Reply To: Solicitor General to SCOTUS: Don’t grant Snyder petition

#7523
Avatar
In Search of Liberty

For RWVNRAL, Two questions: 1) as to the Alaska case, i.e., Smith v. Doe, did not the Alaska Supreme Court come back and rule that state’s SO registry unconstitutional after the Smith decision? 2) see Smith v Doe U.S. @ 87, 100 & 101. The court said: “…The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releases, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. While registrants must inform the authorities after they change their facial features, borrow a car, or seek psychiatric treatment, they are not required to seek permission to do so…” Ok, so, in the Country of Texas this is the exact situation we have with the state’s SO registration. It is supervised release. An RSO is required to report in person either quarterly or annually. You must have permission to move into a residence, permission to work certain jobs, report your auto, etc., all against what SCOTUS held in Smith. In Texas, there is no deference between regular parole rules and sex offender rules—they are both the same. If you are on a regular parole like for murderers, robbers, burglars, drug dealers etc., there is no reporting of your address, work, auto, residence change, etc., so my question is how does TX’s SO laws square with what SCOTUS held in Smith v Doe pages 87, 100 & 101?