You are here

Federal judge holds Colorado registry is punishment; violates Eighth Amendment

By Robin . . . In a far reaching opinion that is sure to send Colorado’s Attorney General scrambling to salvage that state’s registration and notification scheme, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch (a Nixon appointee who presided over the trial of Oklahoma City bombing defendant Timothy McVeigh) has held the entire Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act (C.R.S. §§ 16-22-101, et seq) unconstitutional as applied to three plaintiffs who sued the director of Colorado’s Bureau of Investigation (the state agency responsible for maintaining the state’s sex offender registry).

Using the seven factors set forth in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) that were utilized by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), Judge Matsch held that six of the seven factors weighed in favor of finding the state’s SORA requirements punitive in their effects and, therefore, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Matsch writes:

This ongoing imposition of a known and uncontrollable risk of public abuse of information from the sex offender registry, in the absence of any link to an objective risk to the public posed by each individual sex offender, has resulted in and continues to threaten Plaintiffs with punishment disproportionate to the offenses they committed. Where the nature of such punishment is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, the state cannot assure that it will ever be proportionate to the offense. SORA as applied to these Plaintiffs therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.

Believing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s collective understanding of the internet has evolved over time, Judge Matsch wrote, “Justice Kennedy’s words [writing the 2003 majority opinion in Smith v. Doe] ring hollow that the state’s website does not provide the public with means to shame the offender when considering the evidence in this case. He and his colleagues did not foresee the development of private, commercial websites exploiting the information made available to them . . . The justices did not foresee the ubiquitous influence of social media . . . Public shaming and banishment are forms of punishment that may be considered cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.”

Judge Matsch also held the state’s SORA requirements unconstitutionally infirm in violating the Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights of the plaintiffs, as applied.

Since the plaintiffs did not argue that the state’s SORA requirements are facially invalid, the outcome of this case (which is certain to be appealed to the Tenth Circuit) will only apply to the parties named in the complaint. However, the precedential effect of Judge Matsch’s ruling, IF sustained on review, will open a floodgate of litigation that would very likely cause the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act to buckle and collapse—at least in its present construction.

Of particular interest was the obvious influence of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina, _ U.S. _, 137 S.Ct. 1730 (2017) as well as the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Does v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) which remains on petition before the Supreme Court and is scheduled for conference September 25.

In light of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the unanimous Packingham decision, Judge Matsch infers that Kennedy’s majority opinion in Smith v. Doe might read much differently were he to have another crack at it:

Packingham also reflects an apparent evolution in the mindset of Justice Kennedy, who authored the majority opinions in both Smith v. Doe and Packingham. In Smith, decided in 2003, Justice Kennedy downplayed the punitive effect of statutory internet notification provisions, finding their “purpose and the principal effect” were “to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender”; and that the internet simply makes a public records search “more efficient, cost effective, and convenient” for citizens. Smith, 538 U.S. at 99. In 2017, in addition to noting that restrictions on internet use are a “severe restriction,” Justice Kennedy recognized that the internet and social media websites “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. Packingham, 137 S.Ct. At 1737.

This outcome is breathtaking in its scope because it may well be the first time a federal judge has ever held that the essential requirement to register is, in and of itself, an unconstitutional imposition of state law on the basis of the punitive consequential effects to citizens required to register.

NARSOL filed its own amicus brief in the Packingham case which was joined by North Carolina RSOL and ATSA.

This topic contains 105 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Muriel 2 months, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
  • #20119 Reply



  • #20122 Reply

    NH Registrant

    “He and his colleagues did not foresee the development of private, commercial websites exploiting the information made available to them . . . ” — Mugshots, City-Data, and Home-Facts being the main perpetrators of this!

    This is really good news! FINALLY, a Federal Judge is willing to stand up and speak out against the blatant punitive effect of the rotten “Registry”!

    • #20130 Reply


      The 6th did that last year “creates moral lepers”

  • #20123 Reply


    Great read, I get putting anyone in a database for quick finding of someone, but making it public and treating individuals like a leper is just wrong in this day of age. When people actually do their homework and face the hard truth it could happen to anyone… friend or family and only then they will wake up a see this is a violation of human right… no freedom and always judged is no way to live your life when getting the simplest things like a home, job and even in some case food (can’t go to locations located by a school or park etc.)

    Glad someone is actually fighting for those that have lived this harsh punishment but yet murders don’t have to jump through these hoops! Scary to say the least!

    • #20261 Reply

      Jeremy from Indiana

      Kevin, in some states murderers do. Indiana is one such state with their top classification being “sexually violent or dangerous person”. It’s all lumped into one category and violent only offenders are required to register under Indiana law.

      I may be reading your comment wrong, but I would be wary of committing the same transgression towards murderers that society has committed on us. Murderers actually have the lowest recidivism rate of all crimes, so there is even less justification for further civil measures against them.

  • #20126 Reply


    Beautiful!! Praise God!

  • #20129 Reply


    So much good news regarding the SORNA this year that I can’t keep track of them anymore. 2017 will be remembered as the year SORNA started falling like dominoes.

  • #20131 Reply

    David Kennerly

    This is just stunningly beautiful!

  • #20137 Reply

    Donnie G

    It won’t keep. This ruling will be overturned in the 10th. It’s time we RSO just stop crying and admit we f-cked up AND if we were on the other side of the issue we would side with the same people who bully us. My life sucks too but I know I deserve everything that gets thrown at me. (26 years so far) For Petes sake let’s give the whining a rest.

    • #20139 Reply


      I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry over your post, man. Seriously? haha. Who is whining? When did it become whiny to expect the same constitutional rights as everyone else? Am I missing something here? If my neighbor starts to make really loud noises at 3 am, is it whiny for me to complain about that? Or should I just rest comfortably in my bed knowing that there was something I must have done to deserve my neighbor’s auditory torture?

      Demanding one’s rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, is not whining. And anyone who doesn’t have the temerity to do the same is better off dead, in my estimation.

      • #20211 Reply


        Here’s a thought Robin; maybe Donnie and all those who think the Constitution does not apply to RSOs should just travel to China with a boat-load of illegal drugs. I think they still escort those kind of folks out of their court-rooms upon conviction and mete out punishment with a 7.62×39 mm round to the back of their brain-housing-groups.

