ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 11/18 by phone [details]

General News

General Comments September 2017

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of September 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

    I didn’t hear about this case at the time (2009). It should certainly be included in any list of sex offenders targeted for violence. In this case, it was a fifteen year old boy murdered by his father.

    “Enraged Michigan dad Jamar Pinkney Sr. shot son, 15, over alleged sex abuse of toddler: cops”
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/enraged-michigan-dad-jamar-pinkney-sr-shot-son-15-alleged-sex-abuse-toddler-cops-article-1.415936

    I was alerted to it by a Ted Talk which I hadn’t previously seen about juvenile sex offenders, also worth watching:
    Dangerous myths about juvenile sex offenders: Meghan Fagundes at TEDxAustinWomen
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81hy3AZjkr4

  2. Not Really

    Sentencing Law and Policy now has a link to this site! This is a big deal because all the important people in the legal world visit that site.

    It is listed under SEX OFFENSE BLOGS with only one other site, Women Against Registry. There were 3 listed there yesterday, but two of them were dead links.

    http://sentencing.typepad.com/

    • Not Really

      Maybe you know of a site that may link to here. This is what worked for me.

      Subject: Comprehensive Sex Offender Law Blog

      Hi, Professor Berman. Hope all is well.

      You may be interested in this site:

      all4consolaws.org

      It is probably the most active and detailed site on the ‘net dealing with sex offender laws. Janice Bellucci has won a lot of cases. I’m hoping you decide to link to it in your SEX OFFENSE BLOGS​ category since two out of three of your current links are broken.

      Once again, thanks for your blog.

      George

      He not only linked to all4consolaws.org, he also thanked me for pointing out his dead links. Win-win.

      If you want to try to get sites to link to here, give it shot if you are so inclined.

  3. TS

    36 Percent Uptick in Texas Teacher-Student Sex Cases over Last Year, Data Show

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/14/36-percent-uptick-texas-teacher-student-sex-cases-last-year-data-show/

    Wants to blame social media for this raise in incidents?! Since when did social media ever reply to someone or anything?! That’s like blaming a gun for a shooting, a pencil for writing an article or a spoon for making you eat. Cannot do it without the human input. The teacher is the individual in control here.

  4. David Kennerly, Sniff Me If You Can

    “First sniffer dogs trained to help find paedophiles, terrorists and fraudsters”

    Because we all smell of usb memory sticks, hard drives, laptops, etc. Yes, really.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/15/first-sniffer-dogs-trained-to-detect-digital-data-devices-in-uk-unveiled

    • AlexO

      They use these dogs to find evidence after raiding a property. They don’t use them to sniff random people.

  5. NY Level1

    Sex abuse accused vicar ‘burnt himself to death’ at Hawley vicarage UK

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41232622

  6. AJ

    Just found this SCOTUS petition about sexually suggestive communication with a minor: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/muccio-v-minnesota/.
    The SCOTUS petition is about another charge she faces, and addresses a First Amendment issue. I suspect SCOTUS denies this petition, despite the disagreement among some courts across the country.

    What I found interesting is that the 41-y.o. female was also charged with possession of CP, created and sent by the 15-y.o. male. No mention is made of whether he was charged with production and distribution, but I bet he wasn’t because, “he’s just a kid and doesn’t know better.” BTW, the BIO (brief in opposition) may make some of the Supremes blush and squirm a bit…it contains a faithful transcription of graphic communication between the male and female. The kid definitely knew what he was involved in.

  7. Bobby

    Hello everyone,

    As I have stated before, I am not the brightest light bulb in the box when it comes to this stuff? , so can some one please tell me what this means exactly. I think I know maybe for example the AG Shitty (Schuette) wants to put his 2 cents into the oral arguments is this correct.?

    I am not sure why he would want to keep embarrassing himself, when he know’s he is about to lose the Snyder case, but ok it’s his funeral. Anyway here is the link: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/150643_141_01.pdf

    Thanks in advance

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      It may mean he feels the case is in jeopardy and wants to handle it personally. Then again, egos know no limit, so maybe he just has to be part of it. Given the a$$ whooping he got from the USSG amicus in Snyder, it should be a sh!tshow watching him in this one, too. In truth, I think it boils down to the State, just like in every other case, refuses to say uncle, and they send in their toughest dogs for the fight. Why it took this long for the decision to partake in oral argument is a bit curious.

      • Bobby

        @AJ,

        Thanks for the explanation I really appreciate you explaining it so an idiot like me can comprehend it, I still think they are dragging their feet, to see what happens with Snyder. This is a re-oral argument on October 11th I believe the orginal oral argument can be found on youtube with Ms Aukerman arguing the case.

        • AJ

          @Bobby:
          You’re welcome, though my ramblings were more conjecture than explaining! 🙂 On a side note, I hope and wish you would quit beating yourself down (“idiot”, “not the brightest”, etc). Not being in tune with legal documents and posturing does not make you in any way and idiot, or dumb, or anything else. I am quite sure there is something you do or know that would make a number of people look like idiots, dumb, or dim bulbs. You obviously are good at making contact with people involved in cases, as you’re the only one I’ve heard who have any level of rapport with ACLU-MI.

          • Bobby

            Thank you AJ, for your kind words

          • Tim Moore

            Quite true, AJ. I thank Bobby for his continual play by play on what is happening in Michigan. I would not have a clue what is going on there without him. It can potentially affect us all what is going on there.

          • Not Really

            Constitutional Law and the Role of Scientific Evidence: The Transformative Potential of Doe v. Snyder
            Melissa Hamilton, University of Houston Law Center

            http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol58/iss6/5/

            • AJ

              @Not Really:
              Thanks for the link. I’m going to cozy up on the couch and read it tonight! 🙂

              Here’s the URL for the PDF: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3557&context=bclr

              • Not really

                It’s a very interesting read and all us laymen could probably understand it, so for those wondering what is going on, it is a good source.

                Abstract
                In late 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s concluded in Does #1–5 v. Snyder that Michigan’s sex offender registry and residency restriction law constituted an ex post facto punishment in violation of the constitution. In its decision, the Sixth Circuit engaged with scientific evidence that refutes moralized judgments about sex offenders, specifically that they pose a unique and substantial risk of recidivism. This Essay is intended to highlight the importance of Snyder as an example of the appropriate use of scientific studies in constitutional law.

                • AJ

                  @Not Really:
                  Yeah, it was a good read that is well-written for even laypeople. As usual, I found cited case law quite interesting, too.

                  I found the NC case of Doe v Cooper (www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/166026.P.pdf) very enlightening. In this case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals used intermediate scrutiny to strike part of NC’s RC law as overly broad because the State failed to “tak[e] into account the individual dangerousness of certain restricted sex offenders” (Id. p. 13) In other words, the court said NC had excessively burdened First Amendment rights by failing to conduct individual risk assessments on RCs. This is huge, and certainly part of the waterfall effect of Snyder.

                  So we now have the 6th Circuit (Snyder), the 4th Circuit (Cooper), and the CO cases all saying these laws are unconstitutional partly because they don’t employ individual risk assessment. I think this (offense-based vs risk based) is what will cause the registries to come tumbling down. (AWA and IML are both offense based…could play well for us!) The best part about this is that it applies to every single RC, completely independent of any ex post facto discussion.

                  • Not Really

                    Exactly right. That points to the probability of the California SB 384 being backwards. The so-called risk assessment to get off the registry is after a long period of time, not before. Due to multiple “excessive burdens” the “individual dangerousness” hearing should be either during or before assignment to the registry. California, to its credit, has limited some of those burdens, like residency restrictions and internet identifiers, so it may be more difficult to use these cases, but there are still some excessively burdensome factors in every state’s registry I presume. The question will be if all the registries return to what was permitted in the Alaska Doe case – simple public notification – and nothing more. If that turns out to be the best win, in my opinion, it leaves the very worst aspect of the registries. That suggests the necessity of proving the excessive punishment dished out by the public as found in the Organ case. Only that factor goes to the heart of publication.

                    • AlexO

                      California actually started collecting internet identifiers for all convictions in 2017 and later for all 311.X convictions. This notice is in the Megan’s Law FAQ section.

                    • Not Really

                      They aren’t collecting mine.

                    • Joe

                      @AlexO

                      per SB 448 (Ben Hueso, a convicted drunk driver) as of 2017 California collects the internet identifiers of anyone whose conviction involves the internet, not just CP.

                      (a) A person who is convicted of a felony on or after January 1, 2017, requiring registration pursuant to the Act, shall register his or her Internet identifiers if a court determines at the time of sentencing that any of the following apply:
                      (1) The person used the Internet to collect any private information to identify the victim of the crime to further the commission of the crime.
                      (2) The person was convicted of a felony pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1 and used the Internet to traffic the victim of the crime.
                      (3) The person was convicted of a felony pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 311) and used the Internet to prepare, publish, distribute, send, exchange, or download the obscene matter or matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 311.4.

                      Here is the form to submit these identifiers

                      https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/csor/cjis8041.pdf

                      Failing to provide the accurate creation date of an email address (that you may have had for 20 years) is a crime. That is just unbelievable…

                    • AlexO

                      Thanks Joe. At least it seems like California was being somewhat smart and didn’t retroactively apply the law. This whole thing just needs to DIAF.

                    • Joe

                      It wasn’t for a lack of trying…. Prop 35 and earlier versions of SB 448 covered all registrants and gave a very limited reporting window (may have been instant). CA RSOL, the EFF and the ACLU showed up and got an injunction against Prop 35 and got at least the retroactive part removed from SB 448.

                      IIRC, during one of the hearings, one of the persons in opposition stepped up to the microphone and demanded to know why there was no drunk driver registry. She was quickly silenced…. good times 🙂

    • AlexO

      “Certainly, he could check out a book from the library on dinnertime etiquette,” Burdette said. “He’s not a pimply-faced teenager. He could have come to the door that night like a grown-up.”

      Yeah, let’s blame this insane overreaction that could’ve potentially resulted in a lynch mob on the fact that the man didn’t do things the way you wanted him to, despite the fact he didn’t do anything illegal or wrong whatsoever. That should be a great lesson to your kid to not take responsibility for your own actions, especially when you’re in the wrong.

