Court sustains ACLU challenge to enforcement of community notification act
Aug. 17, 1999
In a ruling issued Aug. 16, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson agreed with the ACLU of Alabama and enjoined the state from carrying out the Community Notification Act pending a final hearing. The ACLU-AL challenged the act in July, alleging that it violated many basic constitutional rights. Finding that the plaintiff showed a “substantial likelihood” that he would prove the statute unconstitutional, the court prevented Alabama authorities from enforcing the statute against him.
The court’s ruling specifies that Alabama’s version of Megan’s Law is the broadest and most restrictive of such laws in the nation. Such laws were passed following the 1994 murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey at the hands of a sex offender who lived in her neighborhood.
Contrary to its stated purpose, Alabama’s law labels everyone convicted of a broad range of offenses as a dangerous, violent offender. This label is placed without the benefit of a hearing to determine if, in fact, the person is dangerous. Many of those listed offenses are non-violent in nature or involve consensual activity. The law further provides that those convicted of such offenses may be subject to notification even if their offenses occurred decades ago.
“The law is absolutely devoid of any safeguards to protect the citizen from a severe deprivation of constitutional rights even though it subjects her or him to ostracism, banishment and even physical retaliation,” said Kyla Groff, a cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Alabama. “In many cases, the citizen shouldn’t even be subjected to the act; however, the state provides no mechanism to challenge wrongful inclusion.”
The judge’s ruling recognized that the law provided no procedure for citizens to challenge their inclusion under the act. The court further recognized that the law seriously restricts fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
“The state cannot be allowed to deprive our citizens of valuable constitutional rights absent a finding that the person is dangerous. With no justification, this law unfairly brands everyone convicted of any number of crimes as dangerous predators and likely repeat offenders,” said cooperating attorney David Gespass.
Final hearing on this matter has been set for October.
###