Protect Yourself Against Vigilantes

YOUR LIFE ON THE LIST CHAPTER 8:
DEALING WITH SCAMS AND HARASSMENT
Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com
Last Update: 8 Nov. 2025

Note: This page contains most of the same information contained in Your Life on The List 2025 Edition. Internet tips constantly change because new technology changes. Thus, I advise you to preform a web browser search for tips if you need assistance on dealing with specific online safety issues. This page merely covers general tips on protecting yourself from scams and vigilantes specifically targeting “Registered Sex Offenders”. You can find info on some specific scammers and vigilante groups here:

https://oncefallen.com/vigilantes-and-scam-artists/

INTRODUCTION

Vigilante violence and scams targeting RPs is unfortunately a fairly common occurrence in American society. A 2009 study by Jill Levenson and Richard Tewksbury entitled “Collateral Damage: Family Members of Sex Offenders” found that 44% of family members experience threats and harassment, 27% experienced property damage, and 7% were physically assaulted. OnceFallen’s Crimes Against Registrants Database (CARD) has found over 500 documented cases of vigilante crimes ranging from harassment and vandalism to assaults and over 200 murders of RPs (or in a few instances, innocent people mistaken for a Registrant). Many crimes against RPs may be unreported, since LEOs tend to treat many vigilante actions as a low priority. There have also been reports of nationwide scams attempting to extort money from RPs. It is important to recognize how to identify these potential threats to your safety and your money.

While the stats I noted sound scary, there are roughly a million RPs in the US, and so your chances of being murdered are still pretty low. Your mileage may vary. Discrimination in housing and employment present far heavier challenges, but once again, “your mileage may vary.” Most of the time, people may keep their hatred to themselves and you may be shunned quietly (such as simply not being invited to social gatherings) or passive aggressively (a mumbled insult from a safe distance or online.) Some of it may dissipate the longer you live in the neighborhood, provided you offer no reason to make your neighbors think you are a danger to the community; for example, being cordial to a neighbor’s kid may make some folks think you are “grooming,” even if your intent is simply not being a jerk.

ONLINE ACTIVITY

Those of you who have served long periods of time behind bars might underestimate how technologically “connected” our society has become. Modern technology allows us to meet new people, conduct business, and even turn on home appliances from anywhere in the world where a wireless connection to an Internet service exists. All that is required is an Internet-capable device like a “smartphone.” You might have to use a computer kiosk or go to a website or “get the app” to conduct business, including filling out job applications. Sadly, this means everyone from potential neighbors and employers to foreign scammers and online vigilantes can easily access your online registry information. Since most business is conducted online and many companies rely on programs rather than people to solve common issues, getting help for online problems is virtually impossible. It is your responsibility to protect yourself against scammers, trolls, and online vigilante groups.

Scammers

Online scams targeting RPs are now commonplace since your personal information is already online. Even if you are not listed publicly, vigilantes can still collect your personal data.

The Fake Registry Fee/Warrant Call/Letter: This is the most common scam is the most common scam targeting RPs. There are three main variants to this scam:

The scammer calls you and claims to be a LEO at your local registration office or a clerk of the local court. The scammer claims there is a warrant out on you for FTR or failure to pay your registration fees. The scammer will direct you to wire money to him immediately, pay in Bitcoin, or buy a pre-paid credit or gift card and turn over the credit card number) or you will be arrested. Other variations have included posing as another government agency, such as the US Census Bureau or the SSA, but using your registry status to verify it is you.
The scammer makes the same claims and demands, but wants to meet you in person at a public location like a parking lot.
The scammer forges official documents with false contact information and sends them by mail, but otherwise makes similar demands by mail (contact info, demand to wire money or pay with Bitcoin/prepaid cards).

If there is a warrant out for your arrest, the police will not call to let you know that. Also, if you live in a state where you must pay registry fees, you’ll be reminded to pay at the registration office, not by phone.

Private Registry Scams: Numerous private registry websites exist, including Homefacts.com and Family Watchdog. However, some private registry sites, like Offendex/SORArchives, are blatant scams that steal public registry information. For as much as $699, these extortion sites offer Registrants the opportunity to pay to remove the information from their websites. Of course, they simply create new websites and repeat the scam. In 2016, a jury awarded $325,000 to non-Registrants targeted by Chuck Rodrick and Brent Olsterblad, owners of the Offendex family of extortion, while Registrants targeted by the same duo received no compensation.

