Second Circuit: Private company home visits constitutional for registrants

image_pdfimage_print

By Amanda Ottaway . . . A Long Island sex offender who faced home visits from a private nonprofit contracted by his county did not endure an unconstitutional search, the Second Circuit affirmed Wednesday.

Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Christopher Droney noted in the ruling that in this case, public-safety interests outweigh the offenders’ rights.

“In sum, the program advances the government’s substantial interest in reducing sex offender recidivism by improving the accuracy of the registry,” the 29-page opinion states. “Thus, the program serves a special need ‘beyond the normal need for law enforcement.’”

A man who served four years in prison on a 1992 rape and sodomy conviction brought the underlying lawsuit under the pseudonym John Jones. Because of his status as a level-one offender — a designation for those deemed to pose a moderate risk of reoffending — Jones faced a 20-year requirement to register annually with the state, visit his local police precinct to get photographed every three years, and tell authorities if he moves.

Because Jones lives in Suffolk County, however, he has also faced additional requirements since 2013 under the Community Protection Act, a local law that established a three-year contract with the nonprofit Parents of Megan’s Law to track and monitor registered sex offenders pursuant to a contract with police.

The group reported a 99% response rate from registrants at the end of the first year and found 13% of home addresses on the registry conflicted with the person’s actual address.

Jones sued after receiving two home visits from the field representatives, saying the threat of embarrassment from such visits made him stop going to his children’s school and athletic activities.

The Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but a federal judge ruled against Jones’ case at summary judgment. Affirming that result Wednesday, the Obama-appointed Droney found the visits constitutional under the special needs doctrine.

Read the full piece here at Courthouse News Service.

image_pdfimage_print
Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please don not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.