On Sunday, April 22, 2018, James Cornelio was arrested in his Connecticut home after a judge signed a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Cornelio was charged with a class D felony, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. What was his crime? Mr. Cornelio did not include an email address—that he had used to communicate with a state police officer—on a proper verification form. Mr. Cornelio then found himself tangled in the growingly complex and constitutionally questionable web of sex offender registry requirements: mandated disclosure of Internet identifiers.
Despite over ninety-one percent of Americans using the Internet today, one would be hard-pressed to precisely define what an “Internet identifier” is. Does “Internet identifier” just mean an email address or a username, with or without a password? Does it mean the IP address or original source of where online activity is coming from? Even if one could precisely define what an “Internet identifier” is, the challenge to determine when it must be disclosed by sex offenders is far greater.
For a legal definition, surveying the fifty states will not answer these questions either, as jurisdictions differ in their definitions of “Internet identifier.” For example, Florida defines an “Internet identifier” as “any designation, moniker, screen name, username, or other name used for self-identification to send or receive social Internet communication.” Does this mean an individual, subject to reporting requirements, who creates a New York Times online account must disclose such an account or risk criminal penalty? What about someone who sets up a smart refrigerator, which connects directly to the manufacturer through the Internet for twenty-four-seven support? And what happens if one must create a new “Internet identifier” for work, school, or other (legal) personal purposes, such as a workplace online username which can only be accessed at the job site? What is the appropriate legal timeframe for sex offenders to inform law enforcement of their Internet identifiers? A month? A day? Thirty minutes?
How did we get here? Why does it matter so much to First Amendment rights? What is the proper remedy for balancing the need to protect the public from dangerous predators and safeguarding the constitutional rights of those we deem most contemptible? Section II of this Note offers the historical context of sex offender registry (“registry” or “registries”) laws over time, offering insight into how Internet identifier requirements deviated from the traditional goals of registries. Section III follows, establishing the essential framework of the constitutional issues with an assessment of relevant First Amendment jurisprudence. Section III acts as a springboard for Section IV, which analyzes recent caselaw and ultimately shows how many Internet identifier laws today are unconstitutional. Section V paves a pathway for action, providing solutions to remedy current unconstitutional laws. This Note offers three potential solutions, with the final one seeking the perfect balance between the want for greater public safety and the need for safeguarding essential civil liberties. Finally, this Note concludes with Section VI, a final appeal to stand up for those we might otherwise cast aside.