        As for crime and punishment in the United States of America, thank GOD for NARSOL and Judges like the courageous, constitutional one mentioned in your wonderfully written article. Praying this is another nail in SORA coffin. Wonder if one could move to CO now if conviction pre-dates 1994, or if this applies only to these specific individuals.

        Outstanding news either way. God bless all who’ve had their rights restored!

        • #20226 Reply

          To DW


          This applies to the three gentlemen in the case only, not a class of people, e.g. RSOs.

        • #20243 Reply


          Thank you for the information. Hope it helps others eventually.

        • #20228 Reply


          Currently, if you were convicted after 1991 in another state you have to register. The 1994 date only applies to those convicted in Colorado. Trust me, I was convicted in 1992, sentenced in 1993, and I still have to register every quarter. I am hoping that this ruling will come over, and allow me to get off this stupid list.

        • #20242 Reply


          Thanks for the info Kendal. Praying it helps you get your life back. Best regards.

        • #20273 Reply


          Thank you very much, it is very definitely a step in the right direction.

        • #20336 Reply

          Donnie G

          I’d welcome that bulllet like a lost family member and oh yeah….kiss my a$$

        • #20593 Reply


          Think I’ll pray you get your head out of it instead Donnie. Remorse is good. Punishment is good when it is justly and constitutionally applied. God bless and keep you and yours.

    • #20141 Reply

      Then stop Donnie

      Then stop whining, Donnie, for starters! Think positive too for crying out loud!

    • #20203 Reply


      Donnie, this is NOT true. If you committed a crime, then you deserved your punishment, assuming your punishment was appropriate for your crime. Then when punishment was/is over, according to the Constitution, that is IT! You do not deserve homelessness or joblessness nor a life of misery. Those things were NOT part of your court-ordered punishment. You deserve to be able to regain your life and your dignity and move on.

    • #20178 Reply


      Hey Donnie… what about the false rape claims? HUH? HUH? A 51 year old woman, if you can call her that, had sex with my 33 year old son and then got embarrassed and cried rape. Now he’s dead, probably in no small part from what this witch lied about and did to his life so shut the heck up. You ever hear of the false rape society? You might try checking it out and learning something.

      • #20335 Reply

        Donnie G

        Gwen, I’m truly sorry I offended you. My intention was to comment on my feelings about my own situation and making no judgement on other individual cases whatoever.

    • #20356 Reply

      Jonny everyman

      You are such a troll. Once a person pays their debt to society they do not deserve to remain on a public registry.

      A murder victims killer is on no registry. You are not protecting a victim by putting up their attacker on the registry

      • #20357 Reply

        Jonny everyman

        Meant to say abuser not attacker

    • #20384 Reply


      I have absolutely no issue admitting that I f*ck’d the hell up (And no I won’t use asterisks to censor myself)

      What I have trouble with is coming to grips with the fact that if instead of just a sex offense, I had murdered my victims, I would now be out of jail and free to do whatever I want. That bothers me.

      I even at one time tried to go into trucking where I was told that they would not put someone with my background behind the wheel of a big vehicle like that, but they would put someone with even a vehicular manslaughter charge.

      So yes, I f…d up, no I do not deserve to be on a list for the rest of my life, where anyone can look it up and do who knows what to me, in the name of ridding the world of a pervert. And if you don’t think that happens, well you haven’t been reading newsbeat.

  • #20140 Reply


    Thank you NARSOL!

    • #20186 Reply

      Jonathan Merritt

      Law enforcement has never learned how to take that notch off their belt.

  • #20148 Reply


    One of the reason’s that I have not been on here in so long was that it seems everybody on here was a bit paranoid in some ways. Believe it or not we all did wrong if you really want to think about it. We all make errors. We’re only human. We just passing the buck so to speak. This news that Robin posted is very good news.
    Hey Judges and district attorney’s make mistakes but they don’t want to admit it. Who wants to admit their mistakes. Did Eve want to admit her mistake? Something good always comes out of something bad. The bad thing is I have meet people here that had kids and one of the children said daddy touched me or something like that or some other person make up of a sexual encounter that probably never happened.
    Answer a question. How would they know the lady was caught in adultry if they hadn’t seen it for themselves? Anybody can lie but true Justice is True justice. I think the USA has in the past few months has finely woken up to this low class sex debauchery scheme that could actually drive a person to drink much less commit suide and I don’t wish that on anyone under the sex registry.
    And if you want to talk about punitive damages what about the health and welfare of those under this sexual registry strain that can’t get a job or even be near their kids or things of that nature. What about the money that everyone has spent for fine’s and classes and other things that seem up in smoke. I honestly think justice has a lot to answer if you ask me. And as always I appreciate all the efforts of those that stand up for justice.

  • #20150 Reply


    Awesome!! A huge step in the right direction. Thank you all of who were involved.

    Offenders aren’t asking for a pardon, they don’t want their records wiped clean, they simply don’t want to be on a public shaming website that perpetually destroys their lives. Murderers don’t have a website, burglars don’t have a website nor does anyone else. Just a pathway to redemption is all we ask.

  • #20164 Reply


    OMG, this is my state, maybe this bodes well for me

  • #20162 Reply

    john schultz

    Hey Donnie, assuming you really are a rso, which I doubt, I suggest you publish your info for everybody here to see.? If not, why not? It is easy, let me demonstrate..My name is John M. Schultz, I live in Az, I am a CITIZEN of THE U.S.A. , and a politcal prisoner, violated and persecueted mercilessly for over 30 years running by my own COUNTRY. Every single right we hold dear and sacred has been spit upon by minds full of hate and fear, ignorance and hypocrisy. I have spent my entire life praying for a miracle, a sliver of hope for redemption. . I personally and for all the world to see humble myself in tears at the feet of my maker and thank you Dear God for this devine intervention. What is now before us is nothing less than the work of GOD. A Miracle for all of history to marvel upon and hopefully never repeat.

    • #20177 Reply


      My son died August 27th 2017 in Florida and I was told his picture would stay up for a year after death. What a heart breaking, gut wrenching thought knowing when friends and family look up funeral arrangements or info the sex offender is what they will see first. Law enforcement in Florida are evil, horrible people and I pray they all rot in HELL.

  • #20161 Reply

    Steve P

    Wow. Great job NARSOL. Everyone that reads this please do what I do…donate financially, whatever you can, to narsol. They are our advocates in ending these horrible laws that absolutely create a life long punitive outcome for so many. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES. Those that learn from it cannot move on in life with these laws.

