{"id":1819,"date":"2020-10-28T12:51:44","date_gmt":"2020-10-28T17:51:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1819"},"modified":"2020-10-28T12:01:09","modified_gmt":"2020-10-28T17:01:09","slug":"reed-v-long-m-d-ga-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/10\/28\/reed-v-long-m-d-ga-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Reed v. Long (M.D. Ga. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Reed v. Long, No. 19-cv\u2013385 (M.D. Ga. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Several individuals who were required to register as sex offenders pursuant to Georgia law brought a putative class action lawsuit against Georgia sheriff who had planned to place signs in their yards for Halloween designating their homes as “no trick or treat” locations. Plaintiffs were threatened with arrest if they removed the signs, and were prohibited from posting signage contesting the designation. Plaintiffs brought their claim pursuant to the First Amendment, and received a preliminary injunction barring the placement of the signs in 2019. As the lawsuit proceeded, both parties moved for summary judgment on the claims.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Federal district court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment with the exception of a narrow Takings claim. Broadly, the court found that the placement of the signs was not compelled speech under the First Amendment and that the Plaintiffs’ other claims were barred by either Qualified or Sovereign Immunity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n