  8. Bobby

    I was not sure were to post this if it should be here or some where under Michigan news, so anyway for any one on here from Michigan, besides my self or anyone that is just interested in general of the goings on here in Michigan. I just received this e-mail today, and thought I would post the ;ink for anyone who wanted to take a look, so here is the link: http://courts.mi.gov/News-Events/press_releases/Documents/Oral%20Argument%20Media%20Advisory%20October%202017.pdf

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      Well, at least the case shouldn’t suffer from lack of attention! 🙂

    • David M

      @Bobby Thank you for always posting information regarding Michigan. Many of us are from Michigan and it’s how we find out what’s going on.

  9. David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

    Anyone hear about this? Apparently, it’s passed the U.S. Senate and is on its way to the House. Another, very scary law to address a crime which hardly exists.

    Wiretapping Sex Workers, Punishing Pre-Crime, and National Strategy to Stop Sex-Buyers Approved by Senate

    Introduced by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the bill (S.1312) gives the attorney general power to file a civil suit against anyone suspected of committing or planning to commit “any action that constitutes or will constitute” a violation of various federal statutes. If a court agrees, the person or entity would have to stop whatever activity allegedly contributed to a current or future crime.”

    S.1312 – Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017 whose “friendly” title is “FREDERICK DOUGLASS TRAFFICKING PREVENTION ACT OF 2017”

    Wonder what Frederick Douglass would have made of it?

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1312/text

    • AJ

      Once again, let’s use the civil codes to bypass that pesky Constitution. SCOTUS *really* needs to revisit the concept that ex post facto only applies in criminal cases (another of the outcomes from good old Calder v. Bull). I recalls Justices Thomas and Ginsburg voicing concerns about this. I say any time you get two who are almost polar opposites ideologically to agree on something, it needs addressing.

      Grassley has fallen off his rocker. He used to have some moderate sense to him, but it doesn’t seem so anymore.

  10. DLP

    17(b)?:

    So, I know that 288(a) is usually considered a straight felony and not a “wobbler”, not therefor
    Eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor, BUT, what if no state prison? Sentenced only to
    County jail for less than a year. Can 288(a) be reduced to misdemeanor if no state prison?

    Thank you

    • AlexO

      Something needs to be a wobbler to be reducible. Where you were sentenced to is secondary.

    • 7mot

      I wish that there was something in the law to cover a STING where the actual person on the other end of the 288(a) was not under 14 but was an ‘actor’ playing the part of a 14 year old. Mine was changed to an attempted since the police office who I was chatting with was not a 14 year old. Is there anywhere that this is addressed? Can a person rob a bank if the bank is a TV or movie set and the person thinks it is a bank?

      • Interested party

        @ 7mot
        I too was caught as a result of an internet sting. It is frustrating but in the eyes of the law we “knew” the person was under 14 and therefore our intent was to break 288(a) so therefore we get the attempted 288(a) or I think the code is actually 664/288(a).

        I for one am greateful that there was not actually an underage girl. I like to think I would never have done anything if the girl was really there, but I also never thought I would have had the conversation I did not gone to meet the child.

        Being a RC is often difficult and infuriating, but I have made a life myself and found friends that support me. Life is still possible and I have hope for the future.

    • NPS

      288(a) is NOT reducible because it is a straight felony; not a wobbler. You can have it expunged under 1203.4, but it will be expunged as a felony; this is only an option to those sentenced to county jail. You can even apply for a certificate of rehabilitation, but 288(a) is among those codes listed where a CoR does not relieve one’s duty to register under 290. That would require a governor’s pardon (which is extremely rare and has not yet been done).

      Under this new bill, you will still be required to register and placed in a tier regardless of the expungement (I have a 17b and 1203.4 as do many others, and we are still required to register). Because 288(a) is a straight felony, it is Tier 2 offense which means 20 years on the registry with a picture and zip code only.

  11. Chris F (Texas issues)

    Not sure where to go from here.

    I just found out that back on 6/15/17 the Texas governor signed into law SB1553. This bill took affect 9/1/17 and requires anyone on the sex offender registry to notify school administrators every time they go onto school grounds:

    *****
    a person subject to registration under this chapter who enters the premises of any school in this state during the standard operating hours of the school shall immediately notify the administrative office of the school of the person ’s presence on the premises of the school and the person ’s registration status under this chapter. The office may provide a chaperon to accompany the person while the person is on the premises of the school.
    *****

    There is an exception. You can get written approval from the school that they will allow you. I’m not sure how many schools will do that, if any.

    Here’s the problem. I’ve chatted with Mary Sue of Texas Voices and she says her and her group can’t find a lawyer to take this case and a bad lawyer could cause more harm than good. The Texas ACLU won’t touch sex offender cases. As big as Texas is, we have the least organized efforts and support other than the determination of Mary Sue, but she can only do so much.

    Another thing about this issue. It is RETROACTIVE legislation covering people registered anytime before the date it goes live. Even CIVIL regulations CANNOT be retro-active in Texas. Ex-Post facto doesn’t matter so we don’t need it to be “punishment”. It’s in the Texas Constitution, and I’m not sure how some other registration issues get past this other than we have elected judges that will ignore our own state Constitution to avoid losing votes.

    Even though this is a State Constitution issue, and not US Constitution, I’m thinking the best fight is in a federal court. According to the link AJ posted, a federal court can handle a state issue as long as they use State Court cases as the basis for their conclusion. That’s fine with me, because while our state court conclusions have often determined retro-active legislation to be against the state constitution, I believe the elected state judges would still rule against a sex offender while the federal court would rule based on previous state court examples.

    Now, the next problem is how to get this in court and ask for an injunction to stop enforcement until it can be heard in court. Texas Voices doesn’t have a forum, so I can only chat with those from Texas that appear on here. I will be off the registry next April, so I can’t do a case myself because it won’t get heard before I’m not relevant to it.

    Is the only choice to find a Texas registrant with kids in school that is smart enough to file Pro-Se in federal court?

    I think more than just retro-active legislation needs to be challenged, as it shouldn’t hurt those families new to the registry either. I think it’s a good Substantive Due Process challenge, since it interferes with sex offenders raising their children and it is applied without a hearing of dangerousness as well as applying to those off probation/parole and no longer under state supervision. I assume it’s also a “bill of attainder”, “cruel and unusual punishment”, and probably “separation of powers” issue. Oh, it’s also a BIG “Freedom of Speech” issue since it compels us to say something we don’t want to say and don’t believe in.

    Any thoughts?

    Like IML, this is yet again the government forcing us to declare our leper status insinuating us being dangerous and leaving it to an unqualified authority (in this case your average school admin) to determine your threat to them. We know this just means denial, because while the courts are immune from a mistake, the school admins are not and will err on the side of caution. Instead of a judge declaring we are or are not too dangerous to go un-chaperoned on school ground one time during sentencing, legislature is forcing an unqualified person to do it every time we go there.

    • Txso4life

      Chris, I am from tx (arlington). I have 2 kids (pre k & kindergarten). I have been denied entry to my children school and told to go to principal office and never to come back. My offense (on a 17 yrs old girl, I was 18 at the time) happens in jan of 1992, and I completed my 5 yrs term in 1997. There was no registry during the time of my crime. It has been over 25 years since then. Was forced to register for 10 yrs but got retroactively extended to life in 2007. Was thinking of filing a pro se in state court on ground of expo facto, but several attorneys I spoke to say I will not win in court. Texas see registry laws and any amendments that may pass in the future are all considered civil regulation regardless of any restrictions included. Just last september, it is now a crime for any registrant to visit the river walk park attraction in san antonio. Once again I was told that added restriction is a civil law and not additional punishment. Based on that now settled laws, that is why I have not attempting to file any suit in court for fear of losing money and time spent.

      • Chris F (@Txso4life)

        After reading what AJ said, you may want to challenge being on the registry based on multiple US Constitutional issues in federal court but add in the Texas Constitutional violation of retroactive legislation. Texas isn’t supposed to do retroactive laws for criminal OR civil issues.

        See the dissenting opinion of this case below by Judge Baird, where he elaborates on the Texas Constitution prohibition against retro-active legislation that goes way beyond the US Constitutional ban on Ex-post facto and demonstrates that Texas doesn’t allow civil laws to be retroactive either:

        http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1991/769-88-4.html

        From this case, I’ll include a couple quotes from Judge Baird:
        *****
        III. TEXAS CONSTITUTION A. Retroactive Legislation
        Tex. Const, art. I, § 16 is worded differently than its federal counterpart. In addition to forbidding ex post facto laws, the Texas Constitution also prohibits “retroactive law.”

        A retroactive law is one meant to act on things that are past. As such, a statute is retroactive which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates new obligations, imposes new duties, or adopts a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past, and which affects acts or rights accruing before it came into force. Turbeville v. Gowdy, Civ.App., 272 S.W. 559 (1925).
        *****

    • lovewillprevail

      You are correct. The state constitution says no expo fact laws, civil or criminal. But state judges who are elected by the populous have ruled in a court case that expo facto sex offender laws do not violate the state constitution. And this was upheld. So I agree, your best hope is in federal court. But also be aware the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the City of Lewisville case ruled with prejudice against some of the arguements you mentioned that have been successful in other parts of the country. So it is almost impossible to win in cases in Texas because of these two rulings. One pretty much has to wait for the supreme court to make decisions if living in Texas.