  • #20153 Reply


    Oh my goodness! Thank you NARSOL!

    • #20185 Reply

      Jonathan Merritt

      SO SAY WE ALL!!!

  • #20183 Reply

    john schultz

    keymasters, I tried to sign up tonight for a monthly 10 recurring donation. I got paid today SSI. Well I do not have pay pal and my email does not sync with my new phone and on top of all that I do not have a credit card, only a debit card. You guys only mention credit cards. Only my 2 cents but tech is way hard for me, im frightened of email for lots of obvious reasns, pay pal same, putting my card info? Just too paranoid. I wanna be part of the team, Im honored to be allowed. Make it idiot retard proof? I am, john m. schultz 2624558709

    • #20190 Reply


      John, thank you for your kindness. The only other way to do it is by postal mail. You can mail the first payment with a note telling what you want to either the Operations mailing address given at the bottom of the homepage here. A check is fine. If you don’t use checks, the only other thing would be a money order, which will cost you money, because mailing cash is never wise. After that, you would need to continue month by month.

      Thanks again,

    • #20216 Reply


      Credit card and debit card will be processed the same way. It is also very secure.

  • #20192 Reply

    Michael at IndianaVoices

    Robin…thanks for a great article… What a blessing this decision will be to so many… hopefully the 10 Circuit will see the light as well.

  • #20188 Reply

    Jonathan Merritt

    Somehow I have been blessed in my life since leaving prison in 2003.
    before that I was living in a trailer with an abusive narcisisstic wife and lived pay check to paycheck.
    4 years after being released I bought a home with some land. All this happened in South Carolina.
    Now i own a home in Ga where I only have to register once a year instead of 4 like in SC.
    I have helped as many registrants as I can with employment and housing.
    Life is good.

    • #20217 Reply

      Jerry P.

      Send me some of that good fortune!!

  • #20172 Reply

    john schultz

    Hey Donnie, assuming you really are a rso, which I doubt, I suggest you publish your info for everybody here to see.? If not, why not? It is easy, let me demonstrate..My name is John M. Schultz, I live in Az, I am a CITIZEN of THE U.S.A. , and a politcal prisoner, violated and persecueted mercilessly for over 30 years running by my own COUNTRY. Every single right we hold dear and sacred has been spit upon by minds full of hate and fear, ignorance and hypocrisy. I have spent my entire life praying for a miracle, a sliver of hope for redemption. . I personally and for all the world to see humble myself in tears at the feet of my maker and thank you Dear God for this devine intervention. What is now before us is nothing less than the work of GOD. A Miracle for all of history to marvel upon and hopefully never repeat.

  • #20182 Reply


    My name is Will and I am a registered citizen in Tennessee. This ruling is monumental. No arguments there. I do hope and pray this gets upheld all the way to the S.C.O.T.U.S. There is one glaring lie that was left in Packingham that will play against this ruling being upheld. That lie is the “frightening and high” recidivism rate myth. Even though the author of the article that myth is based on admitted his claim has NO scientific validity, it is still mindlessly recycled in the high courts.

    I found an article at:

    Sex offender consequences in the Supreme Court – what’s ahead?

    Here is what they say on the “frightening and high” myth:

    At the same time, Sarma points out how several Justices evidently remain persuaded by now-discredited statistics showing “abnormally high” sex offender recidivism.

    Packingham was not an all-around win for those disturbed by how we treat these people. In that case, we can see two indications that the Court continues to propagate the myth at the core of our nation’s moral panic: that individuals convicted of sex offenses are almost certain to commit more sex crimes if they are released.

    The first flare came during the oral argument. At one point, Justice Sotomayor seemed to accept the basic claim that the sex offender recidivism rate is abnormally high. According to the argument transcript, she said “Yes. There’s a high statistical inference that recidivism will follow with one sexual crime to another . . . .” The second signal appeared in Justice Alito’s concurring opinion. In it, he wrote that “[r]epeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children. ‘When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.’ McKune, supra, at 33 (plurality opinion) . . . .”

    If the Court is looking to its own past for its understanding of sex offender recidivism, it is no wonder that the justices continue to embrace the myth that the recidivism rate is alarming. In 2002, in McKune v. Lile, the Court described the risk of sex offender recidivism as “frightening and high.” It went further, citing a Department of Justice publication for the proposition that “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.” This astronomical number is certainly frightening. But, it is also blatantly wrong.

    A number of experts, researchers and journalists have stepped forward in recent months to illuminate the Court’s profound misstep in McKune. In the New York Times in March, Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak pointed out that the lawyer for North Carolina in Packingham stated during the oral argument that “[t]his court has recognized that [sex offenders] have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again.” Liptak explains that “there is vanishingly little evidence for the Supreme Court’s assertion that convicted sex offenders commit new offenses at very high rates. The story behind the notion, it turns out, starts with a throwaway line in a glossy magazine.” Professor Ira Mark Ellman and Tara Ellman excavated the truth about the source Justice Kennedy relied upon in McKune: the DOJ publication cited one source for the 80 percent figure, “an article published in 1986 in Psychology Today, a mass market magazine . . . [that used 80% as] a bare assertion: the article contains no supporting reference for it.”

    In reality, Sarma reports that David Feige recently compiled the real statistics:

    The recidivism statistics the court cites are dead wrong as a matter of social scientific fact. In reality, sex offenders have among the lowest same-crime recidivism rates of any category of offender. Indeed, in the most comprehensive single study on reoffense rates to date, the U.S. Department of Justice followed every sex offender released in almost 15 states for three years. The recidivism rate? Just 3.5 percent. These numbers have been subsequently verified in study after study. The state of Connecticut Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division did a five-year study that found a recidivism rate of 3.6 percent. A Maine study found that released sex offenders were arrested for a new sex crime at a rate of 3.9 percent. Government studies in Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, and South Carolina have also replicated these results—all finding same-crime recidivism rates of between 3.5 and 4 percent.

