|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supreme Court to hear cases on conspiracy, sex offender registration
From William Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A busy week awaits justices at the Supreme Court next week as they hear arguments on sex offender registration laws and a potentially important test case in the fight against terrorism. Justices also could decide whether to hear a widely anticipated case involving government efforts to block obscene and offensive material on the Internet. A 1999 law requires software filtering devices for any public and school library receiving federal funds, in an effort to protect children from pornographic or other "harmful" Web sites. In separate arguments Wednesday, the Supreme Court will test the fairness of sex offender registration laws. At issue are whether such laws amount to a second punishment for those already convicted for their crimes, and whether the laws violate an offender's due process rights. Every state has a so-called "Megan's law," named after a New Jersey girl killed by a convicted sex offender. It requires convicted sex offenders and certain other types of felons released from prison to register with local authorities. Such information is typically released to the public from print and Internet sources. In the first case from Alaska, the issue is whether state law violates the constitutional guarantee against ex post facto -- punishment after the fact. One "John Doe" involved in the case was convicted of abusing his young daughter, another of abusing a 14-year-old girl. Both men were released in 1990, before the state passed its sex offender registration law. They argue they had served their sentences and just wanted to get on with their lives. In a victory for the men, a federal appeals court ruled the law could apply only to those who committed their crimes after the "Megan's law" was enacted. The other case involves whether Connecticut's sex offender registration law violates due process, because offenders are not allowed hearings to see if they are currently a danger to society. In that case, the "John Doe" claims the Connecticut registry does not differentiate between the seriousness of each offender's crimes, and doesn't allow for a hearing regarding his "current dangerousness" before information about him and his crimes are made public. Supporters of the registration laws say citizens deserve to know if convicted sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods, and argue registration laws are not unfair, since the convictions are already a matter of public record. Opponents of the law counter that those convicted deserve to move on with their lives after serving their time. They also say such laws represent an overly intrusive invasion of privacy, since other criminal records are not subject to such readily available public scrutiny. With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear these cases, many prosecutors hope to get a legal road map to help them steer around troublesome provisions. Yet most legal experts do not expect justices to completely throw out the validity and legality of sex offender registration laws. Can a crime prevented still be called conspiracy?In another case Tuesday before the Supreme Court, the arguments will focus on drug trafficking, but for the Bush administration, it could have important implications in its fight against international terrorism. At issue is whether the government can charge suspects with conspiracy when an alleged crime has already been discovered and prevented from occurring. The case involves two men arrested and charged with a drug trafficking conspiracy after a 1997 sting operation. Nevada law enforcement had discovered a truck containing $10 million to $12 million worth of cocaine and marijuana. With the help of a passenger in a truck, police set up a sting operation and sent the drug-laden truck on its way. The two men, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, were arrested after they showed up to get the truck in Idaho and had driven it away. They were convicted in federal court with drug possession and conspiracy to distribute, and given 10-year prison terms. A federal appeals court ruled there was insufficient evidence the men were involved in a conspiracy before the drug seizure. Citing earlier precedents, the court ruled the men would probably not have been involved in the conspiracy had they not been lured into it, and said the government did not prove any other involvement in a conspiracy. The government said the ruling "exonerates culpable defendants and needlessly complicates the prosecution of conspiracy cases." The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to quickly take on the case, saying it has implications for the government's war on terror. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the FBI has retooled its mission to terror and crime prevention, and that it needs all the legal and investigative tools necessary to meet that goal, including sting and undercover operations. "Similar legitimate law enforcement tactics are crucial in violent crime, terrorism and other contexts," said Solicitor General Ted Olson. The sex offender registration cases are Smith v. Doe (Docket number 01-729) and Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (Docket number 01-1231). The conspiracy case is U.S. v. Recio (Docket number 01-1184).
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
