Sex Offender Sues Every Prosecutor In Indiana

[Heracles 417]

Sex Offender Sues Every Prosecutor In Indiana

Law Would Allow Authorities To Check Computer At Any Time

POSTED: 7:49 pm EDT April 7, 2008

SCOTT COUNTY, Ind. -- A man filed a lawsuit against every sheriff and prosecutor in the state of Indiana, Louisville station WLKY reported.

Convicted sex offender Steve Morris wants a new law, designed to protect children, thrown out.

The law that goes into effect in July would allow law enforcement to search his computer at any time.

Morris' attorney said it's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"The Civil Liberties Union is more worried about his rights than the rights of victims in southern Indiana," said Scott County Sheriff John Lizenby.

The new law will require registered sex offenders to submit e-mail addresses and log-in names for social networking Web sites like MySpace and Facebook.

It also requires offenders to install software allowing police to monitor usage.

"If we can look into their private Internet and look into what they're doing and they're contacting somebody they shouldn't be, that's going to help stop them," Lizenby said.

But Morris aims to change that.

More than a decade ago, Morris was convicted of child molestation. He, along with the ACLU, is suing Lizenby and every other sheriff and prosecutor in Indiana, challenging the state's ability to search his home and check his computer at any time.

"This kind of legislation is designed to make us feel like we're safe and give us a sense of security," said University of Louisville professor Dr. Richard Tewksbury, who has studied sex offender registries for more than a decade.

Law enforcement doesn't have the resources to monitor all offenders, and the other half of the law suggests lawmakers are naive.

"The idea that all offenders are going to provide all of their e-mail addresses, all of their screen names, and only use their personal or home computer to go onto networking sites is simply not realistic," he said.

Morris couldn't be reached for comment. His wife refused comment on the suit, only to say her husband has done his time.

"I don't have a lot of sympathy for somebody that's on that Web site and is worried about their rights," Lizenby said. "I'm more worried about the victims' rights."

ACLU attorney Ken Falk said the Supreme Court has expressly said that law enforcement cannot conduct a search without probable cause and a warrant, and that lawmakers completely ignored that.

Falk asked a judge for a temporary injunction Monday.

A hearing could come in the next few weeks.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/15819052/detail.html

What a dip sh!t organization.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... monitoring his internet usage isn't really about "protecting victims". That seems a bit of a stretch - you have to admit it is kind of dodgy.

Would we be having this conversation if it was advocating phone tapping, and opening the guy's mail? Probably not.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

and he'll probably win too. how sad things are.

[Heracles 417]

Well... monitoring his internet usage isn't really about "protecting victims". That seems a bit of a stretch - you have to admit it is kind of dodgy.

Would we be having this conversation if it was advocating phone tapping, and opening the guy's mail? Probably not.

Junk Mail or the phone is not a problem for sex offenders soliciting kids now is it. Whereas the internet clearly is.

I am more interested in protecting the kids rights than a sex offenders. At the end of the day if he is rehabilitated he has nothing to hide, right?

Otherwise the laws need to change to reflect 2008 rather than 1787.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

We are becoming to liberal and sue happy. This sucks...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure, we should put away with the judicial branches altogether and just let the police be judge and jury as well. Long live the police state!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... monitoring his internet usage isn't really about "protecting victims". That seems a bit of a stretch - you have to admit it is kind of dodgy.

Would we be having this conversation if it was advocating phone tapping, and opening the guy's mail? Probably not.

Junk Mail or the phone is not a problem for sex offenders soliciting kids now is it. Whereas the internet clearly is.

I am more interested in protecting the kids rights than a sex offenders. At the end of the day if he is rehabilitated he has nothing to hide, right?

Otherwise the laws need to change to reflect 2008 rather than 1787.

If he is rehabilitated (and we know that its a moot point as far as psychology goes) he's paid his debt to society and this therefore wouldn't be necessary.

If he isn't rehabilitated he should be in jail, in a psychiatric hospital or otherwise removed from society.

The core issue in this case is personal privacy - and everyone is entitled to a modicum of it, regardless of your history.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps if there were adequate protections from sex predators... but yes... there has to be a line drawn in the privacy debate. We are not too far from an accepted police state. Punishment needs to fit the crime and the law needs to be clear to protect society from abuse.

[Alex+R 0]

That article was incredibly biased.

[Amby 490]

why care if people are checking your computer at anytime if you're not doing anything wrong?

[mawilson 2,133]

Otherwise the laws need to change to reflect 2008 rather than 1787.

Sounds like you want the laws to reflect 1984.

[sj5 4]

Bunch of Bullsh!t violated Amendment IV he don't deserved these. his lawyer is a #####ing moron. Edited April 10, 2008 by SJ

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

why care if people are checking your computer at anytime if you're not doing anything wrong?

Why can law enforcement not get a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that someone has broken the law? Otherwise, as I said earlier, lets get rid of the courts altogether and welcome the police state where the police is your judge and jury as well.

[Caladan 19]

why care if people are checking your computer at anytime if you're not doing anything wrong?

Because you believe you have rights?

[almaty 19]

this law is an infringement on the constitution ...and if they want to search anyone's computer ..let them get a search warrrant..what about drug dealers? why not search theirs...........

unless it is a plea agreement in court and court order then the law is bs...