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      “Even though this is a State Constitution issue, and not US Constitution, I’m thinking the best fight is in a federal court. According to the link AJ posted, a federal court can handle a state issue as long as they use State Court cases as the basis for their conclusion.”
      —–
      This is sort of true. No federal court has jurisdiction over an issue that is exclusively about or within a State. When there is also a federal question, a federal court may then rule based on the State laws, case law, and/or constitution as they exist. Where these items are absent or silent, the federal court will interpret them to the best of its ability. However, that decision typically is *not* binding. See http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-courts-key-differences.html for a little more explanation. Also helpful is the first half of page 4 of the previously supplied document: “Second, federal courts usually bind only other federal courts, not state courts. Similarly, state courts usually bind only other state courts. Thus, a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal court, mandatory on federal courts within the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit. It is not mandatory on California state courts, even though California is geographically within the Ninth Circuit. Similarly, a California Supreme Court decision would bind other California state courts, but not the Ninth Circuit or other state courts (like Nevada state courts).” In short, you’re going to have some sort of federal question in there as well in order for a federal court to even think about hearing it. That federal question could definitely involve the right to rear one’s children.
      =====
      “I will be off the registry next April, so I can’t do a case myself because it won’t get heard before I’m not relevant to it.”
      —–
      This actually raises an interesting point. Are you really off it? For the time being, yes. But as we all know, the State–as, when, and if it wishes–can at any moment change the criteria. So your being off the registry is only as good as the current law. If TX decides to amend the RC laws to say all who committed your offense must register for life…well, welcome back to the Price Club, Chris F! One is *never* completely free. Never. That all aside, it would indeed be a tough (impossible?) argument to tell a judge you have standing based on the supposition that you may someday be again made to register. Therefore I agree, you are not a good candidate for a lawsuit.
      =====
      “It is RETROACTIVE legislation covering people registered anytime before the date it goes live.”
      —–
      Are you saying that the law is in effect even before it goes into effect?!?! THAT is a new one, which I would love to see argued in court. The use of civil laws has gone so far afield, it’s ridiculous. Extra-constitutional is unconstitutional. I think the ex post facto concept from Calder v Bull (saying it only applies in criminal law) made sense in 1798, because it was beyond the realm of the culture back then that civil laws would be twisted as they have been. It just wasn’t morally or culturally acceptable.
      =====
      Mr. Wizard, get me out of this country…!

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        “It is RETROACTIVE legislation covering people registered anytime before the date it goes live.”

        Sorry if that wasn’t worded well. What I mean is, unlike many things they added to our Chapter 62 Sex Offender laws that don’t apply to those on the registry if they were registered prior to the date the new addition goes live, this new rule about reporting to the school admins applies to all sex offenders regardless of when they were added to the registry.

  12. Txso4life

    You are corrected love, it is a well settled laws that sex offender laws in the 5th circuit states are not punitive. It is only regulation to keep us in line and to be a better laws abiding citizen. So to look at it in a half full glass, the registry has help us becoming stronger and more resilient. If you look at it that way you will be better off and less despair. I think we should all accept our fate and not feeling hopeless. After all there may be a little bit of light in the distance with the out come of the snyder case.

    • AJ

      The disagreement between the 5th and the 6th increases the chances of SCOTUS accepting Snyder. SCOTUS does not like disputes among the Circuits.

    • Not Really

      Right. Jews, communists, liberals and sex offenders were glad they took a train to the concentration camps because they didn’t have to walk. Wait, walking is good exercise that would make them stronger.

    • Nondescript

      I actually agree that being subject to these repressive laws can make you stronger and more resilient, but to accept the fate that others, with a nefarious agenda, have planned for you AND humanity is going to be your free will choice. From a historical perspective, when you oppress enough of a certain type of people, you inadvertently build an army. Although perhaps it was not so inadvertent and they want the “miscreants” fighting back because they do after all, love their manufactured chaos.

      At any rate, i’ve been a poster on various forums over the years, but I’ve not come across one quite like this one where the passion for justice, breadth of knowledge and eloquence articulated is very much the standard. It gives me hope. It truly does.

  13. Paul

    From the state of Alabama. How the hell can this be constitutional??? This applies to every single registered citizen, regardless of whether or not they are on parole.

    http://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2013/title-15/chapter-20a/section-15-20a-15/

    • David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

      The state describes the form as a “permit” which literally means it is viewed as “permission” to travel. We don’t need permission to travel and yet…

      It is really astounding and I would love to see it challenged in court.

      • Paul

        Exactly. And the permit can be denied!

        So if a registered citizen left one county to another, to visit family, and the duration was 3 or more days, permission must be granted in the form of this permit. Regardless of their probation or parole status.

        • David Kennerly's Spectral Evidence

          It’s parole or probation – controlled supervision. How in hell is this not a lawsuit?

          • New Person

            Wasn’t this issue brought up before the PA SC video? The Judges said reporting when to travel was punitive because it does impede free travel.

            • Joe

              Same is true for IML. Have a buddy who, 30-40 years ago, got probation and had to register. When he travelled to foreign countries during his time of probation (during the punishment phase), he of course had to ask permission to do so / leave the jurisdiction. This permission asking included dates and countries at the most, and over time degenerated into a simple phone call with rudimentary details. Failure to have done so would have been a probation violation.

              Now, decades after completing probation (his punishment), he would have to provide every single detail of his upcoming trip, with no wiggle room for any change whatsoever, and a hard 21 day deadline, again with no exception. Failure to do so is a new felony with up to 10 years in prison.

              Aside from the fact that his arrival will be announced, resulting in non-admittance.

              How is THAT not punishment? Can one go back on probation?

              • AlexO

                Only if he violates. Then he’ll be back on probation or parole. Otherwise, it’s all just “regulatory” so they can do pretty much whatever they want. That’s continued to expend well beyond the scope SCOTUS anticipated (can’t really fault them for that) and now has a ton of weight on it, balancing on a toothpick. This was more or less mentioned in the PA, CO, and recent SCOTUS Packingham case (even though it wasn’t directly related to traveling).

              • Tim Moore

                That is true, Joe, probation restrictions were individualized, at least years go. I remember people in my therapy group of probationers asking to go out of the county on vacation. OK. Go out of the country on business or for a medical procedure. OK. Go to your daughter’s graduation. OK. The officers knew you, and if they where being overly hard nosed, the therapist would vouch for you. No one relapsed because of the leniency. It is sad that court supervision seems more free than this supposed “freedom” the legislatures have imposed on us after our sentences.

          • AJ

            This is a blatantly unconstitutional restriction on freedom of travel, which SCOTUS has already decided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe or http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/489/case.pdf). They can require notification all day long (tyvm Smith v Doe), but cannot in any way prevent a free citizen (i.e. not under supervision) from interstate travel.

            Someone in AL should file, refuse to sign, then get it struck. One doesn’t even actually have to travel, as the moment they refuse the permit–and perhaps by even requiring one–under the threat of a felony charge no less, they have violated the Constitution. This should be a slam dunk in even a county courtroom…even in AL! “Your Honor, I submit Saenz v Roe. I rest my case.”

    • Lake County

      Woops, when did we loose are right to travel without specific permission? I thought right to travel was a guaranteed right. We sure need a lot more attorneys.

      • Chris F

        Unfortunately, we need a lot more than more attorneys. We need smart attorneys that actually believe in the adversarial justice system enough that they can put aside their own disdain for sex offenders, as well as ignore or be ready to withstand or fight back the criticism of family, friends, and peers.

        Unlike other times in history where perceptions of those unfairly persecuted changed enough to allow the above to happen, I don’t think we’ll get that luxury. At best, we’ll persuade appointed federal judges but that still doesn’t get us attorneys.

        I think the only way is leaning ourselves what it takes to file and win, and filing pro-se and working together. Janice and team can’t do all of it in 50 states.

        • AJ

          I think what holds a number of people back, yours truly included, from filing pro se is that, to my knowledge, you have to be identified in the documents. I would love to be proven wrong on this, as I may be willing to do a few John Doe pro se filings.

  14. Not Really

    ‘Nobody worries about our children’: unseen impacts of sex offender registration on families with school-age children and implications for desistance

    http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/RJPugfciJkgB4RzpRMXC/full

  15. Txso4life

    In a recent sex offender case (August 2017) coming out of the 2nd circuit, the court take note of Kennedy’s “the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.” Although the case is not pertaining to expo factor but mere fact that courts are starting to take notice of the one sentence in packingham case is reason for us to feel optimistic. See foot note 26 of the case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1870134.html

    • AlexO

      Yup. That footnote that he didn’t need to state during the case is a huge flag for many that Kennedy is remorseful having screwed the pooch in 2003 with his “frighteningly high recidivism” remark and swing-vote. It seems like SCOTUS (at least some of them) want a another shot to make things right.

    • Chris F

      Reading the case, it looks like the reason Packingham was noted was because the offender raised it. Since he was under supervised release, the court noted that Packingham didn’t help him and since the offender didn’t raise any First amendment challenge, they couldn’t use that part of Packingham either.

      I do hope Packingham is used in every possible case raised where it is of any relevance.

      Interesting read though. I learn more from cases than anything else.

    • AJ

      I feel that any time the “Packingham Parenthetical” is mentioned, be it in court documents or general media, it’s a win for us. That statement has quickly jumped into the parlance of the judiciary. It almost makes me wonder if judges across the board (void in FL, LA, NC and MO) have been holding beliefs that the registry laws are unconstitutional, but have been afraid to be the one to step up or speak out.

      As an aside about the CO ruling: I recently discovered what exactly “Senior Judge” (such as Judge Matsch) is. It means one who is semi-retired and who gets to choose his (or her) cases and case load. So Judge Matsch specifically picked the CO case. Rock on, Judge Matsch!

      • AlexO

        That’s a cool bit of info. Now I have even deeper respect for this judge. To specifically take on such a case and then rule with so much prejudice against the state, is almost unbelievable considering how taboo the matter is.

  16. Txso4life

    Evidently the right to travel does not apply to registrants. It has been a well settle law in various courts cases that restrictions placed on registrants are nothing more than civil laws. It is not punitive but merely to protect the public. Registrants are being label “danger, stay away”. And this assumption is based solely on an old conviction, no matter how long ago is may be. Judges are staring to look at this senseless rational to justify their rulings as evident by the recent colorado case and a transcripts argument of the Muniz case.

  17. mike r

    My motion is in front of a judge. It has been screened and approved to move forward. This is the first huge hurtle in the process of making the changes we all want to see. It would be really nice to get support and maybe even a group of supporters to attend these hearings. This is much more important to our cause then any tiered bill, or any other case that has been brought to date , especially in the federal court that will go to the ninth circuit court of appeals. If not I will go it alone, My fiance’ is willing to testify, I have affidavit from my property manager detailing some of the events that have taking place, and I have the power of justice on my side, and for those of you that believe, I have god on my side……….A pre-trial conference is set for March 14, 10:00 am in room #26 in the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento…Case # 2:17-CV-01838-JAM-AC PS RICHARDSON V. SESSIONS ET AL. Thanks for everyone’s hard work……

    • Chris F (@Mike r)

      That’s great news Mike R!!!!

