Articles Posted in U.S. Supreme Court

Published on:

This week the United States Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on free speech and the First Amendment.  In an 8-0 ruling ,the Court held that a North Carolina law preventing registered sex offenders from accessing the internet, for the purpose of engaging with social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter impermissibly restricted free speech in violation of the first amendment.   The case,  known as Packingham v. North Carolina  came about when Mr. Packingham, a registered sex offender, logged on to Facebook and wrote a post expressing gratitude for the dismissal of a traffic citation.

For this he was indicted under the North Carolina law which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender “to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages.”  Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court and he stressed the importance of social media in present day society as the place where we now discuss religion and politics, search for employment, chat with friends and even scheduled events.  Referring to social media as the “modern public square”  the Court held that the North Carolina law was not consistent with the Constitutional guarantee of free speech.

 

How might this impact Texas?  While Texas  criminal statutes do not prohibit a registered sex offender from accessing the internet, state parole laws  most certainly do and the prohibitions are fairly stringent.  In addition, a no internet access condition is sometimes imposed by agreement or by the Court in situations where a registered sex offender is being placed on community supervision.    Though the Texas laws were not directly at issue in Packingham, the Court’s robust interpretation of free speech in this context does call into question the continuing validity of broad laws that prohibit registered sex offenders from generally accessing social media.

Published on:

972 369 0577

rosenthalwadas.com

The use of dogs trained to detect drugs is a common  interdiction tool used by the police.  Typically, if a properly trained drug detection dog alerts on the presence of illegal drugs, the alert itself may be sufficient to establish probable cause to search a car.

Published on:

The United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions today that directly address two important provisions of the U. S. Constitution.  The opinions issued were overshadowed by the Court’s decision in the Arizona voting law case, which garnered the overwhelming majority of media attention.

Buried in that news cycle however were two important Supreme Court cases addressing the Constitution.  The first, Alleyne v. United States, overruled Harris v. United States, which was decided only eleven years ago.  In Alleyne, the Court decided by a 7-2 majority that any fact which, if proven, will have the effect of increasing the statutory minimum range to which the accused is subject, must be submitted to the fact finder and proved.  In other words, any fact or facts that will increase the statutory minimum implicates that Sixth Amendment.

For Federal practitioners, I do not see this as an opening to a fundamental change in the sentencing process.  The facts and issues generally regarded as sentencing factors that may increase the punishment within the prescribed statutory range will still be considered by the sentencing judge at sentencing and may be found reliable with a jury finding and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Alleyne case does not appear, for example, to affect a sentencing court finding that the defendant acted as an Organizer, Manager or Leader, or that the defendant Obstructed Justice.