FBI Alert Virus: In this scam, a notice pops up claiming you are locked out of your computer by the “FBI” and accuses you of engaging in some form of illegal online activity like CP. It prompts you to pay to unlock your computer. This, of course, is a scam. The FBI didn’t lock your computer; instead your computer has received a type of virus called “ransomware.” As the name suggests, the scheme involves locking you out of certain computer functions (holding it as a virtual hostage) until you pay a fee. There are a few incarnations of this virus, and there are a number of sites offering tips on repairing computers infected with this virus online.

The Classic Scams: Registrants are desperate to be removed from the registry, so some scammers are offering dubious services, including guides for “legally avoiding the registry,” services for getting off the registry, or offering similar information for a price. However, some people are offering false information that could lead to arrest if you follow the bad advice. Check out the website and its owners and consider the content. Anything that sounds too good to be true is probably untrue. There is not an easy pathway or “life hack” to avoiding registration duties.

Scams Encouraging Vigilante Actions: In Oct. 2023, Fox 8 WGHP in NC reported police received multiple calls from residents who had been contacted by someone claiming to be a local cop. The scammer is telling residents that some SOs are violating their SO requirements and that they’ll receive a $5,000 check if they bring the SO into the Sheriff’s Dept. This is the only report I’ve seen but copycats could see this story and decide to do it.

Dating Scams and Entrapment busts: Persons who have been arrested due to an entrapment operation implemented by law enforcement agents (LEAs) should be familiar with this scam. A scammer, a private citizen vigilante (individual or group), a real teenager seeking to entrap you, or a Law Enforcement Officer sets up an account on an online dating site. Once contact is made, the scammer/vigilante/LEA may lead the potential target into a sexual conversation; at some point, the scammer/vigilante/LEA will claim they are underage. If communication continues, even if it is to say, “I’m not interested,” this may encourage the scammer/vigilante/LEA to pursue you further. You will likely be arrested if it is a LEA; vigilante groups and teenagers may instead harass, threaten, assault, and/or extort their targets, and may post these videos online, which may lead to further harassment.

Should you encounter a scammer/vigilante/LEA while perusing online dating profiles, the moment someone claims they are underage, immediately block the account; I’d also suggest reporting the account as violating the website’s Terms of Service (ToS), since people under age 18 are banned from online dating sites.

ONLINE VIGILANTES

Unfortunately, social media has emboldened people to communicate in a manner that most people would not stoop to in their normal lives. I’ve personally experienced numerous instances of facing negative criticism, instances of harassment, and even the occasional death threat while engaging in online activities. Online moral crusaders may engage in cyber-bullying a Registrant because he/she believes that all RPs are banned from social media or the Internet, or worse, accuse you of trying to lure minors simply based on your label.

Many RPs and their loved ones have experienced various forms of harassment, particularly online. Online harassment can be quite common but rarely leads to real life vigilante violence. Over the years, social media has allowed groups dedicated to harassing Registrants in their community to proliferate. Even law enforcement agencies have used social media to name and shame RPs.

Sadly, there is little recourse for online harassment. Police will claim an online threat is out of their jurisdiction or nothing can be done as the vigilante did not make a specific threat. This is untrue as many states have laws specifically outlawing harassing communications of any kind. In 2019, a news report from the Washington Examiner found Facebook’s Terms of Service specifically excluded people accused or convicted of sex offenses from protections against cyberbullying and death threats on their platform. (Facebook removed this specific exclusion from their Terms of Service in response to the Washington Examiner report, but still excludes RPs from using their services.) In addition, the social media outlets Facebook/Meta, Instagram (owned by Facebook), TikTok, and Nextdoor, as well as many dating sites like eHarmony or Match.com, officially exclude RPs from using their platforms, as explicitly noted in their terms of service. If you are attacked through social media and you report it, your account might be deleted instead. Social media companies, like all other businesses, also have the right to deny services to anyone who is not a member of a “protected class”, and they generally have immunity from attacks initiated through their online services.

