Constitutional interpretation and citizen rights--today's post by eadvocate--refers to a privacy decision made by Judge David Hamilton, an Obama judicial nominee.
(...)
Judge Hamilton’s interpretation of the right to privacy and substantive due process has led to him to declare unconstitutional a law to require convicted sex offenders to allow authorities access to their personal computers.
The New York Times noted that the judge, in his decision, felt that the amendment cut into the heart of a person’s right to privacy in his home. He added, “The ability of the individual to retreat into his home and therefore to be free from unreasonable intrusion by the government stands at the very core” of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
This makes a jumble of whether a search is reasonable within the sanctity of one’s home, a possibility that clearly exists within the Constitution, by placing it in an almost subservient role to a right to privacy, which has only been interpreted to exist in the Constitution.
(Read more about the judge's decision here.).
I'm struck with the phrase unreasonable intrusion and for the life of me, cannot fathom why families living with a loved one designated with sex offender status have not filed suit because of of said intrusion into the privacy of persons--themselves--who have committed no wrong doing.
As far as unreasonable search into the sanctity of one's home, each time a family's address pops up via public access search of the sex offender registries, I would consider such violation of privacy. It's not just this issue.
I object to the ability of any Tom, Dick or Harry to keyboard access to individual records, i.e. property taxes, voter registration, etc.
Broad public records law--in my opinion, meant to keep a transparent eye on politicians--has been used to spotlight information, cutting into the privacy of American citizens. The Internet has made such access immediate, as so discussed by James LeBeau, a professor in the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency and Corrections.
(...)
"LeBeau indicated he "was shocked when a public records search told him a sex offender was living at his address." LeBeau explained how laws vary about what constitutes a sex offender and what the disclosure laws are about sex offenders’ addresses. He emphasized the concern with living near sex offenders has been rife with misunderstanding.
“It’s something we need to be worried about, but we don’t need to be obsessed with it,” LeBeau said.
(Read more about the March 24, 2009 Conference on Privacy and Security here).
My long held contention has always been that privacy intrusions suffered by private citizens living with a designated SO family member will be resolved through some sort of back door lawsuit by citizens deemed more (ahem, tongue planted firmly in cheek) reputable, perhaps an angry attorney parent whose sexting teen winds up a sex offender for engaging in what was once considered stupid teenage behavior.
Inappropriate? Yes. Deserved of a lifetime of consequence?
At this point, I think we all know the answer to that one.