    While the 80 percent number has been shown to be “pure rubbish,” North Carolina (and other states) relied on it to justify its broad internet restrictions. And, “rather than seize the chance to clear things up, the Court continued down the trodden path.” At oral argument,

    Justice Sotomayor appeared to agree with the claim of a “high statistical inference” of recidivism. And, though Justice Alito was careful not to cite directly the debunked 80 percent figure, the concurring opinion relied on McKune to emphasize the notion that sex offenders are uniquely dangerous. (A dispute about Alito’s factual claims arose when the Washington Post ran a fact-check that was subsequently challenged by the National Review. Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick best clears up the confusion when she explains that Alito’s opinion is misleading, but not for the reason the Washington Post identified: “Justice Alito’s statement about the relative re-arrest rates for different offenders is factually accurate. The problem with this paragraph is . . . the claim ‘[r]epeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children.’ . . . [T]he facts that are contained in the rest of the paragraph do not support this claim, and there are other statistics indicating that this factual claim is false.”) Alito’s opinion is not misleading on the scale of the “frightening and high” farce, but it certainly pours more fuel on the fire that is the myth that sex offenders are bound to commit more offenses, particularly against our children.

    This is the DEEPLY ENTRENCHED mentality that has to be overcome before these laws start to fall.

    Also, now residents in Colorado will now see how much back-room politics can sway a judge, I’m afraid. The state’s going to come at this ruling against their precious registry with the same lethal tenacity as a very large colony of yellow jackets who have just had their HUGE underground nest run over the top of by a lawn mower. Any of you who’ve ever mowed over a yellow jacket’s nest knows exactly what I’m talking about. While I want this to be a victory all the way up to SCOTUS, I would caution us all not to count our chickens before they hatch.

    • #20212 Reply

      Two thought trains


      No one in CO is counting chickens before they hatch and you shouldn’t count the case getting to the Tenth Circuit just yet. The AG has steps to take first, so first things first.

      @Robin – what is the timeline for the CO AG to do anything if they chose to for the Tenth Circuit?

      • #20234 Reply


        According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the AG has 30 days from the time at which a final judgment is entered to file a notice of appeal at the Tenth Circuit. With leave granted by the Court, 30 days can be extended to 60.

  • #20181 Reply

    Jeremy from Indiana

    This is the best case I’ve read so far as it now has the potential to be used as case law to destroy the entire registry when combining it with the 6th circuit’s and Pennsylvania’s decisions.

    I hope they appeal up to the Supreme Court as the 6th circuit did. While the consensus with the staff here at NARSOL seems to believe a win is a win and the only reason the Supreme Court takes a case is with the intention to reverse, I believe they will take this case (and hopefully consolidate with the other cases) for an entirely different reason altogether. This case basically overturned a Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Doe and, similar to Pennsylvania’s decision, declared the federal AWA unconstitutional.

    Before this ends up in the Supreme Court next year (I have no doubt at least one of these will), I am hoping that at least one case concerning violations of the FCRA is brought forth to be consolidated as well. While it may not be needed if these cases are heard, it gives our side another argument to present to make our case even stronger.

    For those that don’t know what I’m talking about, the FCRA regulates background checks as a “consumer report”. Companies that don’t do background checks can still Google your name and find out about your status which violates the FCRA’s regulations on background checks.

    I have been diligently searching for a full time job for some time now and I believe that at least some of my denials are registry based. I got a background check report back from a company recently that only had my registration as the reason for denial rather than the actual charge itself. This is the second time this has happened to me. The first time, I was fired from my job for being a registrant. I plan on fighting it this time. Wish me luck! Maybe mine will be that case.

    • #20219 Reply

      Chris F

      Jeremy, I’m confused. What will your argument be for how a company using the Sex Offender Registry to deny employment violates the FCRA?

      Companies that don’t use a consumer reporting agency aren’t limited to what they use and FCRA says a CRA generally may not report records of arrests that did not result in entry of a judgment of conviction, where the arrests occurred more than seven years ago. I don’t see where FCRA limits or sets a time table on reporting that someone is on the registry.

      I believe there may be an argument for an “Equal Protection” constitutional violation against the registry though. Any other criminal has his arrest hidden after 7 years if he wasn’t convicted and received deferred adjudication. A Sex Offender has his crime stated on the registry, and thus the background checks, long after being off parole/probation and sometimes for life. This would be a great case to quote the Justice’s majority opinion in Packingham, where they mention “Of importance, the TROUBLING fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court”.

      • #20256 Reply

        Jeremy from Indiana

        Hopefully I can clear up the confusion by posting the exact email that I sent to the domain registrar of a couple of third party websites (since that is what this refers to) that posts our information online. I copied this same text in my complaint to the FTC:

        “The sites, and are effectively consumer reporting agencies that are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as amended.

        These sites specifically violate sections § 604(a), § 604(b) regarding permissible use of credit information (which includes criminal background checks) and consumer disclosure of such consumer reports.

        By providing adverse information related to a person’s inclusion on the sex offender registry to anyone who searches a first and last name, they are specifically violating § 604(a)(3), § 604(b)(1)(b), and § 606(d)(3).

        The Indiana website and most other state’s official websites for searching registered sex offenders satisfies these requirements, yet these third party websites do not.

        Please take appropriate action. Thank you

        This email will be archived for possible further legal action.”

        The text of the FCRA can be found here:

        • #21820 Reply

          Jeremy from Indiana

          Update: I submitted an official complaint to the Consumer Finance Protection Board yesterday. I will post again after I receive my results.

          NARSOL staff: I could really use some legal advice on the matter of a couple of official fights I am submitting right now. I read somewhere a while back that, here in Indiana, the registry cannot be used by itself to deny employment. I now specifically have a background check in hand from a company that only has my registration on it, but does not have the crimes on it and want to make an example out of them using that law. The problem is I have researched the Indiana statutes and cannot find that provision now. I could use some help finding it. I hope it did not get repealed in the 2017 changes.

          I am also submitting a protest letter to the Indiana DOC demanding removal from the registry based on ex post facto, due process, and cruel and unusual punishment. I would like to have a lawyer review and critique my letter. I can pay a little, but not the amount normally charged by attorneys. Thank you!

        • #21838 Reply


          Jeremy, the NARSOL staff are not attorneys and therefore cannot dispense legal advice. Unfortunately, as a non-profit organization with an all-volunteer staff, we operate on an extremely limited budget and cannot offer funds to assist individuals with legal fees. We sincerely hope that you are able to interest a civil right attorney in your case and work out a mutually agreeable financial arrangement with him or her.

