May a circuit judge publish in a newspaper the names, photographs and addresses of people convicted of sex offenses in the judge’s court?

Plain-English summary

A circuit judge proposed to publish the names, photographs and addresses of people convicted of sex offenses in his court, potentially with the district attorney paying the cost. The Commission concluded the Canons did not permit the plan.

Canon 5C(6) restricted use or disclosure of information acquired in a judicial capacity for purposes unrelated to judicial duties. The Commission treated community notification under the then-cited Alabama statutes as a law enforcement function, rather than an ordinary judicial duty.

The Commission also found the proposal would create an improper appearance of joint judicial and law enforcement work and cast doubt on impartiality in sex offense cases and later proceedings. District attorney funding would intensify the independence concern but was not necessary to it.

In practice

The holding covers the judge’s proposed newspaper notices about convictions in the judge’s own court, including the proposed district attorney funding.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge publish the notices personally?

A: No. The Commission found the proposal impermissible.

Q: Would paying for publication without district attorney funds resolve the concern?

A: No. The Commission said the improper perception would remain even without district attorney funding.

Q: Who did the cited statute assign community notification to?

A: The opinion describes notification by the police or sheriff, depending on community size, and potentially by the Department of Public Safety.

Background and rules framework

Canon 5C(6) addresses information obtained in a judicial capacity. Canons 1, 2A, 3C(1), and 4 supplied the opinion’s independence and impartiality analysis. The opinion cites Ala. Code §§ 15-20-20.1 and 15-20-25 as then-operative notification provisions.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 1, 2A, 3C(1), 4, and 5C(6)

Statutes:

• Ala. Code 1975, §§ 15-20-20.1 and 15-20-25

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 03-821
• New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 01-14

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 05-854: Spouse as Counsel in a Related School Incident
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 05-855: Remote Prosecution, Complaints and Former Ties

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 05-853

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JUNE 24, 2005 ADVISORY OPINION 05-853
PUBLISHING SEX CRIME CONVICTIONS
ISSUE
Do the canons of judicial ethics permit a
circuit judge to publish in a local newspaper
the names, pictures and addresses ofpersons
convicted of sex offenses in his court?
Answer: No.
FACTS
A circuit judge proposes to publish in a local
newspaper the names, pictures and addresses
of persons convicted of sex offenses in his
court. If this is permissible, he further
proposes payment of the costs of this
publication by the district attorney, and
informing the public ofthis notification plan
through the media.
DISCUSSION
The proposed conduct is addressed most
specifically in Canon 5C(6), which states that
information acquired by a judge in his
judicial capacity should not be used or
disclosed by him for any purpose not related
to his judicial duties.
Judicial duties have not historically included
publicizing the identity and residence of
persons convicted in the judge's court, nor is
such publication intrinsically a judicial
function. Rather, this has been recognized as
a law enforcement function, enhancing law
enforcement agencies' efforts to protect their
communities, to conduct investigations, and
to quickly apprehend offenders. Ala. Code
1975, §15-20-20.1. Under the procedures estab­
lished by the Alabama legislature, commu­
nity notification of sex offenders is provided
by the police department or the sheriff, de­
pending on the size of the community, and
may also be made by the Department ofPub­
lic Safety. Ala. Code 1975, §15-20-25.
More generally, the proposed conduct raises
concerns involving two of the overarching
principles governing the conduct of the
judiciary recognized in the canons ofjudicial
ethics: independence and impartiality.
Canon 1 requires judges to uphold the inde­
pendence ofthejudiciary, recognizing thatan
independent and honorable judiciary is
"indispensable to justice in our society," and
directing that the provisions in the canons be
construed and applied to further this objec­
tive. The necessity of impartiality, both in
fact and appearance, is recognizedthroughout
the remaining canons. For example, Canon
2A requires a judge to conduct himself at all
times in a manner that promotes confidence
in the impartiality of the judiciary, Canon
3C(1) requires disqualification of a judge
whenever his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned, and Canon 4 allows activities
to improve the law, the legal system, and the
administration ofjustice only so long as they
do not cast doubt on the judge's capacity to
decide impartially any issue that may come
before him.
In the opinion ofthe Commission, the dissem­
ination by a judge of information about per­
sonsconvicted inthejudge's court would tend
to create an improper perception that the
judge and law enforcement work together
rather than independently from one another.
The situation would move beyond perception
to actuality if the costs of publication were
paid by the district attorney, but an improper
perception would be created even if the dis­
trict attorney were not f'mancially involved.
The notification plan proposed would erode
the perception ofjudicial independence that
Canon 1recognizes as central to proper judi­
cial conduct. See Advisory Opinion 03-821 (in
which the Commission found an improper
appearance of a joint judicial/district attor­
ney operation).
The Commission is also of the opinion that
the notification plan proposed would cast
doubt on the judge's impartiality, both in sex
ADVISORY OPINION 05-853
PAGE 2
offense cases generally and in the specific
cases publicized. Since post conviction
proceedings ordinarily are heard by the trial
judge, this would have a significant
detrimental impact on judicial
administration.
The New York Advisory Committee on
Judicial Ethicsaddressed a similarinquiryin
its Opinion 01-14. The New York judge asked
whether it was ethically permissible for his
court's web site to contain a link that
facilitated transfer to another web site
maintained by a Megan's Law advocacy
group. The Megan's Law site listed, among
other things, registered sex offenders by
name and county of residence. Noting that
the New York Rules Governing Judicial
Conduct require that judges maintain the
independence and impartiality of the
judiciary, and that the enforcement of
Megan's Law and the dissemination of
authorized information regarding sex
offenders is a function of law enforcement
agencies, the Advisory Committee concluded
that it was inappropriate for the court to
provide the web link. The Committee found
that maintaining this link to a group
pursuing a law enforcement function "would
tend to derogate from the independence ofthe
judiciary and could impair public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality ofthe court."
It is the opinion of the Commission that the
canons of judicial ethics do not permit a
circuit judge to publish in a local newspaper
the names, pictures and addresses ofpersons
convicted ofsex offenses in his court.
REFERENCES
Advisory Opinion 03-821.
Alabama CanonsofJudicial Ethics, Canons 1,
2A, 3C(I), 4 and 5C(6).
Ala. Code 1975, §15-20-20.1, et seq.
New York Advisory Committee on Judicial
Ethics, Opinion 01-14.
This opinion is adVisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
thejudgewho requested theopinionpursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box 303400,
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.: (334)
242-4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail:
[email protected].