Reply To: California IML challenge dismissed as premature


I wonder why all SOR laws are not resubmitted to the Supreme Court. The original Smith v. Doe decision was clearly stated as upheld on the basis that 80% re-offend, a fallacy that has been unequivocally disproved . The FBI has valid, published statistics that clearly show far lower numbers. No state government, or federal, can meet even a rational basis test, never mind the strict scrutiny which must apply since this involves a privacy issue. The statistics simply do NOT exist. It also flies in the face of the ‘paid their debt to society’ concept.
Additionally, why are these laws not challenged under the ‘Bill of Attainder’ provision. Why is it that the public needs to be ‘protected’ against sex offenders, but NOT against any other type of criminal ? Murderers, drug dealers, burglars, assaulters, etc., we’re safe from them and only one class of ‘criminal’ poses a risk to others ?
Food for thought.
One other thought i’ll add here. It’s time RSO’s stop going along with these compliance checks. Unless on probation or parole, RSO’s are under no obligation to even answer the door, never mind answer questions about ‘compliance’. The police are conducting a “Knock & Talk. There’s no such thing as a compliance check, no matter what they WANT to call it. Either ignore their presence by not answering the door or tell them you’re not interested in answering their questions. You have NO LEGAL obligation to do so. I know of cases where they threaten to get a warrant. Let them try. Unless the state notified them that you didn’t comply with registration requirements; they have no probable cause for a warrant, and are in fact, harassing you in violation of state laws that prohibits harassment of RSO’s. The occupant of ANY private residence has NO legal obligation to even identify themselves or answer ANY questions.