Judge rejects claim that the Arizona sex offender registry violates constitutional rights

A federal judge shot down a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s sex offender registration laws, ruling that the state is justified in tracking the residencies and online identities of people convicted of crimes against children.

“It is plain that Arizona has a significant governmental interest in protecting children and preventing sex offender recidivism,” Judge Stephen McNamee wrote in a Nov. 6 order.

Two years ago, a man convicted of sexual conduct with a minor in 2016 filed a lawsuit against multiple sex offender registration statutes, arguing that they violate his free speech and due process rights. The man, who was granted anonymity by the court due to his fear of receiving threats of violence, is referred to as John Doe. He sought to nullify laws that require him to register as a sex offender for life, report any online identifiers he uses and register his residency every time he stays in a new county for three days or more. 

Online identifier reporting requirement

Under Arizona law, a person convicted of a crime against a minor must present themselves to the sheriff’s department of the county they live in to be fingerprinted and registered as a sex offender. During that time, they must also share every name they’re known by, the car they drive, if they have legal custody of a child, their address and any online identifier they use, along with every website that identifier is used on. 

Doe claimed that requiring him to share his online usernames and activity is tantamount to infringing on his freedom of speech, and said that he worried it could be used to expose his identity to the public. But McNamee rebutted that Arizona law doesn’t allow for the public disclosure of any personal information tied to the online identifiers sex offenders use. The only way the two could be linked is if a person has a lawful reason for asking for it and submits a sex offender’s fingerprints to the sheriff’s office with that request. 

McNamee also disagreed that the law infringes on Doe’s free speech rights, pointing out that the law doesn’t make any attempt to restrain what he says online. Instead, the law merely seeks to monitor where sex offenders engage online. 

“Although Arizona’s registry scheme makes speaker-based distinctions, the reporting requirements themselves are content neutral,” McNamee wrote, adding: “Arizona’s internet identifier reporting requirements do not bar Doe from engaging in online discourse.”

Lifetime registration

Doe is classified as a level one sex offender, the lowest of three tiers. In his lawsuit, he argued that Arizona’s law requiring all sex offenders to register for life, without regard for their classification levels, fits the definition for cruel and unusual punishment and violates his right to due process, because he can’t contest that requirement in court. Doe argued that, as a level one offender, his risk of recidivism is lower than those in other tiers, and he should be able to challenge the mandate to register for life because of that. 

But McNamee noted that Arizona’s lifetime registration requirement is triggered by a conviction, making any hearing centered around whether Doe should have to register as a sex offender for life moot because he already had his day in court. His conviction was a necessary precursor to his lifetime registration. 

“Registration was required by the fact of conviction as a sex offender, thus rendering any additional process superfluous,” McNamee wrote. 

Residency reporting requirements

Doe also challenged Arizona’s mandates regarding sex offender address notification. Two laws cover different parts of the address reporting requirements. One of them appears to address changes in residency, requiring sex offenders to report their address within 72 hours after changing it, or after “moving to or from the person’s residence or to a different county.” Doe has homes in two different counties, and said that he is forced to register each time he moves between the two, regardless of the length of time he spends at each, for fear of facing legal repercussions because the language in that statute is too vague.

But in court filings, Doe and his opponents in the case, Republican legislative leaders Warren Petersen and Steve Montenegro, agreed that the statute refers to an intent to move from one residence to another permanently, and shouldn’t apply to people with more than one home. Given that agreement, McNamee ruled that Doe’s argument that it is unconstitutionally vague didn’t need to be considered by the court. 

Legal challenge ignites political finger-pointing

The victory prompted a campaign opportunity for Petersen, who is running to be the Republican nominee for state attorney general. In a press release announcing the win, the Gilbert Republican criticized Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for not defending the laws in court, accusing her of “abandoning the state’s responsibility to safeguard communities.” Petersen and Montenegro, as the Senate President and House Speaker, intervened in the case. 

“The Legislature will always stand up for victims and protect our communities – when those elected to do so refuse to,” Petersen wrote. 

But that characterization is nothing more than a misleading political attack, Mayes’ spokesman, Richie Taylor, said. The Democrat was never a party in the lawsuit because Doe sued Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, who, at the time, was responsible for enforcing Arizona’s sex offender registration laws. 

Penzone declined to participate, noting that the job of a sheriff is limited to carrying out the laws. That’s when Petersen, the president of the state Senate, and then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Ben Toma jumped in. In his bid to cast Mayes as soft on crime, Petersen has increasingly mobilized the legislature to take on lawsuits that he later touts as proof that he is the better candidate. 

Taylor noted that, despite Petersen’s claims that Mayes isn’t interested in defending the state’s sex offender laws, she’s been involved in a different lawsuit seeking to topple new additions to them since last year. 

In 2024, lawmakers expanded the number of people who are posted to the state’s sex offender website to include more level one offenders and created a new requirement for sex offenders with children to report their child’s name and school. Months later, three people who would be affected by those laws filed a lawsuit claiming their civil rights are being infringed and questioning their constitutionality. The legal challenge, which is ongoing, aims to permanently block the laws.