      I wish I lived close enough to attend, or had money to travel!

      Please try to get us a transcript of everything said, if possible.

      We will learn so much from this even if they refute some things. You are treading new ground with some of those challenges and we have no idea how they will be countered.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Awesome, and good job! You have until March 14 to amass all the various cases around the country that will help your fight.

      I certainly believe, and wholeheartedly agree, that God is indeed on our side. Isaiah 55:8-9 in action. You’re on my prayer list, brother.

      BTW, based on the case number, this is your judge: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5037/

      I highly recommend learning everything you can about him and any previous rulings. Maybe even try to sit in on some of his cases now and then to learn his ways.

  18. mike r

    It’s going to be interesting to see how they reply or attempt to refute those claims. We know they are going to do every possible to get this dismissed for one thing, and I imagine they will try and use those same old high recidivism rates and under reporting arguments. That’s really all they have, and my evidence totally debunks those lame asssss excuses and arguments..I am not trying to be flamboyant or exaggerate how important this case is, but it is extremely important for almost all of us across the country as it will set precedents..I can’t wait to see how they reply…

    • steve

      Mike

      I would not talk about the case or strategies anymore on a public forum. You never know who’s reading.
      Good luck!

      • Chris F

        I don’t know Steve…I think I’m of the opposite mind set on that one.

        It’s the public forum that brought out the best criticism and praise of his work every step of the way over two years and helped make it what it is. As long as any opposition doesn’t have a similar and equally motivated support system I would say they are toast.

        We all need to weigh in every step of the way as it is only by our collective wisdom that we can slay this giant while restricted to the “pro-se” limitations.

        It’s Mike R’s decision of course, and I’ll respect that decision no matter how he wants to proceed and support him any way I can.

        • Chris F

          Of course, I’ll agree with Steve in that you shouldn’t discuss things like sitting in the judge’s court and studying his cases to figure him out and what you learn from that. 🙂

          If you want to discuss strategies privately with any of us, we’ll just need to figure out how to email that.

        • steve

          Fair enough. It could be far-fetched to think someone is trolling him but you never know.

      • AJ

        @mike r:
        I can see steve’s concerns as to strategy, but I lean towards agreeing with Chris F. Besides, there’s really no “secret sauce” to your complaint. You are using publicly available information and studies–you’re presenting facts, and not really arguing any novel idea. So there’s really nothing for the other side to “learn” that’s outside the complaint.

        Also, I was skimming the suit in ID (which has been mentioned on here before), and found it to read quite a lot like your suit. As you may recall, I mentioned that it seems you were throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Well, so does the ID lawsuit by professionals! Though yours may not be as “pretty,” it certainly hits the same issues and makes similar points. You may want to review it to see if there’s anything you can put in your arsenal. (https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/CJ-ID-0003-0001.pdf)

  19. Txso4life

    God speed to you Mike R, we are crossing fingers and wish you the best of luck. May the out come of this case make positive history in the life of many registrants in the years to come.

  20. ny level1

    In its memo to Judge Cote, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, the government also noted that Mr. Weiner, while in Congress in 2007, co-sponsored the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act,” a bill to require sex offenders to register their email addresses and instant-messaging accounts. The prosecutors said Mr. Weiner had, in public remarks, said “the internet is the predator’s venue of choice today.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/nyregion/prosecutors-want-anthony-weiner-to-serve-about-2-years-in-prison.html?mabReward=CTM1&recid=83b5890e-905a-4d51-6db8-4c6906b22cdb&recp=1?src=recg&_r=0

  21. AJ

    Just when you thought sanity was appearing on the horizon, a new bogeyman theory springs up. Here’s a law school paper that would be funny were the author not serious: “The Peering Predator: Drone Technology Leaves Children Unprotected from Registered Sex Offenders” (http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1632&context=clr)

    I find it curious that NC doesn’t want someone within a certain distance of a kid or school, but is fine being in the dark for 15 days about a RC visiting the state. I guess RCs need 16 or more days to get ready to finally reoffend at the frightening and high rate?

    • mike t

      Protecting the public is the underlying foundational purpose of the North Carolina sex offender laws. The legislature “recognizes that sex offenders often pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders is of paramount governmental interest.”

      I guess Packingham hasn’t changed the frightening and high lies that were addressed at SCOTUS level.
      “Justice Sotomayor seemed to be skeptical about the state’s claim that the law was necessary to prevent sexual abuse of minors.[opinion] She asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer agreed, stating “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a ‘clear and present danger.’

      And of course… Florida already tried this:
      FL: Unmanned Drones and Sex Offenders October 14, 2015
      http://all4consolaws.org/2015/10/fl-unmanned-drones-and-sex-offenders/

    • mike t

      And Darned you auto-correct! It’s not Packing Ham! It’s Packingham! Shame on you!

    • MS

      I’m sure this article was written after several RC’s (aka: “PREDATORS”) used drones to fly over schools and abduct children with a “tractor beam” that the RCs had installed for doing just that. Yep, I’m sure that’s what started the soon to be hysteria. I’m thinking we need to ban “Predators” from being able to buy drones. While we are at it, let’s ban “Predators” from stepping foot in a hobby store.

    • Chris F

      Wow…just…wow…

      I’ve bookmarked that because he actually has some good cases to pull things from.

      Unfortunately, Peter Borden is just a 3rd year law student trying to create something that appears well thought out and logical to impress his professors, yet is really just manipulative and as slanted as Fox News.

      He starts off stating all of the old quotes and statistics as facts, even using the debunked McKune v. Lile quotes to further his agenda without acknowledging the outright lies. Then, he tries to look like he is presenting it balanced by including the latest and most accurate information. In doing so, he provides the most negative info that were lies as truth, and the neutral info that is truth. This manipulates the reader into leaning between the lies and truth, instead of just at the truth.

      I wish there was a place to comment on that. At best, someone may be able to get to him on linkedin.

      I’m keeping his links to the following useful quotes from his research:

      *******
      A final viewpoint that questions the practicality of sex offender
      limitations builds on the premise that sex offenders who are intent on
      offending are not deterred by punishments for violating limitations.101 For
      example, a child predator in North Carolina who kidnaps and sexually
      assaults a child faces over forty years in prison if convicted.102 It is
      unlikely that an offender prepared to face forty years in prison is going to
      be deterred by the punishment for violating North Carolina’s location
      restrictions on sex offenders,103 which results in at most twenty-five months
      in prison.104
      *******

      But in short, his idea is garbage any way you try to look at it. Restrict sex offenders from flying drones over locations the sex offenders aren’t allowed to be in physically due to the current sex offender restrictions? So, police are going to chase down all drones within 300 feet of places children gather and find the owner and ID him just to make sure he’s not a sex offender? Right…that’s not wasting police time where they could prevent real crimes.

      Thanks AJ for yet another gem to entertain and further my knowledge. There is as much to learn from the lies as from the truth, as long as you know which is which. Those who can’t tell, are unfortunately known as the “general public”. 🙂

      • AlexO

        Drone or no drone, that’s pretty much how useful restrictions are in general. Are the police profiling every parent at the school PTA to make sure they’re not an RC? Are they walking up to every in the local park to make sure they’re not an RC? It’s not like all these areas are restricted in general without proper clearance and warrant checking 100% of those attempting to enter. RC restrictions serve no purpose other than to hinder people who are trying to move on with their lives as those who choose to continue to violate are not going to be stopped by words on paper.

  22. mike t

    Article from: The Activist Mommy
    California is About to Take Thousands of People Off the Sex Offender Registry, Including Pedophiles and Rapists
    http://activistmom.com/california-take-thousands-people-off-sex-offender-registry-including-pedophiles-rapists/

    A highly inflammatory article from “The Religious Right”. Not to be read if your overly sensitive or easily insulted! I got a kick out of the ignorance running rampant throughout the article and especially the comments. It’s a registrant trolls dream. Sorry, Facebook comments only. Oh where’s the forgiveness for Christ’s sake?

  23. AJ

    @Chris F:
    Here’s a law paper that says exactly what you do: put registry determination into the judges’ hands.
    http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=policypractice

    • Chris F (@AJ, Mike R, all)

      This is THE BEST paper I’ve read to date!

      Wow…I wish we had this before Mike R’s motion was done. Of course, his motion should have enough without this, but if he can amend it to add some of the references in here it could help. This person cites examples for a lot of our arguments that I didn’t know we could back up in these ways with actual references.

      For example, there are sources for these arguments:

      1) How the Judiciary needs to be involved in determining and registration need at all and duration to both individualize it to the circumstances and person, and allow them access to the appeal process if one judge is particularly unfair.

      2) How SORN policy does exert unintended effects on judicial decision making, often resulting in pleading to nonsex crimes or were acquitted altogether.

      3) Family members living with a [registered sex offender] experienced threats and
      harassment by neighbors, and some children of registered sex offenders suffered
      stigmatization and differential treatment by teachers and classmates.

      The majority of most useful references are near the last 1/4 of the articles for those that don’t have time to read the entire thing. Thanks again AJ!

  24. Not Really

    Given that the Adam Walsh Act is a federal law, and it is the umbrella for the state laws, does the Seventh Amendment apply when the government takes property evicting a RC from his home? Would that mean it would require a jury trial to do so?

    United States Supreme Court
    PERNELL v. SOUTHALL REALTY, (1974)
    No. 72-6041
    Argued: February 19, 1974 Decided: April 24, 1974

    Some delay, of course, is inherent in any fair-minded system of justice. A landlord-tenant dispute, like any other lawsuit, cannot be resolved with due process of law unless both parties have had a fair opportunity to present their cases. Our courts were never intended to serve as rubber stamps for landlords seeking to evict their tenants, but rather to see that justice be done before a man is evicted from his home.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/416/363.html

  25. AJ

    While reading “DATABASE INFAMIA: EXIT FROM THE SEX OFFENDER
    REGISTRIES,” (wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Logan-Final.pdf) I followed one of its footnoted citations. It’s a CA SC ruling in 1983 that said, at least back then, that 290 is punitive. Not being in CA, nor being interested in digging through CA case law, there must be some way the CA courts or legislature have “fixed” this problematic ruling. The case is In re Reed (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/33/914.html), and though I am sure some of the offenses mentioned as not requiring registration now do, perhaps there is some legal footing that could be achieved through this case.

