{"id":554,"date":"2017-10-27T11:23:03","date_gmt":"2017-10-27T16:23:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=554"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:51:42","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:51:42","slug":"doe-v-tilley-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-tilley-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Tilley (E.D. Ky. 2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\" style=\"text-align: center\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Doe v. Commonwealth ex rel. Tilley, 283 F.Supp.3d 608 (E.D. Ky. 2017)<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>Nature of case.<\/strong>\u00a0Civil rights lawsuit. Doe filed a \u00a7 1983 civil suit on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, facially challenging Kentucky state statutes which prohibited (1) anyone on the sex offender registry from access to social media and (2) alleging that Kentucky&#8217;s requirement that people on the registry provide internet identifiers was so vague as to be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>Holding.<\/strong> Kentucky&#8217;s statutes were declared unconstitutional by the trial court. Kentucky&#8217;s social media ban was a violation of the 1st Amendment in line with the\u00a0<em>Packingham<\/em> decision, and the reporting requirement was void for vagueness.<\/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\/2017\/10\/doe-v-tilley-opinion.pdf\">Memorandum Opinion and Order<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/GH-S_KY-Memo-IN-support-of-PI.ECF-FILED.pdf\">Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Memo-in-support-of-supplemental.pdf\">Memorandum of Law in Support of Supplemental Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.kentucky.com\/news\/politics-government\/article179967661.html\">Judge strikes down Kentucky\u2019s social media ban for sex offenders<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Federal civil rights lawsuit striking down Kentucky state social media ban and internet identifier registration requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-tilley-2017\/\" class=\"more-link\">Doe v. Tilley (E.D. Ky. 2017)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"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":[15,14,66,18,35,206,17],"class_list":{"0":"post-554","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-14th-amendment","8":"tag-1st-amendment","9":"tag-6th-cir","10":"tag-internet-identifiers","11":"tag-internet-restrictions","12":"tag-kentucky","13":"tag-void-for-vagueness","14":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554","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\/242"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}