{"id":1265,"date":"2019-04-07T09:06:12","date_gmt":"2019-04-07T14:06:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1265"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:25:46","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:25:46","slug":"iowa-v-aschbrenner-iowa-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/04\/07\/iowa-v-aschbrenner-iowa-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Iowa v. Aschbrenner (Iowa 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Iowa v. Aschbrenner, No. 18\u20131045 (Iowa 2019)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of violating Internet Identifier reporting requirements of Iowa&#8217;s sex offense registry scheme. Part of the requirements that he was compelled to comply with was to report changes to his &#8220;internet identifiers,&#8221; which was broadly defined by statute. Appellant maintained a Facebook account, which was discovered, and he was charged and ultimately convicted. He then appealed his conviction on Ex Post Facto, First Amendment, and Vagueness grounds.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. Statute did not violate the ex post facto clause, as it was nonpunitive. Furthermore, the Court held that, under intermediate scrutiny, the reporting statute was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2019\/04\/Iowa-Supreme-Court-Opinion.pdf\">Iowa Supreme Court Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=837006114825207751&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000006\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2019\/04\/Appellants-Brief.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2019\/04\/Appellees-Brief.pdf\">Appellee&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2019\/04\/Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Reply Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kbW3tfNCL9w\">Oral Argument Video<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li>\n<p class=\"asset-headline speakable-headline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.desmoinesregister.com\/story\/news\/2019\/04\/05\/iowa-supreme-court-sex-offenders-required-report-social-media-accounts-internet-first-amendment\/3379359002\/\"><span style=\"font-size: 12pt\">Des Moines Register &#8212; Iowa Supreme Court rules requiring sex offenders to report social media presence is not a First Amendment violation<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Iowa Supreme Court Opinion affirming the conviction of Appellant who was charged with violating Internet Identifier reporting requirements over challenges based on Ex Post Facto Clause and First Amendment grounds.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/04\/07\/iowa-v-aschbrenner-iowa-2019\/\" class=\"more-link\">Iowa v. Aschbrenner (Iowa 2019)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[14,67,36,35,69],"class_list":{"0":"post-1265","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-1st-amendment","8":"tag-8th-cir","9":"tag-ex-post-facto","10":"tag-internet-restrictions","11":"tag-iowa","12":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}