    Both the paper and the CA SC case reference a 1972 CA case, In re Birch (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-birch-22943), where legal counsel failed to tell the offender he would need to register. This raises a question in my mind: if registration is not punitive, why would *anyone* need to raise it during court proceedings? To my understanding, the only items discussed during plea considerations, discussions, and negotiations would be about punishment.

    Anyway, I toss this all out for any of you CA armchair-legal-beagles to pick over and through.

    • AlexO

      Interesting. So 311.4 moved from no registration at all in 1983 to today, with our new California tiered registry, being tier 3, the worst of the worst.

      I think the main thing about this case is that it was in 1983, 3 years before Psychology Monthly published the bogus article which alluded to “frighteningly high” recidivism. At least partial SCOTUS ruling was based on this “fact”, swaying opinions a great deal on what constitutes as punishment (something this case cites as a reason against registration). So I don’t really think this case can be used currently to try and sway the courts for relief.

  26. mike r

    I will be doing exactly what AJ suggested and I will not discuss what I learn in the court room, but everything else is going online, and I will in fact be depending on you guys to help me through this process. I am sure I can go to kinkos and have them upload any docs I get so that I can post them….I feel all the support from all of you guys and let me tell you it is almost bringing me to tears…..I am doing this for us all and we will prevail “Pro Se” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Show that the courts are there for us, and nothing should prevent anyone from seeking redress for any reason……Getting inspiration from the Larry Flint movie with Woody Harrelson, lmao… Love that movie…

  27. mike r

    You know, I do not understand why all these cases are always naming anyone and everyone as defendants. The AG and DOJ are the ones that have authority over the registries, and I just don’t see any reason to name everyone else..I hope I am right, I mean, it might be for good measure to name them all, but I don’t see how it is actually necessary unless you are only targeting those aspects or specific agencies, and not the entire scheme……………

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I’d chalk it up as a legal maneuver to avoid dismissal. If the one person you happen to name is the wrong person, your suit is bounced. Just my guess.

  28. mike r

    WOW!!! That case is extremely similar to the one I just filed…Love it..Added a couple more issues like double jeopardy and the contracts clause but pretty much exactly the same…This is great…..

    • Chris F

      Yes, that Idaho case created by an entire law firm for over 100 plaintiffs was very similar to yours that was created by you with just some input by other non lawyers on here.

      Actually, yours goes into much more detail of explaining why registration violates each of the Constitutional issues you raise while the Idaho one just briefly mentions that it is violated.

      I can’t wait to see which of your arguments “stick” and get used in future cases by other lawyers.

      • AJ

        The benefit of the ID case resembling mike r’s is that it’s months ahead of his in the process. That gives him opportunity to learn from what happens in their suit…which claims are tossed without thought, which are considered, what supporting evidence is used, etc. This ID case could well be a treasure trove for mike r….especially if decided in our favor prior to his going too far along.

    • Not Really

      There was a case arguing the contracts clause in 3 strikes cases. The argument was that the plea bargains before 3 strikes enactment limited the reach of the law. It failed.

      A prior serious or violent felony conviction that predates the passaged of the “Three
      Strikes” law may qualify as a strike, as may a felony conviction entered prior to 1982.
      (People v. James (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1147; People v. Moenius (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th
      820; § 667, subd. (h).) Further, if a defendant entered into a plea agreement before the
      enactment of the Three Strikes law, is does not violate constitutional contract clauses to
      permit use of the prior to trigger a Three Strikes sentence in the current case. (People v.
      Gipson (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 1065.) However, where a term of a plea limiting the
      use of the convictions in subsequent proceedings induces a defendant to enter a plea, the
      state is bound to that term. (Davis v. Woodford (2006) 446 F. 3d 957 [state bound to one
      “prior” despite multiple counts of conviction under plea].)

      http://www.fdap.org/downloads/articles_and_outlines/three_strikes_update_2007.pdf

    • Not Really

      The Cal Supreme Court changed its mind and decided it was not punishment.

      Does Penal Code 1 section 290’s sex offender registration requirement constitute cruel and unusual punishment when applied to a conviction for misdemeanor indecent exposure? (§ 314, subd. (1).)  The California Supreme Court recently addressed this issue with regard to a similar misdemeanor provision, possession of child pornography, pursuant to section 311.11.  (In re Alva (2004) 33 Cal.4th 254, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 811, 92 P.3d 311 (Alva ).)   In Alva, the court concluded, “[M]andatory sex offender registration, as provided by section 290, is not ‘punishment’ for purposes of either the Eighth Amendment [to the United States Constitution] or article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.”  (Id. at p. 292, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 811, 92 P.3d 311.)   We are bound by this decision.  (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937.)   Thus, the trial court erred by refusing to impose the mandatory sex offender registration requirement triggered by defendant’s conviction for misdemeanor indecent exposure.   We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings.   In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

      http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1259041.html

  29. AlexO

    This is not an RC article specifically, but I think what it voices here directly folds into the hysteria that is feed into the public, resulting in ever more fear and restrictions placed on RC’s.

    https://www.thestar.com/life/2016/09/13/if-you-leave-your-kids-alone-its-not-predatory-strangers-who-are-a-risk.html

    • AJ

      @AlexO:
      Nice post. The idea of the feedback loop creating greater and greater fears of risk sure rings familiar!

  30. mike r

    Off to the Marshals…It’s kind of interesting also that that brief doesn’t cite any case law and is so short and to the point with very little evidence in support of their claims…..I don’t know if that is good or bad…..

  31. AJ

    I can’t recall if this has been posted before, but “The New Civil Death: Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Conviction” (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=penn_law_review) is worth reading. It addresses how “collateral consequences” (such as registries) could possibly rise to being a new type of “civil death.” Civil death is a form of attainder and SCOTUS has ruled it punitive. The juicy bits for the most part start on document page 1816 (PDF page 28), “Civil Death and Collateral Consequences as Punishment.” The latter portion of footnote 176 (PDF pp. 32-33) also caught my eye.

    While reading this document, I couldn’t help but think of Judge Matsch’s decision in Millard. Some of the points made sound familiar to what he said in his Opinion.

  32. Not Really

    Did you know Los Angeles used to require all felons to register?

    Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 53 C2d 674

    http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/53C2d674.htm#XLA000008

    Interesting case.

    • Chris F

      Very interesting.

      It highlights how a city cannot create a law that causes conflict or confusion with a law of the state.

      I wish more of the Constitutional challenges were addressed, but as usual, once the judges found the law couldn’t stand for one reason it chose not to look into the other challenges.

      I was hoping to find something I could use to help us fight individual cities in Texas creating their own residency restrictions even though our state doesn’t set any. Unfortunately, Texas passed House Bill 1111 this year that specifically grants cities with less than 5000 people the rights of the larger cities to enact those laws. Since legislature gave them that right, it can’t be fought on grounds that cities don’t have rights to enact additional penalties on sex offenders.

      • Not Really

        I think all4consolaws has been fighting registry restrictions here in California on the same grounds: state law trumps the city laws. It doesn’t look like the legislature is in the mood here to allow cities to enact their own laws like in Texas, but those housing restrictions across the country will help get the registry stricken as punishment.

    • Joe

      http://www.solresearch.org/report/Origin_of_Registry

      Detailed history of the Registry. And tons more interesting facts.

  33. TXSO4LIFE

    SCOTUS conference day (Sept 25) for SNYDER case is getting closer and closer. Grant or not to grant cert seem like good news to me. Just more reasons to be hopeful. This year has been really positive for registrants. Let’s hope that momentum will carry over to next year! Fingers and toes cross!

    • AJ

      Yeah, we just need to wait until probably Thu of next week for results of their Mon conference. I am 100% confident SCOTUS will grant cert. The probable votes are in our favor, the momentum from the bench is in our favor, the facts are in our favor.

      • Bobby

        @AJ and @ TXSO4LIFE

        Well not to get on your bad sides, I for one am a little conflicted when it comes to Monday’s Conference since I am I live in Michigan, and have been waiting to get off the registry since they illegally put me on it in 1992, I hope they deny it. I just got done registering on 9-5 and I really hope I will not have to go in December, or ever again for that matter, but then the other part of me say’s except it that way everyone in America who is on this stupid thing, will have the opportunity to get of this unconstitutional registry. I don’t mean to sound selfish, but when your sentence to 2-15 years spend 2 1/2 years in prison and then be told by the powers thst be, you have to register for 25 years, and later told now it is life and this was never order from a Judge to do so, YES I want to be a little selfish so I can get off this ridiculous and useless registry. Sorry if I sound selfish by wanting Snyder denied offends anyone.

        • AlexO

          I doubt it’ll be denied as it seems SCOTUS has been itching to revisit this issue in full for a bit now. I very much doubt after everything that happened they’d take the case on only to squash yet again. They’ll take it and then the registry as a whole will be done away with (at least for those post supervision).

        • Not Really

          How would it help you if Snyder is denied? I’m trying to wrap my head around it harming anyone.

          • AlexO

            (I’m sure you’re actually aware on how SCOTUS works, but I’m going to lay it out more for anyone else reading this who may not be aware of the ins and outs)

            The appeals court reversed the lower court ruling, so the current result is that registration IS PUNITIVE. If SCOTUS declines to take up the case, that’s the same as them agreeing with it. But this would somewhat limit the result to only the states which the circuit court serves. So it would very directly solidify the ruling and help the people in those states.

            If they take the case and rule against it, then we’re all back to square one. If they take the case and uphold the ruling, then the ruling will stand nationally rather than just the states served by the appeals court.

            So a denial is an immediate and positive result for said states. Acceptance could potentially mean all or nothing for all.

            • Not Really

              I think if SCOTUS takes up the case it will be to affirm the ruling and overturn the other circuits in conflict. So the circuits that claimed most any regulation is possible after Alaska’s Smith v Doe would be overturned.