Below are a few tips you can use when dealing with a cyber-stalker:

Remove personal information from all public profiles such as Facebook: It amazes me how easy I’ve been able to discover the identities of online vigilantes targeting me because the stalker connected their online vigilante profile to some real-world interest. It only takes one mistake to make a connection between a fake profile and a real profile. If I can do this rather easily, you can be assured vigilantes can find information about you just as easily. Honestly, social media brings out the worst in people, so NOT having a social media account may be better for your mental health. But if you feel you absolutely MUST have a social media profile, consider an alias without real-life info.
Maintain a separate activist account: If you are an activist, then create an activist profile separate from your personal or business accounts. You may also want to consider using an anonymous web browser like Tor, which masks your IP address. Some sophisticated individuals can trace you by IP addresses.
Watch Your Mouth: Be sure not to give out too much info. Be mindful that people can “out” you by such relatively mundane posts as a general interest (Example: If you like Skyline Chili then you probably live in or close to Cincinnati). Giving out TMI like specific birthdays, pictures of yourself or family on Facebook, or specifics when telling your story can reveal your identity. Instead of saying “On January 4th I was arrested in Dayton, Ohio,” you can say, “Last winter I was arrested in Ohio.” Watch out for catchphrases as well. If you say “that’s so radical” a lot, for example (a rarely used term these days unless you still watch TMNT), then a cyber-stalker may be able to figure out who you are by your speech.
Save all forms of communication, including chatlogs: There are many ways to save information. These days, most web browsers offer some sort of “screenshot” technology; for Firefox I used “Fireshot” and for Google Chrome I use “Webpage Screenshot.” You can also cut-and-paste information to a Word Document or even save the entire webpage to your computer.
DO NOT believe anyone in these groups is trying to help you. In fact, they are trying to obtain as much information as possible to use against you later or con you out of money. If a group offers you the opportunity to remove the information from their websites for a price or offers you the chance to plead your case to them, do not accept it.
Phone harassment: If this leads to phone harassment, trace every threatening call, even if you have to pay for it. You could block calls from unlisted numbers, and pressing *59 will keep a log in the phone company computers in case you need to call the police later. Also, in most cases you can record phone conversations; recording laws require only the consent of one party to record a conversation. Thus, you are one of the two parties in a phone conversation. I actually used my camcorder to tape a conversation in a civil case, which helped me win the case. If you own a smartphone, you can also find phone applications (“Apps”) to record phone conversations for free (with ads) or for a small fee to remove ads.
Take legal action (both civil and/or criminal): LEAs are rarely sympathetic or helpful to us when reporting harassment; in some cases, LEAs might blame you for starting a fight. (“You brought it upon yourself.”) Civil litigation can be expensive but in many cases, civil litigation may be the only deterrent if the person has any assets.

There is a difference between a “troll” and a “cyberstalker.” A troll (named for the fishing technique, not the mythical creature) merely posts negative comments to “get a rise out of you.” Most aren’t persistent unless they get a response. In most instances, simply ignoring the troll long enough deters them, since they will get bored of being ignored and will move on to the next intended victim.

Most trolls will be found through social media and message board interactions. These days, social media outlets, email service providers, and your phone all have the capacity to block an individual from contacting you directly. It is not foolproof but it will minimize the negative comments you might receive from a troll. Most of these websites provide a universal list of symbols accessed by scrolling your pointer to the icon then clicking to select it (or if your device has a touch screen, just touching the icon):

“Options” button: Symbolized by three horizontal dots. Clicking on this button will bring up a list of options, and that is often where you will find options for flagging/reporting an offensive account or the block button.
“Flagging/Reporting” button: It is an icon shaped like a flag on a pole. This button is used for reporting an offensive statement to the social media outlet. (Unfortunately, flagging a comment rarely leads to any kind of reprimand, since we are not a protected class of people; Facebook, in particular, has policies allowing bullying of people accused/convicted of sex offenses.)
“Block” button: The circle with a diagonal line through the center (the “no” symbol, like in the Ghostbusters logo) is the button used to “block” a person from seeing your social media profile or any comments you make, or simply block you from seeing their idiotic responses. Some sites might use a shield sign with or without an X symbol.

