{"id":2916,"date":"2022-05-10T14:34:45","date_gmt":"2022-05-10T19:34:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2916"},"modified":"2022-05-10T14:34:45","modified_gmt":"2022-05-10T19:34:45","slug":"brown-v-maher-n-d-n-y-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/05\/10\/brown-v-maher-n-d-n-y-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Brown v. Maher (N.D.N.Y. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Brown v. Maher, No. 21-CV-1018 (N.D.N.Y. 2022)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> At the approximate age of 29, Plaintiff was arrested for having a two month long sexual relationship with a fifteen or sixteen year old girl. \u00a0Plaintiff ultimately pled guilty to Rape in the Third Degree and Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree. \u00a0He was sentenced to two years\u2019 imprisonment to be followed by ten years of post-release supervision. \u00a0As one of the conditions of his parole, Plaintiff was designated as a \u201csex offender.\u201d\u00a0 Along with this designation, Plaintiff\u2019s parole conditions prohibit him from contacting any person under the age of eighteen, and by extension, limit Plaintiff\u2019s ability to spend time with the children of his then-significant other (now-wife).<\/p>\n

In 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against three parole officers alleging that their restriction on his ability to spend time with his then-significant other’s children was a violation of his due process rights under \u00a7 1983. Plaintiff and his significant other were married in the Fall of 2022.\u00a0 In March 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to preliminarily enjoin defendants from finding him in violation of his parole if he moves in with his new wife and her three children (now his step-children).<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The District Court for the Northern District of New York granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that Plaintiff\u2019s action fell within scope of the Ex Parte Young<\/em> exception to state\u2019s Eleventh Amendment immunity, that Plaintiff\u2019s right to live with his wife was fundamental, that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, that he faced a likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored issuance of a preliminary injunction.\u00a0 In so holding, the Court noted that Plaintiff made an extensive showing that he posed little to no danger to his stepchildren and Defendants failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff posed a risk.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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