Would this New Law Stand a Constitutional Challenge.

Before we begin this exercise let’s take a look at an existing law to see how the legislature justifies the existence of that law.
 
29-4002   Legislative findings state of Nebraska
The  Legislature  finds  that sex offenders present a high risk to commit repeat offenses.   The  Legislature further finds that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their  communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend sex offenders are impaired by the lack of  available  information about  individuals  who have pleaded guilty to or have been found guilty of sex offenses and who live, work, or  attend  school  in their  jurisdiction.    The  Legislature further finds that state policy should assist efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect their communities by requiring sex offenders to  register with  local  law  enforcement  agencies  as  provided  by the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Source:
Laws 1996, LB 645, § 2; Laws 2002, LB 564, § 2.
Effective date July 20, 2002.
 
Now Would this law stand constitutional challenge?
The Legislature finds that people in alcohol related crimes present a high risk to commit repeat offenses. The Legislature further finds that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend these persons are impaired by the lack of available information about individuals who have pleaded guilty to, or have been found guilty of those crimes and who live, work, or attend school in their jurisdiction. The Legislature further finds that state policy should assist efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect their communities by requiring alcohol related criminals register with local law enforcement agencies as provided by the dangerous  Criminals Registration Act. Instead of alcohol related put in any criminal class with a higher  reoffense rate then sex offender (oops that means all other crimes).
An excerpt  State of Hawaii v. Bani, 97  285, 36 P.3d 1255 (2001)  In Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who ‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that it would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. At 437. the Offender will foreseeably suffer serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords will foreseeably be reluctant to employ or rent to Bani once they learn of his status as a “sex offender.” See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8) Indeed, the public disclosure provisions of HRS chapter 846E can adversely affect an offender’s personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure may encourage vigilantism and may expose the offender to possible physical violence. (9) See , e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997). Indeed, [w]hen a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and,perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96. Therefore, public notification is highly likely to cause irreparable harm to the offender’s reputation and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing.
Ban on special legislation
A legislative act can violate this provision as special legislation (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification or (2) by creating a permanently closed class. MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., 238 Neb. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991). A legislative act can violate this provision as special legislation in one of two ways: (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification, or (2) by creating a permanently closed class. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991).
The term “class legislation” is a characterization of legislation in contravention of this provision. It is that which makes improper discrimination by conferring privileges on a class arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons standing in the same relation to the privileges, without reasonable distinction or substantial difference. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991). Section 60-1701 contains classification s and exceptions which are unreasonable, arbitrary, and unrelated to the public interest,
and is therefore unconstitutional and void in violation of this section
. State v. Edmunds, 211 Neb. 380, 318 N.W.2d 859 (1982). Arbitrary classification may result in special legislation. United Community Services v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 162 Neb. 786, 77 N.W.2d 576 (1956).

Shaming

Shaming as a form of punishment as defined by the Court cases of People v. Meyer    People v. Lowe, 606 N.E.2d. People v. Molz, 113 N.E.2d, People v. Johnson 528 N.E.2d, State v. Burdin 924 S.W.2d ,People v. Letterlough 655 N.E.2d, Lindsay v. State 606 So. 2D.

Part of the Eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments says that prisoners in the custody of the state who are being punished have a right to be safe from other inmates and receive care including medical care at the cost to the state. Because they are in the custody of the state and cannot do it themselves it is the job of the state to make sure that these people stay safe and cared for [while in the custody of the state]. Since the legislature has chosen to notify the communities and the result is that the Registants are shamed within the community does that not mean that there is an obligation by the state? Because of the result of their legislations  the state has a obligation to see that no physical or emotional harm comes to the Registrants or their families that they live with from the actions of other community members.

It would seem that the only way to do this would be a place a police officer or Sheriff with each and every Registrant and their family members as a bodyguard to make sure that they are not harassed, threatened, or attacked by members of the community that they live in because of the result of the legislation, and to provide food, shelter and medical care for the Registrant and their family members where the community notification has restricted offenders from being able to find gainful employment and appropriate living conditions.

11 comments for “Would this New Law Stand a Constitutional Challenge.

  1. Extremely Disgruntled
    June 19, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    But where was that “Special Legislation” or did everyone (including myself, and the rest of the world,) just miss it? We already have the “(1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification or (2) by creating a permanently closed class,” in effect, but there was never any Legislation passed to state this. Our case on registration has effectively been closed, so this may just reopen it. The whole shebang is now proven illegally obtained with this.

  2. mike
    June 21, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    does CA have such a provision in its Constitution the ban on special legislation and is there case law on it

    • Will Bassler
      June 22, 2016 at 7:33 am

      Look up (google) “special legislation” California

      ARTICLE 4 LEGISLATIVE
      SEC. 16. (a) All laws of a general nature have uniform operation.
      (b) A local or special statute is invalid in any case if a general
      statute can be made applicable.

      Special legislation is a legal term of art used in the United States which refers to acts of a state legislature which apply only to part of a class—a particular person, thing, or locale within a given class. “Special legislation” is also preferred as “Local legislation”. In most states, if a general law can be enacted, the legislature may not enact a special law, except a local law; and there are certain subjects on which the legislature cannot enact even local law. In some states, whether a law is “special” is determined by the courts; whether a general law could have been made applicable in is judicially determined without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject. Other states allow the legislature to determine whether a bill is special legislation.

