Category Image Laws and Courts

Missouri: more good “Halloween signs” news

By Janice and Sandy . . . Registrants in Missouri were not required to post a Halloween sign on their home this year, a sign that for all practical purposes identified the property as being residence to someone on Missouri’s sex offender registry. This was due to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by a federal district court on October 27.  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the TRO a few days later on October 30.  As a result, registrants and their families as well as their homes were not exposed to significant harm to themselves and damage to their property. The case, brought by ACSOL, is Sanderson v. Bailey.

November 3, 2023, the district court judge in the Missouri case issued an order extending the TRO and consolidating it with the trial date of March 27, 2024.  The trial will be a bench trial, with no jury, and it could last up to two days.  One of the issues in the case is whether the court should issue a permanent statewide injunction against the use of the signs.

This victory in Missouri was based, in part, upon precedent set in Georgia last year by NARSOL’S case McClendon v. Longwhich was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In that case, the appellate court ruled that the state of Georgia could not require registrants to post Halloween signs on their home because the signs were compelled speech and therefore violated the First Amendment.

The requirement of “No candy” signs at registrants’ homes on Halloween by county or parish sheriffs is an abomination and will be challenged.

Janice is an attorney and executive director of ACSOL.

Sandy Rozek

Written by 

Sandy, a NARSOL board member, is communications director for NARSOL, editor-in-chief of the Digest, and a writer for the Digest and the NARSOL website. Additionally, she participates in updating and managing the website and assisting with a variety of organizational tasks.

2 Thoughts to “Missouri: more good “Halloween signs” news”

  1. AvatarJason Lekse

    Not aware of any effort by my county attorney’s office, sheriff, or any other law enforcement entity here in Missouri even trying to inform registrants of this. “No candy or treats at this residence” signs were provided by the sheriff, and reserve deputies, city police, and SRT officers were paid overtime to enforce compliance.

  2. AvatarJason Lekse

    Appointment with sheriff yesterday; took copy of the article. Them: “Oh, that.” (aka we knew about it), Me: “So what happened?” Them: “Well, that restraining order would have to go through our legal before it would apply to you all anyway.” Apparently, the assumption is not only are you a monster, you’re also an idiot.

Share your thoughts

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

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Comments must be at least 10 and no longer than 350 words. We will not post lengthy comments.
  • 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 political statements in (dis)favor of all political parties and 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.
  • Please do 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 spell it out.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.