurtleff
No. 09-4162.

10-26-2010 ORDER -and- 12-1-2010 ORDER

District Ct Order 8-20-2009

District Ct Decision 9-25-2008

In this case John Doe, a registered sex offender living in the state of Utah, appeals the district court's decision to allow enforcement of a Utah statute requiring all sex offenders living in Utah to register their "internet identifiers" and the corresponding websites with the state. We now uphold that decision based on our conclusion that the statute does not violate the First or Fourth Amendments or the Ex-Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, made applicable to Utah through the Fourteenth Amendment.

BACKGROUND
Appellant, proceeding anonymously as Mr. John Doe, was convicted by the United States military court system of sex offenses involving a minor and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. After serving thirteen months of this sentence, Mr. Doe was released without being placed on probation or supervised release. However, as a resident of Utah and a convicted sex offender, Mr. Doe was still required to register with the Utah Department of Corrections, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5 (West 2008). Among its many provisions, this registry law required Mr. Doe to provide all "Internet identifiers1 and the addresses [he] uses for routing or self-identification in Internet communications or postings." Id. § 77-27-21.5(14)(i).2 The statute also required that Mr. Doe provide "all online identifiers and passwords used to access" websites where he was using an online identifier, with the exception of identifiers used for employment or financial accounts. Id. § 77-27-21.5(12)(j) & (29).

Believing that these requirements violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights as well as the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, Mr. Doe refused to provide the requested information and brought a lawsuit challenging the law. Upon Mr. Doe's motion for summary judgment, the district court invalidated the statute based on its conclusion that the statute, which provided "no restrictions on how the [State] c[ould] use or disseminate registrants' internet information," improperly infringed on Mr. Doe's First Amendment right to anonymous speech. (Appellant's App. at 208.) Shortly after this ruling, the Utah legislature amended the statute. First, the legislature removed any requirement that offenders disclose their passwords, and second, it placed some limits on how a state official can use identifiers provided by an offender. Specifically, the statute now3 provides that

... ... ... ...

( Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (U.S. Dist Court, the District of Utah 2008) (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011.

---

Article: The 10th Cir Court of Appeals issues decision on "Internet anonymous free speech" of Utah's sex offenders

UPDATE 3-10-2011: Many thanks to the reader for this important update: "The Doe v Shurtleff at. el., 2010 WL 4188248 (C.A.10 (Dec. 1, 2010), decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS denied the Pet. for Cert. on March 7, 2011. This does not mean that SCOTUS did agreed with the Tenth Circuit, it just means they will not hear the case. They are well aware that the White v. Baker decision out of Georgia says it is unconstitutional. There is a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Nebraska as well on this issue. A new lawsuit was filed in Feb. 2011 against New York's E-STOP as well."

From Wikipedia: Doe v. Shurtleff

From Jonathan D. Frieden: Law Requiring Convicted Sex Offender to Disclose All Internet Identities is Constitutional (Excellent Explanation by Lawyer)

See Also: Six Myths Why We Can't Manage Sex Offender's Computer/Internet Use