Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Wednesday, March 27, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

‘No-trick-or-treat’ warning signs violate sex offenders’ rights, 11th Circuit rules

Finding that a Georgia sheriff’s office violated registered sex offenders’ First Amendment rights, the Atlanta-based appeals court ruled Halloween warning signs are a “classic example” of compelled government speech.

ATLANTA (CN) — A Georgia sheriff’s office violated the rights of a group of registered sex offenders when deputies put warning signs in front of their homes before Halloween, an 11th Circuit panel ruled Wednesday.

The Butts County Sheriff’s Office has said it was only looking out for the safety of area children when it began a policy in 2018 of putting signs in the yards of all 57 registered sex offenders in the county.

The signs read: “Warning! No Trick-or-Treat At This Address!! A Community Safety Message From Butts County Sheriff Gary Long.”

The signs were placed next to mailboxes or beside driveways over the objections of homeowners and residents. Deputies explained through leaflets and verbal warnings that removing or tampering with the signs is a criminal offense.

But a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court found that the warning signs are “a classic example” of compelled government speech and their placement violates homeowners’ First Amendment rights.

The ruling comes after a class of sex offenders led by Christopher Reed, Reginald Holden and Corey McClendon claimed in a lawsuit that they were unfairly required to appear to endorse the message on the signs.

Although the men won a court order in 2019 blocking deputies from putting out the signs that year, a Georgia federal judge ultimately ruled in favor of the sheriff in the case and refused to permanently block the policy.

U.S. Circuit Judge Marc Treadwell determined that the signs did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, finding that no reasonable observer could conclude that they agreed with the sign’s message.

But the 11th Circuit disagreed, ruling on Wednesday that Treadwell misinterpreted the law as requiring that those who see the sign believe that the homeowner has endorsed a government message that he is being forced to host.

In a 21-page opinion penned by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Hull, the panel ruled that “the sheriff required the use of private property as a stationary billboard for his own ideological message, ‘for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public.’”

The ruling quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1977 opinion in Wooley v. Maynard, which held that it was unconstitutional for the state of New Hampshire to prosecute a citizen for covering the state motto, “Live Free or Die,” on his license plate.

The panel also found that although the sheriff’s interest in protecting children from sexual abuse is “compelling,” the yard signs “are not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.”

According to the ruling, the sheriff’s office put the warning signs in front of the homes of all registered sex offenders in Butts County “without considering whether the state had classified any of them as posing an increased risk of recidivism.”

The panel points out that the county had no issues with any registered sex offenders having unauthorized contact with minors during Sheriff Long’s tenure and that the sex offender registry – which contains the name, address and photo of every registrant – is widely accessible.

“The sheriff has not provided any record evidence that the registrants in Butts County actually pose a danger to trick-or-treating children or that these signs would serve to prevent such danger,” wrote Hull, a Bill Clinton appointee.

A representative for the Butts County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

The appeals court also rejected arguments put forward by an attorney for the sheriff’s office during oral arguments in December that the signs were meant to be posted on rights-of-way owned by a government entity rather than on private property.

“Even assuming that the record established that the government owned the right of way in fee and the signs were placed in the right of way, Georgia law makes it ‘unlawful for any person to erect, place, or maintain within the dedicated right of way of any public road any sign, signal or other device’ unless authorized by a state law or a municipal ordinance,” Hull wrote.

According to the ruling, there is no law or county ordinance authorizing the sheriff to put the warning signs in the public rights-of-way.

The panel found that since McClendon and Reed both live in homes owned by their parents, a lower court must determine whether they have any right to complain about a sign displaying government speech on the property. However, the ruling indicates that both men plan to amend their complaint to add their parents as plaintiffs – a move which would settle the issue.

The sheriff will no longer be able to require Holden, who owns his own home, to display a sign in his yard relating to his sex offender status.

Hull was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judges William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, and Britt Grant, a Donald Trump appointee.

Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS
Categories / Appeals, Civil Rights, Government, Law

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...