If these tactics do not deter the person from harassing you, or if the person takes the behavior “offline” by contacting you by other means (phone/text) you are dealing with a stalker.

RECORDING CONVERSATIONS

There are various reasons why you might want to record a conversation, such as when you have concerns that the person on the other side of the conversation is harassing you or setting you up, or if you are having issues with a Law Enforcement Agent (LEA). Generally, the First Amendment protects the right to record a police officer in public so long as it does not interfere with the officer’s duties and is not done secretly. Private Citizens have more protections than government agents.

Some laws do exist that may hinder your ability to record conversations. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511) requires one-party consent, which means you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. So, if someone calls you to harass you, or if wish to record interactions with a LEA or politician, you should be fine under federal law because in a direct communication, you are one party. Most states follow the federal rule, but 15 states require two-party consent under some circumstances (see below.)

If you are having a direct communication with someone, then you are a party to the conversation.
If you were listening in on a private conversation you are not considered a party to the conversation. You would need the consent of at least one party to record the conversation.

These states clearly or potentially require consent from all parties under some or all circumstances (Source: Justia, Recording Phone Calls and Conversations: 50-State Survey, Last reviewed October 2022. https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations/):

California: It is both a criminal and a civil penalty to record a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties, or without a notification of the recording to the parties via an audible beep at specific intervals. The California Supreme Court has defined a confidential conversation as one in which the parties have a reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or eavesdropping. See CA Penal Code § 632 (definition and penalty), § 637.2 (civil damages), Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (Cal. 2002), Cal. Pub. Util. Code Gen. Order 107-B(II)(A)
Connecticut: Prohibits recording phone calls without obtaining consent from all parties either in writing or at the beginning of the recording. A notification at the start of the call recording, or a warning tone at 15-second intervals will also suffice. Violations can lead to damages, costs, and/or attorney fees in a civil suit, but no criminal penalties. See CT Gen Stat § 53a-187 (definition), § 53a-189 (penalty), § 52-570d (civil definition and damages)
Delaware: At least one party must consent to recording in-person or phone conversations under DE law, though state statutes conflict somewhat. Under the state’s wiretapping law, it is lawful for someone to intercept a communication as long as they themselves or another party to the conversation consents, and if the interception does not serve to further criminal, tortious, or other unlawful activity. But under the state’s privacy law, which is older, all parties to a conversation must consent to recording. This is counterbalanced by a 1975 Delaware federal district court opinion, US v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Del. 1975), which interpreted the privacy law to reflect the federal rule that only one party needs to consent to recording. Violation of the wiretapping law is a felony, and can also provide the basis for actual and punitive damages in a civil suit. Violation of the privacy law is a misdemeanor. See 11 DE Code §2402 (wiretapping definition and criminal penalty), §2409 (wiretapping civil liability), §1335 (privacy violation definition and penalty)
Florida: It is illegal to record an in-person or telephone conversation without the consent of all parties. Violating this law constitutes either a misdemeanor or a third degree felony depending on the offender’s intent and conviction history, and can also subject the offender to civil damages. FL Stat §934.03