              I cannot see them affirming cases that used Doe to justify every “punishment” added while calling it civil. That is not the language of Doe and is not its ruling.

              https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-729

              Now we have the Colorado case that found the simple publication is punishment because the public went nuts and keeps punishing.

              All of this is miles beyond Smith v Doe and I’m betting SCOTUS doesn’t like all those words put in its mouth when it ruling was very limited.

          • New Person

            Well, not denied, per se, but not accepted to be reviewed b/c the courts agree with the AG (?) that Ex Post Facto was violated:
            =========
            Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.
            =========

            The AG, in its assessment, made a narrow distinction to only pertain it to Michigan alone and that it doesn’t violate Smith v Doe 2003. In not accepting Snyder, the SCOTUS doesn’t get to review this case, which can affect all the states; it only affects Michigan and its citizens as well as keep the Smith v Doe 2003 registry in tact.

          • Bobby

            @Not Really

            If you are speaking to me, Snyder being denied , would mean WE here in Michigan automatically WIN. So would OH, TN, and KY. automatically . Since it is a Michigan case, an the 6th Circuit already found Snyder to be PUNITIVE. That’s how it would help me.

            • Not Really

              Thanks. Yes, I was asking you.

              But I still think if SCOTUS accepts the case it will be to affirm and overturn the conflicting rulings of other courts.

              I answered this is more detail in the reply to AlexO’s comment. I can’t see SCOTUS letting stand a ruling so important that it disagrees with. It will usually wait until there is a conflict in the circuits, but that conflict is already there. Didn’t SCOTUS already deny a stay? That indicates how it might lean.

              One more thing, the “frighting and high” meme so widely circulating now will factor in. In a word, it is possible to be selfish and generous at the same time. 🙂

              • AlexO

                The meme has to factor in. It was still directly used by the defense in their statement when they filed the appeal to the CO case. That’s like the states still claiming the Earth is flat. You can’t ignore something that’s literally been the cornerstone of nearly everything post 2003.

            • TS

              @Bobby, et al

              In addition to what Bobby has correctly stated (and learned from NARSOL), if SCOTUS denies cert, then it is a SCOTUS reaffirmation that the registry is punitive in agreeing with the 6th Circuit decision which is not only a win for the 6th Circuit states, but it sets a precedent for the rest of the country to follow, as well, which is a win nationally, but will need cases filed to use it as a basis and spread the victory. It would be SCOTUS speaking on the punitive nature of the registry without the need to say more than denied cert.

              Guarantee you the CO AG is watching this one closely since she threw down the gauntlet already in stating her intent to appeal.

        • AJ

          @Bobby:
          No need to apologize at all, and you’re certainly not on my bad side over those feelings. Every single person wants to be off the registries, so having that selfish (not always a bad thing, BTW) desire is nothing but your being human. I also know you have that selfless desire for it to come crashing down entirely. I get it….but I’m also rooting against your selfish desires! 😀

  34. Txso4life

    The one line (troubling fact…) from Packingham case and Michigan’s brief show case the many conflicting “civil” restrictions upheld by most circuits are enough for me to concur that SCOTUS surely will grant cert. There is also another pending cert sex offender case dealing with civil commitment. It should be interesting to see whether they will grant this one as well. The out come of this commitment case will also affect us since the case deal with substantial due process.

    • AJ

      Yeah, I’m of the mind that Kennedy in particular wants to “correct the record” from 2003. Smith was a 5-4 decision–hardly a resounding victory for our antagonists–and that was with totally flawed information. Though the names have changed, the makeup of the Court really hasn’t since the Smith (and CT DPS, which was argued the same day!) decision. I would actually say it’s perhaps shifted a smidgen to the left with Gorsuch, and that’s purely due to what seems to be his historical distrust of government overreach.

      • AJ

        Here are the SCOTUS transcripts for Smith (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2002/01-729.pdf) and CT DPS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2002/01-1231.pdf). I haven’t read the CT DPS one yet, and may not since it was a horrible case and a 9-0 slam dunk. The Smith arguments are painful to read, as Smith’s attorney doesn’t come across as very well prepared. There are some gems in there, though, from Roberst, USSG Ted Olson, and SCOTUS. Some things said that have significantly changed. Unfortunately, SCOTUS transcripts don’t ID what Justice is speaking. There are some spots where one can figure out it’s Kennedy (who sounded skeptical about its being regulatory), Ginsburg, Rehnquist, or Scalia, as their names are mentioned either in response or by reference later.

        @Chris F: SCOTUS actually touched on the case being an ex post facto question, and not substantive due process. Once again, that seems to have been their concern back then.

        P.S. Not only were Smith and CT DPS argued the same day, but in succession! Smith arguments ended at 11:03, CT DPS arguments started at 11:04.

        • Chris F (@AJ)

          Which case was touched on as ex-post facto? I know Smith was based on that and I thought CDPS was Procedural Due Process where justices said it had grounds on SDP but not PDP but SDP wasn’t argued and can’t be brought up then.

          It’s been a year since I last read both transcripts.

          • TS

            @Chris F

            Please explain about SDP not being able to be brought up then? You mean in the case as it was heard at the time? That is what I think you are meaning.

            • AJ

              @TS:
              The question that was petitioned to SCOTUS in Smith was an ex post facto violation due to the registry being punitive. SCOTUS asked at least once or twice about SDP, but since it was not before the Court, was not addressed. IMHO, Smith’s attorney blew it by only posing the EPF question.

            • Chris F (@TS)

              Yes, it wasn’t part of the arguments in the lower courts, so can’t be raised for the first time in front of SCOTUS. Even if the Justice’s thought the registry was unconstitutional due to a lack of Substantive Due Process, it can’t consider it at that point and can only rule on the other arguments.

          • AJ

            @Chris F:
            Smith was wholly about ex post facto, and SCOTUS a time or two brought up SDP.

            BTW, I looked for the audio of the argument (to try to see what Justice was speaking), but they don’t go back that far, at least on the SCOTUS site. So you’re SOL on “SCOTUS on Tape” for your drives.

        • David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

          Oyez let’s you listen to the oral arguments, as well as to identify the speaker.

          Here is the link to Smith:
          https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-729

    • Chris F

      While it sounds like they are trying to be more lenient by using this law that doesn’t require registration instead of charging them under CP laws…I would think that there would be a 1st amendment challenge and equal protection violation. Under this law, it’s ok for an adult to send another adult a nude non-sexual picture, but a 16 year old sending a 16 year old a nude non-sexual picture is illegal.

  35. Txso4life

    A news story coming out of florida, a registrant charged with a felony for putting a sticker on his driver licence to cover the words “sexual predator”. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/report-clay-county-sex-predator-tried-to-alter-drivers-license/612636899

    • Chris F

      There was an old SCOTUS case from 1977 where someone covered “live free or die” on their license plate and they won because the government forced them to say something they didn’t want to say without giving them an alternative.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard

      I’m not sure how to use it, but a person shouldn’t have to be forced to say something by the government that they don’t believe in. That’s covered under 1st amendment:

      “the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable.”

    • AJ

      Not surprising. I’ve wondered if and when someone would get charged with altering a license. Altering and/or defacing a license is always a no-no. The smarter option would to have it in a protective case that just happens to cover what one wants covered. Then there can be zero argument by the State that anything was altered…in fact, one would be enshrining it and keeping it pristine! 😉

      Hopefully the RC and/or his attorney are aware of Wooley v Maynard (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/case.html), which almost perfectly addresses this compelled speech issue.

      • AlexO

        There’s something wrong with the law if a technically like this can get around it. It’s like gambling in Japan: It’s illegal. So game shops can’t pay out cash. But everyone instead uses a loophole to get around it. When you win you basically get tickets which you can then trade in for a prize. There are lots of prizes like pencils and Xbox and whatever. But there’s also do-nothing prize of a little metal tablet of varying colors (the colors represent it’s “value”). You can then take these little tablets across the street from the game shop to a pawn store and trade in those tablets for cash. Hey, look. They’re all gambling without gambling by creating a middleman for the exchange, just like your suggestion of not covering the license directly.

        • Chris F

          You could also use a passport for most things instead of a license…but I guess someday they’ll have them marked too…not sure what’s taking so long…wasn’t it supposed to happen a year or two ago as part of IML? I guess they don’t want the issue to be “ripe” for lawsuit.

          • AJ

            And with September being “Passport Awareness Month” (https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273747.htm), the State Department is reminding that passports and passport cards are Real ID compliant. Sounds like they wish them to be used! I’ll have to dust off my passport card. I’ve been thinking about using it anyway, and if anyone asks: “it helps me cut down on ID theft. DLs are too easy to copy and only carry state criminal punishment.”

        • AJ

          Getting around laws via technicality is a fair amount of what goes on in courts! Likewise, finding loopholes is something that’s been going on for how many decades, centuries, or millennia. It’s not really getting around, IMO. As Gorsuch has pretty much said before: “write better laws.”

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        It looks like they can get them for violation even if in a protective case that happens to cover it. Here is the wording:

        “It is unlawful for any person designated as a sexual predator or sexual offender to have in his or her possession a driver license or identification card upon which the sexual predator or sexual offender markings required by s. 322.141 are not displayed or have been altered.”

        That state just needs to separate and drift away from the mainland. Or better yet, lets just all move there until we outnumber the idiots. We’ll have to build something the height of the Empire State Building in that one block of Miami where sex offenders are allowed though.

        • TS

          @Chris F

          Displayed to who when in protective cover? anyone? that is the fine line in my mind.

          • Chris F

            That’s the problem, they can’t say you can obscure stuff if showing it as ID in a bar but not when showing to a cop. It’s all or nothing, and they’ll never agree to there being a valid reason to block the big sex offender notation, hence why they made it so obvious and not like other states that you have to know what you are looking for like an expiration date, code, or special symbol.

            In Texas, all S.O. licenses have a 1 year expiration. That doesn’t sound bad because much of the public isn’t aware, but it puts you always in fear that someone knows. You know most bars know because they deal with licenses so much and fun facts like that spread quickly.

            Yet another aspect of registration that needs to be challenged specifically or as part of a challenge to the entire scheme.

