Utah Can Constitutionally Require Sex Offenders to Register Internet Information
Doe v. Shurtleff, ___ F.3d ___ , 2010 WL 4188248 (10th Cir. 2010)
Utah statute requiring all sex offenders living in the state to register their internet identifiers and address does not violate First or Fourth Amendments or Ex Post Facto clause. (Though the law was more expansive, the legislature amended it after the suit was filed, and included some restrictions on how the information could be used. On this basis the district court granted summary judgment to the state.)
1) Although it impinges upon the plaintiff’s anonymous speech, because the law is content neutral (it is not directed at certain opinions or speech, for example) it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. There is conceded substantial government interest in protecting the public from sex crimes. The Court says that the law has sufficient safeguards against any speech being exposed to the public since it limits use of the information to crime investigation.
2) Citing to Perrine, the Court found that because the Plaintiff already has given his identifying information to a third party internet provider, there is no Fourth Amendment implication to his having to provide identifying information under the registration law.
3) No Ex Post Facto issue because the law is civil, as previously decided by a Court panel for a version that did not include the requirement to register internet identifiers.
Utah statute requiring all sex offenders living in the state to register their internet identifiers and address does not violate First or Fourth Amendments or Ex Post Facto clause. (Though the law was more expansive, the legislature amended it after the suit was filed, and included some restrictions on how the information could be used. On this basis the district court granted summary judgment to the state.)
1) Although it impinges upon the plaintiff’s anonymous speech, because the law is content neutral (it is not directed at certain opinions or speech, for example) it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. There is conceded substantial government interest in protecting the public from sex crimes. The Court says that the law has sufficient safeguards against any speech being exposed to the public since it limits use of the information to crime investigation.
2) Citing to Perrine, the Court found that because the Plaintiff already has given his identifying information to a third party internet provider, there is no Fourth Amendment implication to his having to provide identifying information under the registration law.
3) No Ex Post Facto issue because the law is civil, as previously decided by a Court panel for a version that did not include the requirement to register internet identifiers.
posted by Anonymous at 3:56 PM
<< Home