{"id":3071,"date":"2022-11-18T08:42:51","date_gmt":"2022-11-18T14:42:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=3071"},"modified":"2022-11-18T08:42:51","modified_gmt":"2022-11-18T14:42:51","slug":"state-v-mcmahon-la-ct-app-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/11\/18\/state-v-mcmahon-la-ct-app-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. McMahon (La. Ct. App. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">State v. McMahon, No. 54,740-KA (La. Ct. App. 2022)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Defendant, who was on supervised probation for a sex offense, was convicted of unlawful use of a social networking site, in violation of La. R.S. 14:91.5, after a probation officer searched Defendant\u2019s phone and found applications for Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram.<\/p>\n<p>Defendant now appeals arguing that Louisiana\u2019s statute prohibiting use of social networking sites by certain categories of required registrants is unconstitutional because it infringes on his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Citing <em>Packingham v. North Carolina<\/em>, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017), he argues that the statute, as written, is not narrowly written to prevent illicit communications between sex offenders and minors but is a blanket restriction on First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong> The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit rejected Defendant\u2019s arguments and affirmed the lower court\u2019s decision. In so holding, the Court distinguished the Louisiana statute from the North Carolina statute found to be unconstitutional in <em>Packingham<\/em>, noting that Louisiana\u2019s statute applied more narrowly to a subset of required registrants and that the statute more narrowly defined the term \u201csocial networking site\u201d. For those reasons, the Court concluded that La. R.S. 14:91.5 does not violate the First Amendment rights of those required sex offense registrants who are prevented from using social networking sites.<\/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\/2022\/11\/Louisiana-Court-of-Appeals-Opinion-1.pdf\">Louisiana Court of Appeals Opinion<\/a> | view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=5260829888108040987&amp;q=State+v.+McMahon&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,24&amp;as_ylo=2022\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Louisiana Court of Appeals opinion concluding that Louisiana statute, La. R.S. 14:91.5, which prohibits the use of social networking sites by select categories of required registrants, is narrowly tailored and does not violate First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/11\/18\/state-v-mcmahon-la-ct-app-2022\/\" class=\"more-link\">State v. McMahon (La. Ct. App. 2022)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1303,"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":[235,35,134,294],"class_list":{"0":"post-3071","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-first-amendment","8":"tag-internet-restrictions","9":"tag-louisiana","10":"tag-social-networking","11":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3071","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\/1303"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3071"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3071\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}