Illinois: The state eavesdropping statute formerly required all parties to consent to the recording of any conversation or communication, or potentially face felony charges and/or civil liability. In 2014 the Illinois Supreme Court declared the law overly broad and unconstitutional. The statute was amended later that year to allow recording in public places, but still requires all parties to consent to recording conversations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. See 720 ILCS § 5/14-2 (definition), § 5/14-4 (penalty), § 5/14- 6 (civil damages), People v. Clark, 6 N.E.3d 154 (Ill. 2014)
Maryland: All parties must consent to the recording of oral or telephone conversations under Maryland law, though the courts have interpreted this to be limited to situations where the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording with criminal or tortious intent is illegal regardless of consent. Violations are both a criminal and civil penalty. See: MD Cts and Jud Pro Code § 10-402 (definition and penalty), § 10-410 (civil damages), Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)
Massachusetts: It is illegal to record any oral, telephone, or wire communication without the consent of all parties. Violators are subject to felony charges, fines, jail time, and/or civil damages. See MA Gen L Ch 272 § 99 (definition, penalty, civil damages)
Michigan: The eavesdropping statute prohibits recording in-person and telephone conversations without consent from all parties, though one court has interpreted it as requiring consent from only one party. Violations are considered a felony, and carry potential fines, imprisonment, and civil damages. See MI Comp L § 750.539c (definition and penalty), 750.539h (civil damages), Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982)
Montana: Prohibits recording a conversation with a hidden device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all the parties to the conversation. (Consent is not specifically required.) There are some exceptions, such as public officials and public meetings. A violation may lead to fines, jail time, or both. See MT Code § 45-8-213 (definition and penalty)
Nevada: It is illegal to secretly record an oral communication without the consent of at least one party. The Nevada Supreme Court has held that all parties must consent to the recording of a telephonic conversation. Illegal recording is a felony and carries the potential of civil damages as well. See NV Rev Stat § 200.620, § 200.650 (definitions), § 200.690 (penalty and civil damages), Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998)
New Hampshire: it is illegal to record an in-person or telephone conversation without the consent of all parties. However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that a party essentially consented to a recording when the overall circumstances demonstrated that they knew they were being recorded. Illegal recording is a felony unless the person recording was a party to the conversation or had the consent of a party, in which case it is a misdemeanor. Violators may also be subject to civil liability. See NH Rev Stat § 570-A:2 (definition and penalty), § 570-A:11 (civil damages), New Hampshire v. Locke, 761 A.2d 376 (N.H. 1999)
Oregon: It is legal to record telephone conversations with the consent of at least one party, but recording in-person conversations requires the consent of all parties except for in certain circumstances, such as when all parties reasonably should have known they were being recorded. Illegal recording is a misdemeanor that can also give rise to civil damages. See OR Rev Stat § 165.540 (definition and penalty), § 133.739 (civil damages)
Pennsylvania: It is a felony to record an oral or telephone communication without the consent of all parties. Offenders are also subject to civil liability. 18 PA Cons Stat § 5703, § 5704 (definition and penalty), § 5725, § 5747 (civil damages)
Vermont: Vermont has not enacted a specific statute to address consent for recording conversations. However, the Vermont Supreme Court has held that it is an unlawful invasion of privacy for law enforcement officers to secretly make a warrantless recording of a conversation inside a person’s home. Vermont v. Geraw, 795 A.2d 1219 (Vt. 2002)
Washington: Requires the consent of all parties to legally record in-person or telephone conversations. Consent is considered to have been obtained via a reasonably clear announcement made to all parties during the recording. Violations are considered a gross misdemeanor and can also lead to civil damages. WA Rev Code § 9.73.030 (definition), § 9.73.080 (penalty), § 9.73.060 (civil damages)

