On January 27, 2026, NARSOL, in collaboration with AZRSOL, filed a federal lawsuit in Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the Internet restrictions imposed by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department on individuals convicted of sex offenses. Titled Kenneth Soule et al. v. Michael Cimino, in his official capacity as Chief Probation Officer of the Maricopa County Adult Probation

Department, Case No. 26-cv-00560, the case has four named Plaintiffs, all of whom are under the custody of Maricopa County Adult Probation Department and seek greater Internet access while on probation. Plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action.

Plaintiffs claim that the current policy and practices of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department unreasonably restrict Plaintiffs’ access to the Internet in violation the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the Department’s policies violate the First Amendment because the restrictions imposed are “overly broad” in that they “impose categorical restrictions on Internet access for individuals on probation for sex offenses, regardless of offense conduct, supervision progress, or individualized risk assessment.” Plaintiffs’ Complaint at ¶ 71. Plaintiffs allege the Department’s policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the Department imposed its Internet restrictions “without individualized findings, written justifications, or any standardized review mechanism.” Id. at ¶ 81.

NARSOL-affiliated attorneys Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas have brought the case, along with local Arizona counsel Samantha K. DuMond of the Dumond Law Firm in Phoenix Arizona.

The post NARSOL files constitutional case in Arizona first appeared on NARSOL.

Originally prublished in the Arizona Capitol Times

By John Covert . . . Among all the policy experiments in this country that have thoroughly missed the mark, sex offense registries have surely earned their own special niche.

Registries have been examined in numerous academic studies over the past several decades, and virtually all of them have found that registries do not accomplish what they were intended to do. They do not reduce recidivism.

They do not prevent sex offenses. They do not protect children. They do not make communities safer.

These findings certainly run counter to the beliefs of some policy makers seemingly more interested in inflicting additional punishment on past crimes or enhancing their “tough on crime” personas. New directions must be taken—employing evidence-based reforms focused on intervention and treatment methods that have been shown to reduce sexual violence.

Sex offense registries in this country go back to the mid- 20th century, when they had the limited aim of providing law ennforcement (and only law enforcement) with contact information on those who had committed specific types of offenses.

Then, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s relatively lean registry, using the now debunked premise that people convicted of a sex offense have an exceptionally high recidivism rate. Policy makers around the country took it as an invitation to pile on new regulations and requirements, vastly expanding registries that had once focused on a narrow spectrum of serious crimes to include an ever- growing list of offenses, even including such things as public urination and sex among underage teenagers.

Those who seek to maintain, and even expand, sex offense registries make the claim that those convicted of a sex offense cannot be rehabilitated and need to be under constant surveillance. However, study after study has shown that therapeutic interventions largely lead to success. In fact, those convicted of sex offenses have essentially the lowest recidivism rate among all classes of offenders; a study done by the U.S. Department of Justice found a reconviction rate of 3.5% among individuals in 15 states released over a three- year period.

So, if registries do not work as intended, what can be done?

The American Law Institute (ALI) provided recommendations on where states might go when it adopted extensive model penal code revisions regarding sex offense registries in 2021. ALI’s model codes are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, and in legal scholarship and education.

ALI’s proposed changes match the recommendations of academic literature, which shows that people convicted of sexual offenses have low reoffense rates and that registration hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Specifically, it recommends restricting the information on registries to be available to law enforcement only, limiting those registered to only the most dangerous, and shortening the length of time individuals must remain on the registry.

The first is important because publicly listing those convicted of a sex offense on the internet exposes them to a variety of negative consequences, ranging from public shaming, physical intimidation and violence, and difficulties in finding employment and a place to live.

The requirement of lifetime registration that many states, including Arizona, impose carries burdens for many convicted of a sex offense, often preventing them from ever being able to fully reintegrate into their communities even many years after the offense.

In her dissent in the Alaska Supreme Court case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that many registries, including Arizona’s, make no provision at all for the possibility of rehabilitation. “However plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism,” she wrote, “he will remain subject to long term monitoring and inescapable humiliation.”

At a time when the American Law Institute, virtually all available research, and a growing body of public and professional opinion reflect the reality that our current sexual offense policies do not work, it is important for Arizona to take a new direction.

John Covert is a member of the Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws Executive Committee.

The post AZ RSOL says, “It’s time for a new direction in sexual offense policy” first appeared on NARSOL.

By  Stephen . . . Federal civil suits have been filed in both Arizona and Missouri challenging the constitutionality of state-imposed registry laws.

In Arizona, John Doe, an activist within AZRSOL, a NARSOL Affiliate, filed a broad suit encompassing multiple parts of the registry and is seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against the Sheriff of Maricopa County, alleging violations of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

The complaint filed on behalf of registrant Doe alleges that the violations apply both to Doe and facially to all of Arizona’s approximately 14,000 registrants. Doe has been required to register in Arizona since 2015 for a non-internet-based crime, and he is not listed publicly on the registry, as he was deemed a low risk, Level One, offender.

The suit claims the 2021 Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3821 and 13-3822, violate the First Amendment by preventing Doe and others from exercising their right to free speech by preventing them from exercising lawful discourse on the internet free of government surveillance. Internet identifiers must be reported, even if the underlying offense did not involve the internet or a minor. Any website intended for use must be identified before it is used, even if it is an adults-only website.