  • #20180 Reply


    I have only dreamed of a ruling like this. Seriously, I would close my eyes and would picture a federal judge ruling like this one day. I just can’t believe that it is here… Right here and right now. I have so many emotions going on right now that I can’t seem to control them and put them in order. And you know what ? That’s ok. Lol.

    Thank you NARSOL and its associates for everything. This is amazing and hope it continues until all these unconstitutional and punitive sex laws are destroyed.

  • #20176 Reply

    M.A.-From Penn

    NARSOL you are doing a fantastic job as usual!! Thanks to all of you there helping!!

    Finally another court recognizing what “punitive” means. I am hoping to see a “snow ball” affect more and more especially with the ruling from PA Supreme Court just the month before last.

    I became a member of NARSOL recently so I could post on their “secured-members only forum”. Not that active yet but as more and more registrants find out about it (and become a member) I am sure it will be and will provide a lot of good information “privately”. For anonymity reasons.

    I have sent a few donations already to NARSOL; no I am not talking about $25 or $75 I am talking about what ever amount I can possibly dig up here and there even it is just $5.23 like I just sent (I can’t afford much more than that). I generate the checks thru my online banking. If NARSOL gets even small amounts like this from 15,000 that is a lot of money to be used for support of the legal fund and administrative support that “backbones” decisions like this.

    “Let our voices be heard”!! – Thanks again NARSOL !!

    • #20233 Reply


      Thank you for your generous support. It is not the size of the contribution that matters so much as the frequency and consistency of support. We appreciate every single dollar contributed towards this effort.

  • #20174 Reply


    Donnie, I am saddened by your post, I am seeing that as a sad state of feeling like you deserve everything thrown at you, not the case, and that is what groups like NARSOL fight for, is your right to be treated as a human, not a piece of dirt not worthy of anything just cause you have made mistakes and are human.

    This is awesome news, and I hope it holds up in later court cases.

    • #20334 Reply

      Donnie G

      Deliliah, it just is what it is. I live everyday feeling guilty over my offence of 26 yrs ago. I’m an upright, honest but over critical of myself type. I believe with all my heart if I had the guts to match my guilt I wouldn’t be around to kick but alas..i don’t. I love to work but can’t hold employment, I love being part of a family yet without work friends and family ain’t around long. TO ANYONE who thinks this sounds defeatist believe me, if you met me you wouldn’t know I was so depressed-i show a good game.

      • #20350 Reply


        Feeling such deep remorse from your past trespasses is not something to be ashamed of. You would be a prime candidate to move past that and begin doing good in the world from here on. That is what we all need more of.

      • #20386 Reply


        Really, Donnie, if you are feeling this much remorse, and worthlessness, and guilt, 26 years later, you may need counseling. Did you learn anything from your mistake? Are you going to repeat this mistake? Then it’s time to move on and become that productive member of society you long to be.

  • #20175 Reply


    Thank God for judges who have the courage and integrity to defend what is right and lawful. Maybe we shall finally begin to see some relief from these absurd laws. I am certainly grateful for every person within NARSOL for your magnificent efforts on behalf of those of us held captive to these laws. THANK YOU!

    • #20210 Reply

      John Lester

      This comes at a very good time though it may or may not be sustained. My State has gone from crazy to outrageous. I’ll spare you the details except you must take a visitor’s cellphone and car registration information to the sheriff’s office though they are not your property. And any car not registered to you but at your house on Halloween will get you in jail. One of my co-registrants says the State gets a $30000 Federal grant when they put someone in jail. Is this true?

  • #20224 Reply


    Of course, this would most likely be appealed by the district attorneys
    aka ” happiness destroyers ” and “dream squashers” .

    Hopefully if it does, the 10th circuit would side with us, but wondered if it be convenient if they don’t side with us and reverse it on some “BS”, so that it can be settled with SCOTUS and then they themselves reverse the 10th’s reversal and impact it Nationwide. Hmm, would that be a probable stretch there ? lol. I just get that inner gut feeling the Justice Kennedy wants another crack at this somehow.

  • #20236 Reply


    I have never been more excited to read about news on sex offender laws/cases than this past year. I can tell you this much, that 2017-2018 is going to get real interesting at the Federal level regarding all these issues as more and more courts are swinging our way.

  • #20241 Reply

    Tony From Long Island

    These past few months have been very positive. I wrote my masters thesis on the subject in 2010 and made many of the same arguments that are now being ruled on using the Mendoza factors.

    It’s important for everyone to argue that when any court cites the Supreme Court in saying that the risk the sex offenders pose is “frightening and real,” the Supreme Court was actually misquoting itself. The original case where that phrase came from was solely about UNTREATED sex offenders. Since Smith v. Doe, hundreds of court decisions have used that phrase out of context.

  • #20244 Reply


    I read a few mentions in the comments about this ruling only applying to the people involved in the lawsuit….but how could that be? How could “punitive” not apply to EVERYONE on the registry?

    I’ll steal Robin’s example as an example;

    If someone is being loud and obnoxious at 3:00am, and there isn’t a “noise pollution” law or whatever it would fall under (disturbing the peace, perhaps), all it usually takes is ONE complaint and the next thing you know, you’ve got a law that states that NO ONE can have loud music or be loud after a certain hour of the evening (in most places that’s 10:00pm).

    So how can this lawsuit and judgement end up ONLY applying to those who filed the suit? Someone explain, please.

    • #20250 Reply


      It’s a legal standard that becomes important to the manner in which a case is disposed of. The attorney(s) in this case apparently decided that the case would be strengthened by avoiding an outright assault on the constitutionality of the statutes themselves (what’s called a facial challenge) and preferred for the Court to address the constitutionality of the registry statutes as they apply to the plaintiffs named in the suit. Because this was the posture of the complaint, it’s not appropriate for the Court to provide relief that the plaintiffs never sought.

      Here’s a bit of Wiki about the distinction between facial challenges and as-applied challenges:

      In U.S. constitutional law, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.

      If a facial challenge is successful, a court will declare the statute in question facially invalid, which has the effect of striking it down entirely. This contrasts with a successful as-applied challenge, which will result in a court narrowing the circumstances in which the statute may constitutionally be applied without striking it down. In some cases—e.g., Gonzales v. Carhart or Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a facial challenge has been rejected with either the court or concurring Justices intimating that the upheld statute might be vulnerable to an as-applied challenge.