            • AJ

              Based on the statute you posted, it would likewise be illegal to have it obscured when presented to a bouncer. There is no qualification in the statute about presenting to LEOs vs non-LEOs. I still maintain that it’s displayed if the license is in its “native state,” which can happen anytime I remove it from its protection.

              You are 100% right, they will never agree to the valid reason of it being unconstitutional compelled speech. (No, I’m not being at all facetious or sarcastic.) It would seem (I stress “seem”) to be a fairly decent challenge to parallel it with Wooley v Maynard. Add in that the speech on the DL does not carry the “dangerousness” disclaimer SCOTUS found so helpful and necessary in CT DPS.

              • Chris F (@AJ)

                Good idea to use Connecticut DPS V Doe, but if I remember you can take it much further than the lack of disclaimer. Didn’t they also say the registry was OK because someone had to go actively looking you up and it wasn’t forced on people? So, that license IS forcing the designation to people that weren’t even wanting or needing to know. I think that’s BIG.

                • AJ

                  @Chris F:
                  I recall the passive/active rationale discussed in Smith, but don’t recall if it was in CT DPS. (I don’t read CT DPS too much, as it was a complete bust with a few gems in the dissent.) But yes, compelled speech, no disclaimer, and actively provided. Sure sounds different than what SCOTUS laid out.

                • AJ

                  @Chris F:
                  FWIW, I think a compelling (pun intended) argument could be made that special markers and/or text on the DLs of RCs are compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. Combining CT DPS (and others), Wooley v Maynard, Riley v Nat’l Fed. of the Blind (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/781/case.html), and (to some extent) Hurley v Irish-American GLIB of Boston (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/557/case.pdf), I think could work.

                  Wooley says the gov’t cannot compel one to speak a message with which one disagrees.

                  Riley (at 782, 797) says, “for First Amendment purposes, a distinction cannot be drawn between compelled statements of opinion and…compelled statements of ‘fact,’ since either form of compulsion burdens protected speech.”

                  Hurley (at 558, 573) reiterates, “the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.”

                  Combining all of that, we get the government compelling me to state factual information with which I disagree, and which fails to disclaim dangerousness. I actually feel a case could be made w/o CT DPS mentioned, especially since the State already has another more effective (they control the dissemination of the speech, not me) and more informative (extent of the speech: my details) means to speak: ML sites.

                  But, hopefully such a fight is rendered moot in a few months…!

                  • Chris F (@AJ)

                    Exactly.

                    It shouldn’t be that hard of a case to win, once the courts don’t rubber stamp all sex offender laws as needed to protect the public from 80% recidivism.

                    By putting a scarlet letter on a driver’s license, you preclude those people from doing anything that requires displaying a driver’s license for fear of retribution by an un-educated and ill-informed public. You could show the license at a club, and risk getting beaten up or your drink spiked. You could be turned down for loans or other bank assistance. You would be instantly harassed by police before they even look up your original charge and how long ago it was. You could get harassed, or refused a room at a hotel.

                    It’s just ridiculous how unconstitutional it is.

                    • AJ

                      @Chris F:
                      And all those fears and concerns, besides not wanting to speak for the government, would cause one to self-censor. The courts frown upon laws that cause self-censorship (also discussed in Riley at 800).

            • Tired Of This

              @ Chris F: Nevada is the same way- one-year license expiration for RCs. I didn’t realize other states are doing the same thing. I’m a tier 1 here and therefore not publicly listed, but I always worry someone will ask about the yearly expiration date or know what it means. I have a class A CDL and depend on it for my meager living and I do have to periodically present it during the course of my work. Being outed could be disastrous for me.

              I wonder how such a thing is justified. I fail to see a public safety interest in making us renew our licenses annually. I do, however, see it as a way to continually punish us financially; the standard license renewal period in NV is 8 years, so that means I’ll end up paying 8 times what a non-RC license holder pays to keep a license valid. In my case, it is $58 to renew, so I’ll end up paying $464 for the same 8-year period a non-RC pays only $58. This is such complete and utter bullsh*t and I hope it is challenged soon.

        • AJ

          @Chris F:
          The license is wholly presentable, if removed from the case. Otherwise, I guess I better be careful what type of wallet I buy. Some have clear windows that obscure part of the license while it’s seated. The markings remain displayed and unaltered if and when the license is presented by itself. I say that as long as one does nothing to the license itself–no adhering anything to it, no markers used to scribble anything out, etc–there is no way a judge would rule in the State’s favor. But there I go, using logic in relation to an RC…not to mention in FL.

  36. TXSO4Life

    There was a an article I read recently that shed light on the reason AG recommended SCOTUS denial of SNYDER cert was because he was not too comfortable with the current make up of the COURT, especially after seeing KENNEDY’s troubling statement in the Packingham case. The tactic was to sacrifice the SNYDER case and wait till Trump has a chance to replace a few justices. At the time rumor has it that Kennedy was thinking of retiring, and Girnburg would not last too long given her age and current health. Actually SCOTUS denied cert would not meant much even though it will “temperately” give victory to all in 6th circuit. Let not forget, there have been MANY bad sex offender rulings coming and pending before SCOTUS, with many cert being denied (ie. 2nd circuit, 3rd Circuit, 5th circuit, 7th circuit, 8th circuit and 11th circuit). The point I am trying to make is…….SCOTUS needs to accept this case and settle the laws once and for all. A denial of cert would meant it will take another several years before another case will be brought before them, by then the make up off the SCOTUS will definitely changes!

    • AJ

      @TXSO4Life:
      I think you mean the USSG, not AG. Anyway, yes, they did throw MI under the bus, but they also will have a hard time avoiding two of the three prongs in the 6th’s ruling: individualized risk assessment and in-person reporting. The USSG dodged the fact that AWA also has these fatal (in the 6th’s eyes) flaws. The USSG tries to avoid them by saying, “MI’s is worse than what AWA mandates.” Such a politician-like non-answer: “Does AWA mandate offense-based tiers?” “AWA does not mandate MI to make tier classification public.” “Does AWA require in-person reporting?” “MI has a requirement that is more stringent than AWA mandates.” Factual responses, but no answering of the questions asked.

  37. SO4life

    Reading the oral argument of smith vs doe case provided by AJ there was a hidden gem provided by Justice Souter when he noted in his concurring opinion…
    The fact that the [a]ct uses past crime as the touchstone, probably sweeping in a significant number of people who pose no real threat to the community, serves to feed suspicion that something more than regulation of safety is going on; when a legislature uses prior convictions to impose burdens that outpace the law’s stated civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past crimes, not prevent future ones. That statement was also cited by Maine Supreme court in STATE v. LETALIEN, <<< Mike R, where are you?
    Id. at 109, 123 S.Ct. 1140.

    • AJ

      After reading the Smith transcript and compiling it with the Smith decision, there’s no doubt in my mind the BS recidivism information was what decided it. I never thought I’d long for David Souter to be on the bench…. *sigh*

    • New Person

      What Souter denoted is exactly what’s happening to tier 1’s being re-classified as tier 3’s.

      You can actually apply that to those in California who receive a 1203.4 (case dismissal) and must still register. Anonymous Nobody carefully showed the chronological steps that removed the ability to get off the registry with 1203.4.

      In Smith v Doe 2003, they actually stated only those who have convictions are to be on the registry. In California, with a case dismissal one still has to register. This is just based upon the prior conviction. The conviction doesn’t exists, but the penalties do. And with each new proposal to increase the penalty on registrants, those without a conviction are still being punished for their non-existent conviction.

  38. Not Really

    It is interesting that no one here claims to be 100% innocent. Or perhaps the claims are minimal. Most likely that is because what would be the point of making that claim? True, there would be no way to prove it and even the clientele here likely wouldn’t believe it. You know, because the police wouldn’t arrest and the prosecutor wouldn’t charge unless guilty.

    That is the point of this post. How many of you support the various innocence projects across the nation? Support could be following their news and giving a thumbs up, to stating facts, to donating or more.

    It matters because the arrogance of the narcissistic states thought the system was perfect and flawless. The innocence projects are putting that meme to shame. A system capable of introspection is more just and reliable.

    The same goes for the death penalty. Many of the exonerated were on death row. So I support innocence projects and death penalty abolition. Do you?

    • Stay outraged

      Are you being cynical? I’m 100% innocent of what Megan’s Law attempts to prevent! I’m not a legitimate public safety concern, much less a credible safety threat around children, yet when someone sees my name and photo online, it implies that I’m a public safety liability!

      It’s really tone deaf and oblivious to state we all need to be monitored and tracked forever because we committed a sex crime. Megan’s Law is punitive punishment after the fact. What community notification tries to prevent is sadly not possible. It’s not even achievable! The registry is not a solution, much less a strategy for thwarting, curtailing or combating the same thing the Kanka’s and Walshes went through.

      The registry is not justice for any sex crime victim! It’s a revenge fantasy pure and simple.

      Megan’s Law will ALWAYS be a spectacular failure, but the lawmakers cling to it as a “crowd pleaser.”

      • Not Really

        I think maybe you read something in there that I didn’t intend, and I’m not sure what it was. As to your comment, we all know that. What I was talking about was the hundreds or thousands of people, many on death row, that didn’t commit the crime they were sentenced for and someone else did. Are you familiar with what the innocence project does?

        https://www.innocenceproject.org/

  39. TXSO4life

    Upcoming 2nd petition of civil commitment in SCOTUS that challenge due process claim….good reading for all
    https://sajrt.blogspot.com/2017/08/us-supreme-court-to-decide-karsjens-v.html

    • TXSO4life

      Forgot to mention the significant of this case is that it is a PRO SE case that may end up to be the case that shape the landscape of civil commitment in yrs to come. That bring to mind Mike R dream, goal, and ambition to overcome Goliath, the government that continues to bully us into submission. So beside the snyder case, the outcome of this karsjens case will also affect us tremendously, since it is the case that deal with 14th amendment claim.

      • mike r

        That is a very interesting case..It’s pretty crazy when these people have to file Pro Se to get in front of a judge with all these so called civil rights orgs. out there….