Doe also has no means to be removed from the registry, and most Arizona registrants must remain on the registry for life without further assessment of risk.  A recent case from South Carolina ruled a similar registry law unconstitutional. (Powell v. Keel, 433 S.C. 457, 860 S.E.2d 344 (2021)). The suit alleges that lifetime registration “. . . predicated solely on the fact of conviction and without opportunity for judicial review, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The suit also alleges a plethora of vaguely worded laws that leave both registrants and law enforcement guessing when and how various requirements must be reported. The suit claims, “The Reporting Requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3821 and 13-3822 are Unconstitutionally Vague, Both on Their Face and As Applied, in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process.”

The suit claims the registry inflicts punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. For example, “Under Arizona Statute § 13-3821(J), Plaintiff must, at all times, carry with him identification specifically identifying him as a sex offender.” Such branded identification cards were recently found unconstitutional in Alabama. (Doe v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2019))

In Missouri, a federal suit backed by ACSOL has been filed against the State Attorney General and the Chief of Police of Hazelwood, Missouri. The suit challenges the legality of mandated Halloween signage that must be placed in registrant’s addresses.

Thomas Sanderson was convicted of a sexual crime in 2006, prior to the passage of Halloween restrictions imposed by MO Rev Stat § 589.426  imposed August 28, 2008. Sanderson has from 2000 through 2022 displayed an elaborate Halloween decorative experience for his community, with up to 300 in attendance. The display included music and animated displays with lighting, fog machines, and bonfires. The local fire departments attended and handed out candy. Sanderson was aware of the new law and inquired multiple times with authorities, who all told him it was not applicable to him, as his crime predated the ordinance.

Suddenly on October 31, 2022, his residence with full display was surrounded with six marked police vehicles, sirens blaring. At least ten officers entered his property stating he was in violation of the state statute and requested to search his residence. Sanderson refused the request without a warrant. On November 3, a warrant was issued, and Sanderson was arrested and charged with one count of failure to comply with the statute. He was subsequently sentenced to 12 months of unsupervised probation.

The suit alleges that the statute mandating posted signage that states, “No candy or treats at this residence,” is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The suit cites NARSOL’s previously supported victory in Georgia over similar compelled signage at Halloween. McClendon v. Long, 22 F.4th 1330 (11th Cir. 2022).

Sanderson is seeking relief for himself and all the approximately 20,000 registrants in Missouri. The suit asks that the defendants be enjoined in perpetuity from enforcement of the mandated signage and that the signage law be struck as null and void in violation of the First Amendment.

Federal district cases such as these have potential for a broader impact. If the litigants are successful, the decision is often appealed to one of the twelve federal circuit courts. Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit while Missouri is in the Eighth Circuit. Successful appeals have the potential to become binding precedent to all states within that circuit and offer persuasive authority to other circuits.

NARSOL is hopeful for positive findings as both the Arizona and Missouri cases move forward.

The post Multiple federal lawsuits filed first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The headline sounds rather bad: “Peoria council points to sex offender at vice mayor’s house as grounds for resignation.”

The first part of the accompanying piece lays out some seemingly valid reasons for concern:

Derek Lawson, registered in Arizona as a sexual offender due to a conviction in 1984 in California, is required by law to register any address where he stays three or more days a month.

He stayed at the home of Peoria, Arizona’s City Council’s deputy chief, Denette Dunn, “intermittently throughout the past year.”

He did not register her address.

Mayor Jason Beck and the city council have asked Ms. Dunn to resign her position as deputy chief as her relationship with  Lawson has “breached public trust” and “depicts behavior that ‘does not uphold the standards of conduct we expect from our public servants.’ ”

Then other information is – almost reluctantly – given.

Mr. Lawson’s estimate of his time spent overnight at the home in the past year is between 20 and 30 days, which averages to between 1.6 and 2.5 days a month, less than the 3 days per month that triggers an obligation to register the address.

In addition to Ms. Dunn living in the home, the mother of Mr. Lawson lives there.

Local law enforcement has no open case against Lawson; he has a legally registered address at an extended stay motel.

Derek Lawson, his mother, and Denette Dunn have been close family friends for years, and Lawson did maintenance and security chores at the home where his mother and family friend live.

Ms. Dunn has for years been terrorized and harassed by a neighbor with clear mental health issues, extremely well documented; some of Lawson’s overnight stays at the home were to provide safety and protection.

Mayor Beck and Ms. Dunn have divisive political conflict, lending credence to Dunn’s belief that this entire issue is being used in an attempt to force her resignation.

So when all is said and done, what remains?

A man who committed a crime 39 years ago, has long ago completed punishment for that crime, and is not wanted by law enforcement for any reason, spends some time in the home that his mother and a long-time friend share. The mayor and city council are able to use that fact to try and force the resignation of one of their members, Ms. Dunn.

How is this possible?

It is because his crime requires that he register himself on the state’s sexual offender registry, a non-criminal but civil regulatory registry – a civil regulatory registry that can have very serious criminal implications, that seriously inhibits rehabilitation and reassimilation, that is used to inhibit movement of law-abiding citizens as wall as persecute and harass them, and that can be used to harass and destroy family members and friends who have the audacity to maintain a relationship with a person on the sex offender registry.

And all of that with being a civil policy.

God knows what it could do were it a criminal one.

The post What can the sex offender registry do? first appeared on NARSOL.