    • #20249 Reply

      Reply to Maestro

      Because it was not filed as a class action suit, but only by those three individuals.

      If it is a strategic move to avoid sweeping everyone up together, brilliant, because it left open the door to others to file similar motions if it did not win.

      • #20252 Reply


        There is really no such animal as a “class action” in a case where one or more individuals are challenging the constitutionality of a statute. That’s because there’s no reason to establish a class if one decides to bring a facial challenge. A facial challenge presumes that the law is unconstitutional as it applies to everyone affected. But facial challenges are more difficult because it’s much harder to develop a record of harm. In an as-applied setting, it’s possible for the plaintiffs to demonstrate, in personal and particularized ways, the harm that has actually occurred to them. And where you have what are called “sympathetic” plaintiffs (plaintiffs whose stories of harm are likely to be persuasive to judge or jury), the chances of a positive outcome are greater.

        Class actions, as a general rule, are rarely used anymore and are difficult to prosecute because the rules surrounding how a class is certified have tightened over the years. These days, you typically see class actions in cases where there is some sort of consumer fraud or product liability. But you never see them in claims challenging the constitutionality of a statute (although you will still see references being made to “class actions” by groups and individuals who don’t fully understand what they are talking about).

        • #20254 Reply

          Reply to Maestro

          Thanks for the legal lesson on Class Action v Non-Class Action. Makes sense. Learn something new everyday! 🙂

        • #20255 Reply

          Reply to Robin

          Oops, that was meant for Robin, not Maestro. I think my brain has left for the weekend already. 🙂

        • #24038 Reply

          Tim L

          In Doe v Connecticut the registrant brought suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated offenders on due process cause. SCOTUS took the case meaning a legit (group) claim(s) are possible at least on process attack.

          The registrant had entered into a plea bargain thereby also entering waiver for appeal. HE LOST 9-0. In other words do not go complaining about process when you agreed NOT TO! Intelligently and voluntary!

          However some did not waive, they are those whom opted for bench trial. They also may be actually Innocent. Innocent people rarely plead guilty to what they did not do. See Barry Sheck I have.
          Justice Souter mentioned those especially in his answer. Innocents also pose no danger yet registration applied. Also terms applied without opportunity to mitigate\ defend via council

          SCOTUS also addressed ( redeprivation hearings) in this case deeming no Constitutional right exists.

  • #20275 Reply


    after reading through several posts i am not sure how to feel, good, bad, or ugly? keep the faith & always remember, attitude & purpose. those 2 things affect all things.

  • #20272 Reply


    From Brie Franklin, executive director of the CCASA :

    “I think we always need to keep in mind that victim’s should have rights too. The victims didn’t choose to have this happen to them. Offenders made a choice to commit a crime and this is part of that punishment,” Franklin said.

    Part of the punishment ??? No Miss Franklin, it is not part of the punishment because the registry is not supposed to be punishment. Perhaps she should be more careful on her wording, as it can back fire and bite her if attorneys choose to cite her statements in court. May even cost her job if that statement alone can help sway court decisions.

    Judge Finds Colorado Sex Offender Registry Unconstitutional

    • #20508 Reply


      Also remember, that legally speaking, punishment has to be doled out all at once, not a little here, a little there. For instance when we get a traffic ticket, we don’t get a fine one day, then a couple of weeks later come back and get points etc, it’s everything all at once, or it is deemed Ex Post Facto, or after the fact.

  • #20271 Reply

    Denver Post rocking on this topic
    • #20281 Reply

      Counting the days

      As a RSO convicted of a misdomeanor non contact internet offense, I am glad that someone of judicial authority is stepping up to recognize that public shaming, loss of habitat, and banishment is by definition punishment.
      I do feel violent offenders of ANY crime need to be more closely monitored, but to group all “offenders” together is marking every apple as bad.
      90% of us made a mistake that we take responsibility for, we accepted the courts punishment ( in my case, probation) and want to get on with being a contributing member of society. Registries all but stop that.
      It’s been shown that registries hurt far more than help, and cause problems on all sides.
      Let’s end this draconian practice and spend the state and federal funds where they are needed, instead of where a few can profit, mainly jails, prisons, police depts. , and politicians.

      Thank you for letting me comment.

    • #20364 Reply


      Some of these comments made me really want to scream. The attitudes of these people are why we have a registration in the first place. We are nothing to them. According to them, we don’t deserve the same constitutional rights that they would want for themselves or their loved ones.

      I especially took umbrage to the “They don’t even feel sorry for their victims” posts. First of all, how do you know what I feel for my victims, and second of all, how do you know how my victims felt towards me. They assume that every person convicted of this was hiding in the bushes and grabbed some poor little innocent kid and went to town on them behind the bushes. I won’t talk about my victims here, but suffice to say, that is not what happened, and they were even trying to be friends with me after this happened.

      Many of the positive comments revolved around don’t lump every one into the same category, but they also seemed to be aimed towards the peeing in the bushes RSO’s or young love RSO’s.

      Anyway, I am at least glad that this has happened and hope and pray that it makes it through the appeals process so it becomes binding on my case.

  • #20291 Reply


    This is great new for CO. Hello from Texas…My husband is almost done serving a 4yr sentence because his daughter said he touched her inappropriately in 2006 . She was corcered by her mother to say false information. He was sentenced Jan. 2015…He was approved by parole in Feb. 2017…Hope to be home after he finishes his soep class.. I think after they serve their time, registering is more punishment !! #doubttexaswillchange

    • #20363 Reply

      seeking justice

      Love Your Enemies
      …44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?… I am mindful of punishment as a registrant as well as the venom of those who punish continually others for their past deeds, lying accusations or otherwise. I believe God does not like ugly on either side, and I believe he will bring vengeance and Texas has Harish laws. I have suffered 30 years, and ever increasingly, in South Carolina (no way off lifetime registry) before they was a registry for a crime I did not commit for ABHAN an accusation conjured from an Adult female (misdemeanor non-violent max 5 year sentence) where the state law allows a judge discretion to put any offense on the registry if cause is shown by the solicitor not evidence. I feel your PAIN!!

  • #20322 Reply


    The decision in Colorado is, in my mind, the most significant ruling to date. There have been some awesome and encouraging rulings these past few months, but we know the opposition is not going to lay down. It is going to be a difficult battle every step of the way. Let us remain hopeful and unsinkable in the midst of it. I don’t know about the rest of you, but this forum has been such a help to me, and I gain much from the various posts. Thanks for sharing. And thanks to NARSOL for providing this site for us all, and for their tireless efforts on our behalf.

