Ex-offenders.

U.S. District Court SEX OFFENDER 

A.A. v. New Jersey 176 F.Supp.2d 274 (D.N.J. 2001). Convicted sex offenders challenged the constitutionality of a New Jersey constitutional provision and the Internet Registry Act amendment to the state's "Megan's Law" statute, that authorized a system for making sex offender registration information publicly available on the Internet. The offenders moved far preliminary injunctive relief and the court granted the motion in part. The court found that the Internet disclosure statute was not punitive in its effects or intent and that the compilation and dissemination of publicly-available information on offenders did not violate their privacy rights. The court noted that the legislature expressly disavowed any intent to inflict additional punishment on offenders and stated that the statute was intended solely for the protection of the public. The legislature prescribed penalties to deter the misuse of information. But the court found that offenders' home addresses were not adequately safeguarded by the Internet disclosure system and the court issued a preliminary injunction limiting disclosure to offenders' county of residence. (New Jersey)

U.S. District Court

CLAIMS

Doan v. Watson 168 F.Supp.2d 932 (S.D.Ind. 2001). Former inmates filed a [ss] 1983 suit against a former and current sheriff, individually and in their official capacities, alleging unconstitutional strip search policies. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the former inmates, finding that the jail policy of stripping inmates and requiring them to undergo a delousing procedure was an unreasonable search. According to the court, the policy authorized a blanket strip search without justification. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not require the former inmates to produce evidence of physical injury to pursue their claims. The inmates had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses and were subjected to intake searches before entering the general jail population. (Floyd County Jail, Indiana)

U.S. District Court

SEX OFFENDERS

Doe #1 v. Williams. 167 F.Supp.2d 45 (D.D.C. 2001). Individuals who were required to register as sex offenders under the District of Columbia's Sex Offender and Registration Act (SORA) challenged the constitutionality of the act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the public notification provisions of the act violated procedural due process and that the act did not apply to offenders sentenced under the District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Act. SORA was enacted to satisfy the requirements of a federal law that made enactment of sex offender and notification statutes necessary to maintain eligibility to receive federal funding. (District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court

CLAIMS

Marsh v. Butler County, Ala. 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001). Former county jail inmates brought a [ss] 1983 action against a county and sheriff to recover for injuries they sustained when they were beaten by other prisoners. The district court dismissed the action and the inmates appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. The appeals court held that allegations that the county failed to maintain the jail constituted deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates, sufficient to survive the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found that the sheriff did not have a qualified immunity defense available to her because preexisting case law established at the time that the conditions of confinement alleged by the plaintiffs did pose a risk of harm to the inmates. The court held that allegations that the county received many reports of the jail's deteriorated conditions but took no remedial measures were sufficient to allege deliberate indi fference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by inmates in the jail. According to the court, allegations that jail conditions such as a lack of locks on cell doors resulted in the plaintiffs being assaulted by their fellow prisoners, stated a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. The court found that the inmates also stated Eighth Amendment violations by alleging that there was no segregation of nonviolent inmates from violent inmates, pretrial detainees from convicted criminals, juveniles from adults, and inmates with mental disorders from those without. Claims were also stated by allegations that the jail was sometimes overcrowded and understaffed, that inmates could make weapons from materials torn from the jail's dilapidated structure, that cells were not visually inspected, that no lock down of prisoners in their cells occurred, and that inmates were not disciplined when they attempted to escape, threatened jailers, destroyed property, or assaulted other inmates. (Butler County Jail, Alabama )