State v. Packingham
748 S.E.2d 146
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant, a registered sex offender, was convicted for accessing a commercial social networking site under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5 (2011).
- Registry serves to protect the public and aid law enforcement by tracking sex offenders and their online activity.
- Statute defines a commercial social networking site and sets broad prohibitions on access by registered offenders.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the charge as unconstitutional; the trial court and a prior panel denied facial challenges, while this Court later denied review.
- Defendant was convicted in 2012; sentence included imprisonment suspended and probation; appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 14-202.5 violate the First Amendment? | Gerard contends the law is unconstitutional under First Amendment rights. | The statute is overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored to a substantial government interest. | Unconstitutional on its face and as applied; vacates judgment. |
| Is § 14-202.5 narrowly tailored to combat the evil it targets? | The law targets only offenders posing a risk to minors and should be limited accordingly. | Broad, uniform ban is unnecessarily expansive and not restricted to those at risk. | Not narrowly tailored; overbroad application to all registered offenders. |
| Is § 14-202.5 vague, failing to provide fair notice? | The definition of ‘commercial social networking site’ and ‘access’ lack clear boundaries. | Law is sufficiently definite to deter and regulate conduct. | Unconstitutionally vague on its face; overbroad as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Prosecutor, 705 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2013) (unconstitutional social media ban on offenders—overbreadth not narrowly tailored)
- Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (content-neutrality and intermediate scrutiny framework)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (ample alternative channels and narrowly tailored reach)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (narrow tailoring requires targeting the evil with no broader ban)
- Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) ( First Amendment scrutiny for regulated speech rights; notice and tailoring considerations)