    • #20337 Reply

      Jonny everyman

      Hear, hear! There is redemption for all of us.

    • #20390 Reply


      It’s probably more significant than anyone really understands. It was only last year that the Colorado courts ruled that the registration is not punitive, and now, the federal judge comes in and says “Hey you guys blew it, it really is punitive”

      That plus the fact that even though we have legalized recreational marijuana, our courts are arguably some of the most conservative around.

      I am really excited.

  • #20321 Reply

    A mom

    Amen! Praying that the next state to realize it is unconstitutional is Florida. If it is unconstitutional, in one state, it should be unconstitutional in all states. We are all created equal When they have served their time they should have the opportunity to become a successful, law abiding citizen.
    For those suffering with the registration, don’t give up. Narsol is working miracles every where.

  • #20326 Reply


    Unconstitutional , I guess that does stand to reason. I am sure at the time of everybody’s offense they were intimidated by the good old police throwing their force around here and their. While the truth will finely come out as this discussion was made their is still a lot more steps to go. What gets me about this whole thing is that we have certain unalienable rights, and yes we all do have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    If you’ll notice this country had its roots and the foundation was biblical. I know I hate to throw that in but even a little bit of the word is better than none. Instead of reconciling case matters they want to banish some from being an American citizen. As for me and a lot on here I would rather be working but it seems that sex offenders don’t stand a chance when they are labeled that by law enforcement. My hats off to this Judge that understands the biblical laws as well as the civil laws and can understand the difference when it comes to human lives. Just look what happened when the police wanted to get a blood sample from a victim and the nurse refused or should we all be bullied by those in blue…What was that famous line.. We are done.. We are done you are under arrest. Talk about two rules clashing together.

    • #20339 Reply


      This is very good news. I’m a registered citizen in Nebraska. My thoughts today turned to RSO’S in Texas, displaced by Hurricane Harvey, and what hoops they have to jump thru at this time. Can they stay in shelters? Do they have to register these moves? How do they travel to register if the have to. I’m sure glad I’m not in that situation. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment. I pray that God will provide for them in this difficult time as well as all those affected

  • #20370 Reply

    Debbie Ahlborn

    I wrote several paragraphs, pushed “Submit” and they all disappeared.

    • #20373 Reply


      Debbie, is your post above what you are referring to, or was there another that didn’t print?

  • #20369 Reply

    Debbie Ahlborn

    My son had a “wake-up” call after doing some pretty bad stuff on the computer, when he was in his early 20s. Fortunately, he was caught in a sting operation, which landed him a 15-year sentence. At first, he did not have to serve 24 hours, but could work, then go in to jail, but after one year, he got into more trouble, partially because of alcohol, and this time, the judge said, “Your 15 years are back!” So he served 2.5 years, and actually came out so nice and polite and clean from all of the porn, and of course, sober from alcohol. That part only lasted a few years, then he got back to drinking, and of course, porn. Overcoming a porn addiction takes serious effort and the support of a true companion, one who the guy will listen to and trust. But no, that has not happened, he just convinces himself that it is a “stress-reliever”. What does all of this have to do with the registry? I don’t know, except that, if he had never gotten into porn, he would never have been caught in a sting operation, attempting to pursue an underage girl. And now, he has a poor self-image, and is always afraid someone new will find out he is a RSO. Although he is hard-working and successful in his business, there are so many restrictions on every thing he does, he can never really hold his head up again. PORN is so very destructive to any and all relationships!!! PORN KILLS LOVE! Those are the truest of all words. I wish every male had the courage to wear a t-shirt that states that in big giant letters. Then, when more men start to believe this, maybe more would humbly and willingly seek the help they need to overcome this, which has to be done with a trained professional, and with the help of a trusted companion. Instead, they just accept that it will be with them forever, like the RSO title, and it makes life miserable for his wife and children. How will he feel when his daughters find him doing it one day which by the way, is inevitable. Or worse yet, when the boys they start to date are doing it, or even worse, when one of his daughters might get sucked into becoming a part of this despicable but very profit-driven industry? Where does it end? Satan has the greatest hey-day ever with this one, and every time you participate, you are paying tithes to Satan and his wicked angels. But don’t sit around and feel guilty about it, that is part of his wicked plan—have the courage to get up and search out those who can give you professional help, and get ready to put your life back together again.

    • #20423 Reply



      There are men in this world that are single because they are physically undesirable to women (or to other men, whatever their sexuality is).
      I have had some very pretty girlfriends in my life though I don’t think very highly of my appearance. I also had a very attractive Brazilian wife. It was AFTER my divorce that I got caught up with a teenage girl a year under legal age. I already had low self esteem due to how I wished I looked more like Tom Cruise, but then being divorced and only being 31 yrs old, I figured I’m even MORE undesirable because in our society we have women refusing to date men who are either previously married or have had children with a former partner.
      However, those same women end up disvocred or single moms and expect EVERY MAN to accept them as their little premade package deal. Funny that, eh?

      Anyway, my point being, stop coming down so hard on the porn industry. Adult porn is not illegal and men who do not have a significant other in their love lives are the ones looking at porn more often. Some couples do but it’s a different ball game with that.
      Now then, your son probably felt the same way I felt when he started chatting with (what he thought was) a 15 yr old girl. And that feeling is this; Welp, no one else wants me and she is pretty for her age and I’m lonely so…what’s the harm, right?

      The thing that troubles me about these internet stings is that they show a trend of men with NO PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD being easily duped by sexual attraction. Many of these men are most likely the same ones who call everyone on the SOR a “pedophile”.
      These stings also seem to prove something else; That males, by NATURE are attracted to youthful females.

      I don’t know if the age of consent needs to be lowered or the Internet stings just need to stop. But we all have to at least stop pretending that someone who is SUCKERED into chatting with an underage person online is a threat to “safety”.
      Why is SEX a threat to safety but armed robbery doesn’t ever get that category? Hmmmm.

      • #20437 Reply


        That is very true. The sting operations prey on lonely, desperate and sexually deprived men who normally wouldn’t seriously consider a sexual encounter with someone underage. It is a game to them, like fishing. It is not about keeping anyone safe.