Note that in many states, consent requirements only apply in situations where the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. not in a public place). Further, what constitutes “consent” in a given jurisdiction can vary in terms of whether it must be expressed or if it can be implied based on the circumstances. In order for communication to be considered confidential, the conversation must be intended to be private and held in private. If the conversation was had in a public place where others could overhear it, the conversation wouldn’t be considered protected. This also applies to online communications; email or private messages may have protection, but communications posted on the public part of a website should be fair game. This means you can collect information posted on a public forum for potential litigation against those who are harassing you.

REAL-WORLD HARASSMENT

Online harassment can be easy to ignore, but harassment from people in your community is a serious issue. There are times a neighbor can engage in a certain activity that is intended as harassment but is allowed by law, such as protesting in front of your house or posting a sign in his/her yard alerting them a Registrant lives next door. Many states even allow neighborhood groups to pass out fliers. In Suffolk Co., NY, the victim advocate group “Parents For Megan’s Law” had been paid by the county to conduct compliance checks, a function typically allowed only by the police.

Many states place bold disclaimers stating it is illegal to use information from the registry to engage in harassment or other crimes against RPs, but rare is the prosecution of the vigilante.

Still, there are ways we can protect ourselves legally since many of us cannot possess firearms. Here are a few suggestions:

Install cameras/home security system: Camera equipment has gotten smaller, cheaper, and easier to install. (Even a high-end security system can be found for under $300.) Modern technology has advanced to the point where high definition (HD) cameras are small, inexpensive, and most of all, wireless. Many security cameras can connect to a smart phone even away from home. If you have a harassing neighbor, it would be perfect to catch them in the act.
Get a dog: If you have the space, invest in a large dog. Many people fear guard dogs. At the least, a barking dog will alert you to possible intruders.
Learn Self-defense: Take up MMA, boxing, or other martial arts courses
Know the weapons laws in your state: While it is illegal to possess a firearm as a felon, other weapons are allowed or prohibited depending on the state. For example, a felon cannot possess a firearm, a knife (with a blade four inches or longer) or brass knuckles in Nebraska. However, crossbows are legal, as are many kinds of medieval weaponry. A full discussion of this is outside the scope of this guide. However, it should be noted that it is possible to use a firearm in self-defense under specific circumstances. To establish a necessity defense, a defendant must prove that:
a. There was a specific threat of significant, imminent danger;
b. There was an immediate necessity to act;
c. There was no practical alternative to the act;
d. The defendant didn’t cause or contribute to the threat;
e. He or she acted out of necessity at all times; and
f. The harm caused wasn’t greater than the harm prevented.
Learn the laws regarding self-defense for your state: Each state varies on the amount of force you are allowed to use and under which circumstances force can be used. Although some states use a blend of doctrines, self-defense laws generally fall into the following three categories:
a. Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to your home, place of work, etc. These laws are utilized in over half of US States.
b. Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat before using deadly force if you are in your home or yard (some states include a place of work and occupied vehicles)
c. Duty to Retreat: Duty to retreat from a threatening situation if you can do so with complete safety.

According to the report “Self Defense and “Stand Your Ground”, National Conference of State Legislatures, 9/23/2025, (https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground):

Currently, at least 31 states, Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands recognize, by statute or court case, that there is no duty to retreat in any place in which one is lawfully present or has the right to be: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
New Jersey and Rhode Island have both established by case law that there is no duty to retreat when defending one’s home, but the duty does apply outside the home.
Eight states—California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont and Washington—permit the use of deadly force in self-defense through judicial decisions or jury instructions.
Pennsylvania in 2011 expanded the use of deadly force outside one’s home or vehicle. It provides that, one cannot use deadly force unless he has reasonable belief of imminent death or injury or kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, and either he or she cannot retreat safely, or the attacker displays or uses a lethal weapon.
Idaho’s law, passed in 2018, expanded the definition of justifiable homicide to include not only defending one’s home against an intruder, but also defending one’s place of employment or an occupied vehicle.
New Jersey and Rhode Island have both established by case law that there is no duty to retreat when defending one’s home, but the duty does apply outside the home.
Eight states—California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont and Washington—permit the use of deadly force in self-defense through judicial decisions or jury instructions.
Pennsylvania in 2011 expanded the use of deadly force outside one’s home or vehicle. It provides that, one cannot use deadly force unless he has reasonable belief of imminent death or injury or kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, and either he or she cannot retreat safely, or the attacker displays or uses a lethal weapon.
Idaho’s law, passed in 2018, expanded the definition of justifiable homicide to include not only defending one’s home against an intruder, but also defending one’s place of employment or an occupied vehicle.

Security System Concerns

Home security cameras and surveillance systems can be a double-edged sword; footage from your own cameras could be subject to searches by law enforcement agents (LEAs). LEAs had been reportedly acquiring footage from Ring cameras (a private doorbell camera made by Amazon connected to the internet) without search warrants to obtain footage of suspects for years. Following media criticism, Ring altered their policies in 2024; LEAs seeking footage Ring surveillance videos must submit a formal legal request to the company, rather than soliciting footage directly from users through the app. But this means LEAs can still obtain footage through Ring. This could become problematic for PRs concerned about being targeted for government surveillance. There are other surveillance companies that provide cameras using mobile phone data instead of WiFi, such as Arlo or Reolink, but there is no guarantee that these are not subject to warrantless searches as well.

A 2024 ruling may put your privacy in further jeopardy. In US v Hay, No. 22-3276 (10th Cir 2024), the 10th Circuit upheld Hay’s Kansas conviction of 10 counts of stealing gov’t property and 6 counts of wire fraud as part of a scheme to defraud the Veteran’s Administration by exaggerating his disability. As part of its investigation, VA agents installed a pole camera across the street from his house to film his activities for 68 days straight. “Mr. Hay had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a view of the front of his house…As video cameras proliferate throughout society, regrettably, the reasonable expectation of privacy from filming is diminished.”

