Sunday, January 22, 2012

Tenth Circuit Finds Banning Registered Sex Offenders from Libraries Unconstitutional

The City of Albuquerque issued an "Administrative Instruction" banning registered sex offenders from "all public libraries" and further that "Library staff shall send a letter to every sex offender who has a library card and inform them they are no longer allowed in our libraries."  In its opinion in Doe v. City of Albuquerque, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district judge's grant of a summary judgment in Doe's favor on the First Amendment claims.

Albuq Main LibraryMuch of the 44 page opinion is devoted to standards: for summary judgment, for appellate review, and for facial constitutional challenges.  The applicable First Amendment standard is from Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989):  “even in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”  Yet is the interaction of these standards, and the procedural posture of the case, that leads the Tenth Circuit to affirm the district court's finding that the library policy is unconstitutional.

It seems that the City argued there was “no burden upon the City to prove anything,” so it did not submit any evidence as to the Ward factors in opposing Doe’s summary judgment motion," and continued to advance that same argument on appeal.  Thus, the Tenth Circuit found that there was no satisfaction of the narrowly tailored prong or the ample alternative channels for communication prong under Ward.

The Tenth Circuit panel's conclusion stresses the narrowness of its holding and seems to encourage the City to "try again":

Our conclusion that the district court’s grant of summary judgment must be affirmed does not reflect a pronouncement on the ultimate legality or merit of the City’s ban. We are sympathetic to the City’s desire to ensure that its public libraries provide a safe, welcoming environment for its patrons, especially children. We therefore are especially mindful of concerns that registered sex offenders, whom studies have confirmed have a considerable rate of recidivism, may threaten to shatter the peace and safety of this environment.
Although we hold these concerns, as an appellate court we are constrained by the record. And this record shows that in response to a motion for summary judgment, the City provided no evidence as to two dispositive Ward factors as to which it had the burden on summary judgment. While we are perplexed by the City’s strategic decision here, it binds our hands in this case.
We note that our decision does not signal the death knell of the City’s efforts, if it wishes to pursue them, to restrict access of registered sex offenders to the City’s public libraries. We can imagine such an effort succeeding through a revised ordinance where it is shown that the restriction satisfies the three-prong time, place and manner Ward test.

Yet it may not be as easy to satisfy a rigorous application of the Ward test as the Tenth Circuit implies, at least if the narrowly tailored and alternative means of communication prongs are taken seriously.

RR
[image via]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2012/01/tenth-circuit-banning-registered-sex-offenders-from-libraries-unconstitutional.html

Criminal Procedure, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Sexuality, Speech | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0162fff9a801970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tenth Circuit Finds Banning Registered Sex Offenders from Libraries Unconstitutional:

Comments

It is worth noting that in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the USSC applied the "mid level" scrutiny it found applicable to time, place and manner regulations in an extremely deferential fashion, explicitly deferring to the cited expertise of the government employees managing the public property at issue. It demonstrates that, in this context at least, "narrowly tailored" does not mean the same as that term was historically used in connection with strict scrutiny. "Lest any confusion on the point remain, we reaffirm today that a regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral interests but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so. Rather, the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied "so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation." (491 U.S. 781, at 798-799.) And: "The Court of Appeals erred in failing to defer to the city's reasonable determination that its interest in controlling volume would be best served by requiring bandshell performers to utilize the city's sound technician." (Id., at 800.) Thus, the applicable "mid level" constitutional scrutiny applied by the USSC is not "taken seriously." Unless a corporation is selling tobacco to minors. (Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (533 U.S. 525 (2011).)

Posted by: Jeffrey G. Purvis | Jan 24, 2012 9:13:06 AM

The TOTAL exclusion of sex offenders from public libraries should be held Unconstitutional due to the fact that a person is presumed knowledgable of laws, and cannot claim ignorant of any law, because such enacted laws are publicly published and availible IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Thus,the exclusion of any
person from public libraries who are

subject to enacted laws would therefore be unconstitutional.
This is the ground which some savvy attorney ought to base a Constitutional challenge of such exclusionary laws.
In my opinion, while a PARTIAL restriction may survive Constitutional challenge, a TOTAL EXCLUSION certainly would not be found Constitutionally sound.

Posted by: Rodney | Jan 30, 2012 9:07:25 PM

Post a comment