  3. mike
    June 24, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    I know this is mean but I think a lot of us rso can appreciate and rejoice at this comment I posted on CARSOL in response to one of the people posting on that site….

    and woooow I really don’t know how to respond to Lake County there’s last post. what a revelation he revealed.

    in an argument we had after he had the nerve to tell me i needed to stop preaching and start protesting

    he posted
    I’m basing my opinions on my 2 years in law enforcement, 1 year doing my specialty contract work for CYA Probation Officers and 12 years working daily for the Santa Clara County courts. I am a California State certified senior professional in my field of law. (Sorry but I don’t wish to state my job position on a public forum). I’ve had both victim and defendant clients and have a success rate that got me lots of media recognition in that County. So I understand how both the law and courts work.

    wooow from what he states he is like a radicalized jihadee terrorist turned patriotic American informant. I hate to show my digital fangs as renny put it but welcome to the other side lake. hope you’re enjoying the fruits of your previous labors. you’re so wrong on so many levels having the nerve to even consider participating and lecturing to any of us on this site or any rso for that matter after no telling how many of us you’ve put on this list… woooow!!!!! and to claim you have all this court room experience and legalese where you have had such great success but yet haven’t put these so called self proclaimed talents to a much better and more productive use in our fight for our cause. once again wooow an ex cop and law professional turned SEX OFFENDER there is a god after all… sorryyyy not….
    Reply
    Mike r
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 24, 2016 at 7:00 pm
    that was really cruel of me but by God lake just made my day no my week month and year. sorry lake even after everything is said and done i still welcome you to the fold and encourage you to use your talents and expertise in our fight in which you were once the enemy…. take my post how you want i cant help that your revelations put a huge smile on my face.
    I am still waiting to see if they post my comment or censor it….

    • mike
      June 24, 2016 at 10:39 pm

      i know I shouldn’t rejoice and feel happiness over some one else’s unfortunate situation and I probably shouldn’t post my negative thoughts I just had to do it. sorry to anyone I might have offended hope you understand why I posted this…

      • mike
        June 25, 2016 at 7:02 pm

        sorry I will refrain from posting anything that is not furthering our cause

  4. LJ
    June 25, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    My Friends, earnestly I plead with you, we must make some concessions, decisions and real plans for our future. As I have said many times, we didn’t ask to be put together. Whatever the situation or circumstances that forced you to seek out other individuals suffering from the same oppressions, we are all part of the same community or class now. How many of you read the posts and hear the stories and your gut wrenches inside, because you understand full well what these people are enduring, because you or a loved one has endured and continue to endure the same or similar injustices. Really it comes to this, we have three plans of attack. Two of which we and others before us have tried with minimal success. First we take the legal stand. What always happens? Well in most cases the courts deny our petitions. The few battles any of us win are short lived. The legislatures simply pass a new law designed to curtail previous court decisions. Plus they pass more and more different types of legislation. Some we block, most pass adding an additional layer of suffering for our community. Then we try demonstration and education. Really the latter part makes some impact, but more by some exposure to a sex offender and learning by experience of dealing with one. The former usually just lands one of us in a new legal battle, new humiliation, new cruel and unusual punishment. Unless we could finally stir up the other 799,000 RSO’s to actually demonstate, the impact is less than desirable. Have any of you asked yourselves where all of this legislation is leading? I am sure we can all agree that the existing laws are not just punishment, but a form of exile, societal banishment. Each new law only furthers that cause. I believe the ultimate goal is these “safety relocation communities” or internment camps. Sounds extreme or crazy? Well I would remind you at one time you all never could have fathomed your country would segregate, discriminate, humiliate and exile you to the point you find yourself today. Ask yourself this, are things getting better? Or worse? Be honest not self deluding. So what do we do? There is a plan of attack a few have discussed in private. The philosophy in Jujitsu is not to expend your energy to defeat your enemy, but use your enemies strength and energy against them to defeat them. What am I saying? Our country has deemed us unacceptable, and forced that view across the globe. We fight and resist and only become further disconnected. What if we stopped resisting and embraced? They want to get rid of us? Ok, lets force the issue, the USA and international community grants us Alaska. Not to continue in statehood, but to be a soveriegn country without rights to travel to the US or any country that doesn’t want us. Oh yes that is radical, but us it anymore radical than what we endure living where we aren’t wanted.

  5. Michael A. Lewis Sr.
    June 26, 2016 at 7:06 am

    It makes my heart sing when a official that helped create or enforce sex offender laws gets put on the list,and then cry foul when they realise just how unfair and cruel their laws are.I welcome them to my nightmare with open arms.

    • mike
      June 28, 2016 at 9:03 pm

      makes you feel just a little better doesn’t Michael. I can’t believe that guy had the nerve to talk so proudly about his law enforcement and probation background. I hope I didn’t turn him away from our cause but I had to call him on that crap after he revealed all that during one of our arguments. then all he can come back with was i wasn’t a cop… if he was a cop he probably would have got away with whatever put him on the list. God it felt good telling him welcome to our hell dude.

    • Michael A. Lewis Sr
      July 13, 2016 at 6:26 am

      Just in case anyone wonders why I would welcome them, here is why;
      They are the crafters and defenders of these laws and so they have the knowledge and ability to destroy what they themselves created.
      But in the meantime they have to live in a nightmare they created.

  6. Scott
    June 30, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    I am not the Moderator of this Website or Forum. However, I do ask that each one of us place ourselves as impartial as can be when we post our thoughts and concerns. We all are facing different battles and experience different issues and/or experiences in our every day lives. Lets keep this as positive as we can and help one another through our difficult times.

    This Website is informational and educating.

Comments are closed.