State v. Smathers

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals considers a facial First Amendment challenge to statutory requirements that registered sex offenders report online identifiers to the registering sheriff. The court holds that the requirements implicate First Amendment activity but are content-neutral and satisfy intermediate scrutiny, rejecting the defendant’s overbreadth and narrow-tailoring arguments. The court finds no error in the defendant’s conviction for failing to report an online identifier and being a habitual felon.

Holdings

1. The reporting requirements indirectly burden First Amendment activity because online identifiers can be used for protected speech and anonymous expression, and requiring disclosure to the government and permitting certain public access creates a likely deterrent effect.
2. The online-identifier reporting requirements are content-neutral because they regulate the type or format of an identifier without reference to the ideas or views expressed.
3. North Carolina's online-identifier reporting and associated disclosure provisions are facially constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.
4. The term "user ID" has a broad, plain, common, and unambiguous meaning and is not limited to identifiers for private, person-to-person communication platforms.
5. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions to dismiss because the challenged statutory requirements are facially constitutional and defendant did not bring an as-applied challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether North Carolina's statutory requirements that registered sex offenders report online identifiers facially violate the First Amendment.
2. Whether the online-identifier reporting and disclosure provisions are unconstitutionally overbroad.
3. Whether the challenged provisions are content-neutral and satisfy intermediate scrutiny.
4. Whether the statutory term "user ID" should be narrowly construed under the noscitur a sociis canon.
5. Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motions to dismiss the failure-to-report charge.

Disposition

affirmed