Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

offender,  petitioner  was  barred  under  §14–202.5  from
gaining access to commercial social networking sites. 

In  2010,  a  state  court  dismissed  a  traffic  ticket  against 
petitioner.  In response, he logged on to Facebook.com and 
posted the following statement on his personal profile: 

“Man  God  is  Good!    How  about  I  got  so  much  favor 
they  dismissed  the  ticket  before  court  even  started?
No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise
be to GOD, WOW!  Thanks JESUS!”  App. 136. 

At  the  time,  a  member  of  the  Durham  Police  Depart-
ment was investigating registered sex offenders who were
thought to be violating §14–202.5.  The officer noticed that 
a “ ‘J. R. Gerrard’ ” had posted the statement quoted above.
368 N. C. 380, 381, 777 S. E. 2d 738, 742 (2015).  By check-
ing  court  records,  the  officer  discovered  that  a  traffic 
citation for petitioner had been dismissed around the time
of  the  post.  Evidence  obtained  by  search  warrant  con-
firmed  the  officer’s  suspicions  that  petitioner  was  J. R.
Gerrard. 

Petitioner  was  indicted  by  a  grand  jury  for  violating
§14–202.5.    The  trial  court  denied  his  motion  to  dismiss 
the indictment on the grounds that the charge against him 
violated the First Amendment.  Petitioner was ultimately
convicted  and  given  a  suspended  prison  sentence.    At  no 
point  during  trial  or  sentencing  did  the  State  allege  that 
petitioner  contacted  a  minor—or  committed  any  other 
illicit act—on the Internet. 

Petitioner  appealed  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  North
Carolina.  That  court  struck  down  §14–202.5  on  First 
Amendment  grounds,  explaining  that  the  law  is  not  nar-
rowly  tailored  to  serve  the  State’s  legitimate  interest  in 
protecting minors from sexual abuse.  229 N. C. App. 293, 
304,  748  S. E.  2d  146,  154  (2013).    Rather,  the  law  “arbi-
trarily  burdens  all  registered  sex  offenders  by  preventing 
a  wide  range  of  communication  and  expressive  activity