NJ Supreme Court: Sex Offender Can’t Be Banned From Internet Without Due Process

Does the state of New Jersey have the right to enact a lifetime internet ban for a sex offender without giving them due process?

That was the question facing the New Jersey Supreme Court, which reversed an earlier appellate ruling on Tuesday and declared that imposing a lifetime internet ban without due process for “J.I.” – an admitted sex offender sentenced to community supervision for life – would be arbitrary and “unreasonable.”

According to the court’s ruling, J.I. – who pleaded guilty in 2003 to sexually molesting his three daughters - has the right to appeal his internet ban before the New Jersey State Parole Board.

“J.I. is presently banned from having any access to the internet and is threatened with arrest if he is in possession of an internet-capable device,” the panel of judges wrote in their decision. “The absolute restriction on J.I.’s access to the internet may undermine his rehabilitation and hinder his ability to succeed as a free agent in society.”

The board’s internet ban was put in place even though J.I. didn’t use the internet in connection with his crimes and has allegedly been compliant with his parole conditions for 13 months, the court stated.

“Today, access to the internet is considered to be a basic need and one of the most meaningful ways to participate in the essentials of everyday life,” the judges wrote. “Although an offender on parole may face substantial restrictions not faced by the average citizen, the ultimate purpose of parole “is to help [offenders] reintegrate into society as constructive individuals.”

• See related article: New Jersey Murderer ‘Incapable Of Living In Civilized Society,’ Prosecutor Says

“Conditions imposed on community supervision for life (CSL) offenders - like those imposed on regular parolees - are intended to promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and foster the offender’s reintegration into society,” the judges wrote.

“Arbitrarily imposed internet restrictions that are not tethered to those objectives are inconsistent with the administrative regime governing CSL offenders,” the judges stated. “We agree with the position taken by federal courts that internet conditions attached to the supervised release of sex offenders should not be more restrictive than necessary.”

Read the full court decision here.

MONITORING CSL SEX OFFENDERS

Despite the court’s assertion that J.I. must be allowed to plead his case before the parole board, the judges acknowledged that under current New Jersey law, parole supervisors can enact the following restrictions for CSL offenders:

• Prohibit the person from accessing or using a computer or any other device with internet capability without the prior written approval of the court (however, the person may use a computer or any other device with internet capability in connection an employment search with the prior approval of the person’s parole officer)
• Require the person to submit to periodic, unannounced examinations of the person’s computer or any other device with internet capability
• Require the person to submit to the installation on the person’s computer or device with internet capability, at the person’s expense, one or more hardware or software systems to monitor their internet use
• Require the person to submit to any other “appropriate restrictions” concerning the person’s use or access of a computer or any other device with internet capability

CASE BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court summarized the case and accusations facing J.I. in their Tuesday decision.

“J.I. is a sex offender subject to community supervision for life. After his release from confinement, J.I. was allowed full access to the internet, with one exception: he could not visit an internet social networking site without the approval of his District Parole Supervisor.

“After J.I. had served thirteen months on community supervision for life without incident, his District Parole Supervisor totally banned his access to the internet except for employment purposes. The District Parole Supervisor justified the ban based not on J.I.’s conduct while on community supervision for life, but rather on his conduct years earlier - the accessing of pornography sites and the possession of pornography - that led to a violation of his parole. A Parole Board panel affirmed, apparently with no input from J.I.

“Following imposition of that near-total internet ban, J.I. accessed several benign websites, such as those of his church and therapist, after repeated warnings not to do so. As a result, the parole authorities completely banned J.I. from possessing any internet -capable device. The Parole Board upheld that determination and denied J.I. a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed.”

Photo: Flickr Commons

Send feedback to eric.kiefer@patch.com