California Attorney General pleads for reconsideration of human trafficking law
Two convicted sex offenders challenged provisions in California's Proposition 35. After a judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional, the state now appeals.
March 02, 2013
California Attorney General pleads for reconsideration of human trafficking lawCalifornia wants to reinstate a human trafficking law, which a federal judge has enjoined for imposing unconstitutional restrictions on convicted sex offenders. Opponents of the law note that the initiative creates a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of convicted sex offenders.
Provisions of voter-approved Proposition 35 increase prison terms for human traffickers and require convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders. The law, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act Initiative (CASE), supports law-enforcement training on human trafficking and mandates that convicted human traffickers pay fines, which fund victim services.
One specific prevision of Proposition 35 requires all registered sex offenders to give police a comprehensive list of their screen names, email addresses, account names and Internet service providers within 24 hours of setting up a new account. Violations of this law are punishable by up to three years.
With such restrictive laws in place, two anonymous sex offenders joined a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws in a class action lawsuit, which specifically aims to eliminate the Internet mandates. According to the challengers, the requirements of the law are overly broad and infringe on their right to participate in anonymous online free speech.
District Court: Internet restrictions in Proposition 35 are too restrictive
The U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson awarded the plaintiffs the injunction, finding that the challenged provisions create a chilling effect and do not pass constitutional muster. In the ruling, the judge noted that California failed to show that its interest in fighting sex offenses and human trafficking outweighed the convicted sex offenders' privacy interests.
Specifically, California did not demonstrate that the CASE Act's impact on public safety is sufficient to overcome the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The government did not supply evidence regarding the extent to which public safety would improve if the additional Internet-based registration requirements were in place.
Conversely, the former offenders had supplied data, which demonstrated that only 1 percent of arrests for sex crimes against children had been facilitated by online technology. Furthermore, registered sex offenders had been involved in only 4 percent of the surveyed arrests.
Attorney General's appeal
Despite the lower court's ruling, Attorney General Kamala Harris has appealed on behalf of the state. She has aims to crack down on human trafficking, asserting that the Internet has "transformed the landscape of human trafficking." Nevertheless, those who oppose the scheme note it would have a negative effect on California's budget. As the appeal comes before the Ninth Circuit, it could bring serious limitations to convicted offenders' rights.
If you have been charged with a sex crime, you will face a series of complex criminal justice issues and procedures. Laws are always transforming in California, and this, in turn, affects the consequences of particular convictions. For this reason, it is important to have the support of a qualified criminal law attorney as you face any charges. An experienced lawyer has an evolving knowledge of the criminal justice system and its laws.
Article provided by The Law Offices of Mark J. Werksman
Visit us at www.werksmanlaw.com