Privacy Issues
Decided: August 10, 1999
Category: Information Privacy, Publication of Embarrassing Facts
The plaintiffs in this case are the Akella family and two men, who to maintain their privacy, call themselves John Doe and John Roe. Over the years a number of states have enacted laws requiring the registration of all sex offenders. This information is then made publicly available as a searchable database over the internet. This case is about three prominent problems associated with these databases. The first has to do with inaccurate information contained in databases such as these. A second concern involves the lack of detail contained in the database so that the public is unable to determine why a person was included in the database and whether or not that person is a violent offender. A final concern is the lack of privacy afforded to those convicted of sex crimes by disseminating such information in a broad manner.The Akellas lived in Washtenaw County, Michagan. When they purchased their home they were not aware that the address was listed in Michigan's Sex Offenders database. Since the Akellas were not sexual offenders, once they purchased the property their address was inappropriately listed. Once the Akellas learned of this error, they were unsuccessful at getting the state to change the inaccurate information--though they tried on numerous occasions. Because of the highly embarrassing nature of having one's address listed as a location housing sexual offenders, their only recourse was to sue the Michigan Department of Police who had the legal authority and responsibility to make the appropriate changes. Their claim before the court was that there was no procedural method available for an individual to have an incorrect name or address removed from the list and that incorrect addresses may subject individuals to harm without their awareness.
The other two plaintiffs, anonymously listed as John Doe and John Roe, were recent sex offenders and placed in the Michigan database because of consensual sex they had as teen aged boys with under aged girls. Their concern was that the sexual registry presented little or no information that would the public make a distinction between those who were convicted of nonviolent sexual offences. Their claim is that the Michigan law deprives them of their constitutional rights of due process (by adding their name to the database without a judicial hearing) and that each of them will be subject to harassment, threats, and interference with employment, education, and housing (Akella v. Michigan).
Questions before the Court
- Did the Michigan "Act" deny the plaintiffs their due process rights?
- Does the Michigan "Act" violate the plaintiffs right to privacy?
- Do the Akellas have a right to sue the Michigan State Police for mishandled procedural processes?
- Did the Michigan "Act" subject the Akellas to personal harm?
Holdings
The court held that John Doe and John Roe were not deprived of their due process rights nor was their privacy violated. The decision noted that information about convictions such as these are a matter of public record.
The court held that John Doe and John Roe were not deprived of their due process rights nor was their privacy violated. The decision noted that information about convictions such as these are a matter of public record.
The Court fails to discern how plaintiffs can claim deprivation of a liberty interest resulting from dissemination of information already the subject of public record. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the information is already a matter of public record, but claim that it is the "widespread dissemination" of such information that implicates a protected liberty interest. However, plaintiffs have cited no authority for the proposition that the magnitude of dissemination, in and of itself, is sufficient to trigger a deprivation of a liberty interest.
While the court acknowledged that the Akellas address was incorrectly listed, their claim of privacy and procedural due process was denied. Since the Akellas could not demonstrate any personal harm as a result of being included in the database, their claim for personal harm was also denied.
Privacy Exceptions
From this case we may draw the following conclusions about privacy rights:
From this case we may draw the following conclusions about privacy rights:
Privacy is not afforded to individuals when the needs and interests of the state outweigh the needs of an individual for privacy--even when the information disseminated by the state is false, incomplete or inaccurate.
Even though public records may contain embarrassing information, the state is at liberty to make that information available however it sees fit.
Discussion
We live in an age where personal information, once the domain of courthouse ledgers is widely available. As these databases are made more widely known and used over the internet, one can no longer assume they will be spared the publicity and humiliation of embarrassing facts. We live in an age of technological infancy where the need to protect and inform the public interest has yet to catch up with the means for correcting false and misleading information.
Sexual offender databases are a subject of great debate. Understandably, people have a great concern about protecting children from sexual harms. At the same time, there is a need to moderate and protect the rights of individuals who have successfully served their prison sentences for these crimes.
At this date, some states, such as Maine, are making changes to the information in their databases to provide for more detailed information that would help the public know whether some person is a violent offender or a former teen who had sex with an under aged person.
Those whose names appear in sexual offender databases routinely claim that they face persecution and hostility about where they live, work, and worship. Many claim to have received threats of harm and death. Some cities have passed resolutions forbidding certain areas of the city from those who have been convicted of sexual offenses. To discourage individuals from using these databases as a means of threatening or committing crimes against former sex offenders, states such as Massachusetts have added laws and disclaimers to the information they provide.
We live in an age where personal information, once the domain of courthouse ledgers is widely available. As these databases are made more widely known and used over the internet, one can no longer assume they will be spared the publicity and humiliation of embarrassing facts. We live in an age of technological infancy where the need to protect and inform the public interest has yet to catch up with the means for correcting false and misleading information.
Sexual offender databases are a subject of great debate. Understandably, people have a great concern about protecting children from sexual harms. At the same time, there is a need to moderate and protect the rights of individuals who have successfully served their prison sentences for these crimes.
At this date, some states, such as Maine, are making changes to the information in their databases to provide for more detailed information that would help the public know whether some person is a violent offender or a former teen who had sex with an under aged person.
Those whose names appear in sexual offender databases routinely claim that they face persecution and hostility about where they live, work, and worship. Many claim to have received threats of harm and death. Some cities have passed resolutions forbidding certain areas of the city from those who have been convicted of sexual offenses. To discourage individuals from using these databases as a means of threatening or committing crimes against former sex offenders, states such as Massachusetts have added laws and disclaimers to the information they provide.
Information contained in the sex offender report shall not be used to commit any crimes against any sex offender or to engage in illegal discrimination or harassment of an offender. Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to this act to commit a crime shall be punished by not more than two and one half years in a House of Correction or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by both, such fine and imprisonment pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 6, Section 178C. ...In addition, any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to this act to threaten to commit a crime may be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or by imprisonment for not more than six months pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 275, Section 4For More Information
- AKELLA v. MICHIGAN DEPT OF STATE POLICE 67 F. Supp. 2d 716
- Perceptions of Sex Offender Registration: Collateral Consequences and Community Experiences by Dr. Richard Tewksbury and Dr. Matthew Lees
- Do Sexual Predators Have the Right to Privacy? Confidentiality Provisions for Registered Sex Offenders in California and Massachusetts by Megan Burns
- Burlington Tones Down Proposed Sex Offender Ordinance
No comments:
Post a Comment