WEAPONS AND ARMOR

Pepper Spray: According to the website MDCreekmore.com, as of 2019, six states – CA, FL, MA, MN, NJ, and NY all prohibit those convicted of felonies and/or assault (which I assume would include sexual assault) are prohibited from carrying pepper spray. (See https://mdcreekmore.com/pepper-spray-laws-by-state-a-simple-cheat-sheet-with-all-you-need-to-know/)

Body Armor: Under 18 USC § 931, anyone convicted of a “crime of violence” (as defined by 18 USC §16) in any US court cannot use or possess body armor unless the person wearing the vest is an employee who is doing so in order to perform a lawful business activity and who has obtained prior written certification from the employer. Nearly every state simply enforces the federal laws on body armor. So far, unsuccessful court challenges to this rule include 2nd Amdt., vagueness, and interstate commerce (the latter because it can be successfully argued parts were imported from out of the state). This brings up two possible arguments, the “necessity” defense and the argument that not all SOs committed violent acts. (Neither argument has been tried in court.) More research is being conducted on this issue. Background checks are not required for purchase, so while you can easily buy one online, do so at your own risk.

Crossbows/archery tools: There are currently no known laws against owning bows and arrows, though some states may prohibit those convicted of felonies from using bows for hunting.

Blades and other handheld weapons: State laws vary on the legality of carrying bladed weapons. Some laws may prohibit those convicted of felonies from possessing knives longer than a particular length (generally 3.5 to 4 inches) or a specific type of knife (swords, daggers, double-bladed weapons, spring-loaded, ”switchblades,” ballistic knives, or stilettos). Any weapon that can be considered “deadly” may be illegal. Some states may include other handheld weapons like brass knuckles or bludgeoning tools. For more info on state knife laws, visit: https://www.akti.org/state-knife-laws/

Firearms: Due to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, t is illegal for anyone convicted of felony offenses to possess handguns, but a select few may be able to regain the right to possess firearms. For a more complete breakdown of firearm rights laws and restoration of firearms rights after a conviction, visit: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/chart-1-loss-and-restoration-of-civil-rights-and-firearms-privileges/

It is possible to own a “black powder firearm.” “Because black powder firearms are considered antique firearms, the possession of a black powder firearm by a person subject to federal firearms disabilities is not prohibited by the GCA. However, a person subject to federal firearms disabilities may not receive and/or possess black powder firearms that can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof which are classified as “firearms.” Additionally, state law may prohibit the possession of a black powder firearm by persons who are not federally prohibited from possessing them. Please contact your state’s Attorney General’s Office for information regarding black powder firearms.” (Source: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/can-person-prohibited-law-possessing-firearm-own-black-powder-firearm)

[See also 18 USC §921(a)(3) and (16); 27 CFR §478.11 and §478.141(d)]

LEOs AND THE “PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE”

LEOs have often shown a general reluctance to file complaints when the victim is a Registrant. Police officers are usually covered by the “public duty doctrine,” which basically states the police have an obligation to protect the public rather than any individual. In other words, police have a lot of discretion in deciding to investigate a complaint. However, there are exceptions to this doctrine which can make police officers civilly responsible for failing to protect you as a citizen. (See Karen J. Kruger, “Duty to All- Duty to No One: Examining the Public Duty Doctrine and Its Exceptions.” The Police Chief, IACP, May 2007, www.policechiefmagazine.org).

“Danger Creation” Exception: A complainant must show that the government’s action or inaction “affirmatively placed the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Gross negligence does fall under this category.
“Special-Relationship Exception:” A principle of law that allows for suits based on negligent police protection where the plaintiff can demonstrate that there existed a special relationship between the injured person and the police. Generally, such a relationship will be found “where the government singles out a particular party from the general public and affords that person special treatment.” I’m not fond of calling the relationship between RPs and LEOs “special,” but it may be worth it in cases of gross negligence by the police.

If you’d rather not deal with the courts, try contacting other Law Enforcement agencies, the county prosecutor’s office, or even the state attorney general’s office for consultation.