  • #20391 Reply


    I just have one more thing to say. As far as that Donnie guy that thinks his life is a waste. Take control of yourself. Now just what do I mean by that,. Self govern yourself. When I got involved with my little internet sex romp I knew what I was doing. I can still see the shock when the detective ask me…. It was your intent to have sex right, and I said you don’t know my intent. See that is where they will throw you off in this game of sexual encounters.
    Women well there are good women and bad women. I got so down once I told my probation officer I wanted to kill myself, but that wasn’t my intent to kill myself.
    Donnie, the main thing is to give this scarlet letter you have in the back of your mind and press on like all the rest on here. Yes, we all have had some good news coming from the courts lately, but for any man or woman to soak in their sorrow over this and that is a mind alternating experience in itself. It will eat you up like a cancer so just enjoy yourself and enjoy your friends and guard yourself. I’m sure your a nice person but sometimes you got to get rid of that chip on your shoulders. You be yourself, you don’t be what others want you to be. Oh and it never hurts to take a pretty gal to church once in a while and keep your good morals in check.

  • #20474 Reply

    No registry required

    Given technology has given people at their fingertips the ability to pull people’s information online, there really is no need for the registry. The registry was a tool in the age when paper and pencil was the way to track someone. Unless you are homeless, you are pretty sure to be listed somewhere online through some database via a utility bill, telephone number, voter registration, marriage, previous marriage, family, etc. So in reality, the registry needs to be done away with because LE can already get the info they want and need without someone having to come in to notify them.

    Taking the registry back behind closed doors is unnecessary and a waste of time and money when there is the aforementioned ability currently in addition to the potential continuing ability to monitor someone who is no longer under the need to be monitored once their sentence is complete. Monitoring someone who has committed a sex offense and is out of incarceration is called parole, which already has a check in requirement. Once a sentence is done, it is done. If there is a need for monitoring outside of parole and a completed sentence, then it is a form of civil commitment without the barb wire, steel fences, concrete buildings and psych treatment because the person is still being monitored, every time they register, which still violates my Constitutional rights.

    So, just doing away with a public registry is not enough, it needs to be done away with completely.

  • #20487 Reply


    If it seems like unconstitutional, sounds like unconstitutional, and feels like unconstitutional, then it probably is unconstitutional.

  • #20559 Reply


    Finally a judge who understands! I am also a registered offender myself and am fully convinced it is immoral and unethical after you have served your time to be on the registration list. Besides that, what as the registered offender list accomplished? It is just another way of putting former offenders down and hurting their chances of success in the future. I don’t know if this judge is a christian or not, but it seems like God is using him to start tearing down the walls that hinder sex offenders. Yes, we have committed a crime and have paid the price. So, why continue to punish former offenders for the rest of their lives. May the Lord and savior Jesus Christ keep his hand upon this man and protect him.

    • #20592 Reply


      I agree, Curtis!! May the Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless Justice Matsch!! I ask that we all please pray that majorities on state supreme courts and U.S. Supreme Court see that Justice Kennedy erred based on the faulty information in Psychology Today article that read that sex offenders have an 80% recidivism rate and that the Internet has now become more sophisticated than in 2003 and is the tool of vigilante sites like that double the punishment on those of us on the registry.

      The Internet age is way different than the age when a person who committed a crime and was convicted was on the radio news, maybe television news, and in the newspaper once, then forgotten unless someone went to look in the archives of old newspapers. The Internet is a constant reminder of past mistakes and has also become the tool of vigilante sites like that are allowed to hide behind the 1st Amendment to keep all registry members just a click away.

      The internet publication of the registry IS cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment), a violation of Privacy (4th Amendment), and a violation of due process rights (14th Amendment). All dissenting opinions (in the minority) have stated so since the late 1990s.

      I just thank God that REASONABLE judges are now recognizing the damage the registry has done to registrants and family members while doing nothing to protect children from predators.

      We aren’t there yet, but there are promising signs that this nightmare will soon be over!

  • #20929 Reply

    A good read

    Judge Matsch On SORA: Cut The Crap, It’s Unconstitutional

    Judge Matsch On SORA: Cut The Crap, It’s Unconstitutional

  • #21049 Reply


    Hello all, here is a great report you guys
    can use on your motion for cruel and unusual punishment! This report has documented the murders and assaults of people on the registry. Might be a good read for those wanting to add ammunition to their cases!

  • #21316 Reply

  • #21862 Reply

  • #24628 Reply


    So I sit here today kind of in a bad way.

    I found out that even if I do get off the registry here in Colorado, if I travel to another state, I am going to have to be aware of their registration laws, and may have to register anywhere I may travel.

    When will this ever end completely and we can live our lives again.

    • #24770 Reply


      That is ridiculous you would think when you’re done you’re done, people shouldn’t have to worry about that and shouldn’t be on any other states lists either. Maybe you could send the other states police information that your no longer on the list and politician to be removed from theirs, just a thought.

      • #24868 Reply


        Thus the problem in a nutshell…. You are never really done

      • #25608 Reply


        Even though I was convicted in Pa and live in Pa now, I am on Pa and NY registry. In Ny, once you register, you are on regardless if you move out of state. However, one silver lining is this: Since the ONLY reason I am on it is becuase of a conviction in Pa, once I am off Pa’s registry Ny will consider taking me off theirs.
        We will see. I have about $20,000 in legal fees in my future. YUCK!!

  • #24705 Reply


    Now that we know that SCOTUS denied cert in Does v. Snyder, would you please update your article, particularly the paragraph excerpted below, to reflect what this means now that it is certain.

    “Of particular interest was the obvious influence of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina, _ U.S. _, 137 S.Ct. 1730 (2017) as well as the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Does v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) which remains on petition before the Supreme Court and is scheduled for conference September 25.”

  • #25810 Reply


    Any hear anything yet in Colorado, what’s going on? I hope something good happens there soon.

    • #25820 Reply


      Nothing yet, but tomorrow (Halloween) NARSOL will have a marathon phone in and atty. Ruttenburg will be on the call. She may have some recent insight into any ‘news’ about how the Colorado appeal is proceeding.
      See information on this call at top of site.

Reply To: Federal judge holds Colorado registry is punishment; violates Eighth Amendment
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Do not promote your business, your blog, your website, or any other business, blog, or website.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">