  40. Bobby

    Well Folks I have been trying not to think about tomorrow by watching a lot of Football today, but it is getting harder the closer tomorrow gets, like I said before I really hope it is denied tomorrow, for us here in Michigan Ohio and Tennessee and Kentucky so that it will finally be over.

    Then of course the other side of me that say’s accept it, so that everyone across the country will be effected, and not just the four states associated with the 6th circuit ruling.

    Sorry to keep rambling about the same thing over and over again, but this waiting is harder then I thought it would be now that it is about only 12 hrs away before the conference starts. Thanks for letting me vent a little tonight.

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      I hate to burst the bubble, but a SCOTUS denial would not by rule mean you’re good forever. Given the conflicts among the circuits about this, at some point it *will* land before SCOTUS. A ruling against RCs at that point could well put you and other RCs right back on the registries. When it comes to RC laws, court decisions below SCOTUS are always subject to that NFL phrase, “upon review….”

  41. Not Really

    Weekend Reading for Supreme Court Buffs

    In Justice Today is a publication of Harvard Law School’s Fair Punishment Project. We monitor news sources from around the country, and talk to local journalists and advocates, so we can share the most important stories with you. This is a special U.S. Supreme Court edition. Starting on Monday, the Court has dozens of criminal justice related certiorari petitions to consider. Here are the ten petitions we’re following closely, which cover issues including civil commitment, sex offender registries, non-unanimous jury verdicts, death in prison sentences for juveniles, the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, Double Jeopardy protections, and solitary confinement

    http://mailchi.mp/fairpunishment/in-justice-today-scotus-weekend-reading-303847?e=%5BUNIQID%5D

    Thanks for the link: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/09/terrific-review-of-scotus-petitions-to-watch-from-folks-at-in-justice-today.html

  42. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    Well not sure how many of you out there are as anxious as I am to find out what SCOTUS as decided concerning The Snyder Case. So I emailed Ms Aukerman to ask if she knew yet what SCOTUS decided about Snyder. She said we probably won’t know anything until Thursday, unless it some how gets leaked out before Thursday. Just thought everyone would like to know what’s going on with Snyder

    • AlexO

      I would be absolutely amazed if they did not take it. It seems like they’ve been itching for a good while to correct their 2003 decision. They just didn’t have a real opportunity until now as the lower courts have continually denied cases to progress based on the 2003 decision. It was basically a snake eating its own tale.

      • anon

        I agree. They only need 4 votes to take it and it sounds like they have 5. I have no idea what will happen or where it will take us, but there may be some changes soon.

    • AJ

      SCOTUS is not known for leaks. I’d plan on hearing sometime on Thursday. I echo AlexO’s comments and opinion.

  43. bluewall

    I thought there was a deadline for the CA Megan Website to be accurate with dates and scores and such….

    I have no dates, 20 something years later and no dates, like I’m fresh out of lockup

    wtf

  44. David

    I don’t think CA DOJ ever gave a sh#t what the settlement required. It’s law enforcement and they would never be held accountable or punished. No one will ever be demoted or fired. Will a court hold them in contempt of the settlement? No. Will the court demand the S.O. Registry website be shut down until properly updated? No. They’ll just grant CA DOJ whatever extension it requests….one year, five years, 10 years. No one will hold them accountable. They get $$$$millions to run the websites, and $$$millions to harrass us with Compliance Checks, but no one will hold them accountable….not courts, not lawmakers, not the hysteria-prone public.

  45. Dumb-LE

    LE can’t bother to make their records accurate. For endless years, they’ve done Compliance Checks and still retain their own notably incorrect physical description of me. This only confirms that they have transitioned from law enforcement activities to simple, blatant oppression.

  46. steve

    Here’s a stat:
    “Between 2016 and 2017, the Texas Education Agency reportedly opened at least 300 investigations into possible sexual relationships between educators and students, Express-News reported, the most in at least seven years”

    But let’s focus on the already punished.

  47. Paul

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092817zr_9o6b.pdf

    So am I correct in saying that they are not taking up the Michigan case, and are allowing it to stand?

    • Paul 2

      yep Now id like to see what freed does I don t think hell file now If he does he’s nuts

      • steve

        Time to take down the entire scheme now! How does this affect assigning tiers now here in CA without individual assessments?

        • AlexO

          Not well for the state, I imagine. Doesn’t mean they’ll just roll over though. Janice is still fighting some counties and cities on residency restrictions years after our courts declared it unconstitutional.

    • AJ

      @Paul:
      No, that is not what it means. Lack of granting does not mean denied. It simply means SCOTUS didn’t grant…perhaps yet, perhaps never. The other two options remaining are relisting and denial. I’m quite surprised they didn’t accept it. We’ll have to wait to see if it gets relisted or denied. Maybe they are waiting for other cases so they can compile them? (Fingers crossed that to be the case!) If PA just recently petitioned, the window remains open for briefs to be filed in that case. Perhaps they’re waiting on that? IDK.

      Until there are explicit words from SCOTUS saying granted or denied, Snyder remains in limbo and under consideration. According to scotusblog.com, “[t]he justices are expected to issue more orders from the September 25 conference – which are likely to mostly be denials of review – on Monday morning at 9:30 [ET],” (http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/justices-issue-orders-long-conference/#more-262155). Absent a denial on Monday, we’ll probably have to wait until Oct 10 for the Orders from the next conference (Oct 6).

      • Paul 2

        Ok thanks AJ got an email from the Florida action commit that threw me off well see what happens

    • AlexO

      I had to Google what Certiorari Granted meant.

      “The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court.”

      So it seems like this isn’t the best thing but still leaves the window open to be taken.

      • AJ

        @AlexO:
        It’s not a “thing” one way or the other. There are only 9 people on the face of this earth who know why SCOTUS accepts this or that case, and not others. A case can be relisted over, and over, and over, and still be granted cert. Masterpiece Cakeshop was origininally distrubuted for conference on Sept 26, 2016 (the historically statistical “up or down” long conference). It was then relisted *eighteen times* before being granted cert on June 26, 2017* (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/?wpmp_switcher=desktop). Granted, a number of those relists were probably to stall while a 9th Justice arrived, but half of those relists were after Gorsuch was sworn in.

        The only valid and usable information from SCOTUS’s grant list is that those cases were granted. Nothing else can be inferred, positively or negatively, about any other case, Snyder included.

        Finally, as someone else pointed out, more grants could come out over the next few days. SCOTUS is media aware, and is known for trying to spread out “big news” over a few days to let the media digest it. They certainly do this with major Opinions.

        *I do not beleive Snyder will be delayed the entire Term.

        • AlexO

          Thanks for the insight. I think I’ve learned more about legal proceedings here in the last few months than in all my previous 30+ years.

        • AlexO

          Do you have any insight in to what effect the Snyder case might have on the registry in general should SCOTUS accept and affirm the ruling? I know the PA case ruling was that the registry in general is punitive. But the Snyder case specifically dealt with ex post facto of SORNA implementation. Can SCOTUS choose to extend Snyder beyond this and rule the against the registry in general like PA? And if they keep it limited to ex post facto, than does that have any positive effect on people being convicted now and in the future in terms of having to register?

          It would just seem odd that ex post facto for those pre-SORNA is punitive, but for those after SORNA is regulatory.

          • Paul 2

            Alex I think you need to look at it as the reg is punitive for both pre and post SORNA people. Because it was on the books anyone that committed their crime post SORNA is not due relief because they knew about the reg and what it meant to them. People pre SORNA were subject to different reg therefore they are due relief because it was changed after their crime. The reg is punitive but it doesn’t mean that post SORNA people are due relief because they should have known the effects of the reg.

            Due process is an issue because the person should be judge as an individual I think that is how Post SORNA people will get relief Each person should have a chance to show how dangerous they are vs the protection of the public. A hearing just like the svp hearing should be used to determine if someone should go on reg and for how long. If the facts are used there would be few people on the reg and the public would know who is dangerous and law informant can keep a closer eye on them, that is what will change the reg. Look at a list of SVPs incarcerated vs out on street.

            • Paul 2

              I just spoke with Samuel C. Stretton Attorney for Reed We can seek relief he recommends to get things rolling I’m meeting with him next week to petition my trial court. I would say anyone that can afford to do the same do it before they start pulling rabbits out of their asses. I will update on the cost He is in West Chester PA I’m in Lehigh co So there will be a cost to travel but I think he is the one to go with I talked with other local attorneys and they don’t know what to do Sam right away said all we have to do is petition the trial court. The others were talking about appeals and crazy stuff.

              Sams number 610) 696-4243

            • AlexO

              Well in legal terms, if they actually do consider it punitive (government), then it can’t be applied post supervision whether it was pre or post SORNA. The entire reason why the registry exists at all is because it was ruled to not be punitive.

              • Paul 2

                Yes but to get relief post SORNA you would have to use due process or cruel and unusual something other than ex post

              • AJ

                @AlexO:
                The problem is that if it’s punitive, one may never reach “post-supervision.” It would instead probably become (using AWA numbers) 15-year, 25-year, or life supervision. But I agree that if it’s deemed punitive in effect, despite legislative intent, it *shouldn’t* just morph into being criminal code. I say shouldn’t, because our legislative processes are so screwed up anymore, it’s far from certain it would be handled properly.

          • AJ

            @AlexO:
            “Do you have any insight in to what effect the Snyder case might have on the registry in general should SCOTUS accept and affirm the ruling?”
            —-
            Every State in the Union, as well as Uncle Sam, is going to be on its heels with lawsuit upon lawsuit, challenging their registries. Even if a registry scheme doesn’t match detail for detail what MI’s SORA has, the State will be on defense. A key part of the Snyder and Muniz rulings, as well as the USSG amicus, is the lack of individualized assessment. I don’t know that any State will be able to escape that element–nor can they probably afford to do it for every RC.
            =====
            “Can SCOTUS choose to extend Snyder beyond this and rule the against the registry in general like PA?”
            —–
            Muniz (PA) was also about ex post facto application, not about the registry being punitive in general. From Muniz: “we reverse and hold…retroactive application of SORNA’s registration
            provisions violates the federal ex post facto clause; and…also violates the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” As to the first part of the question: maybe, though probably not, as the question before SCOTUS is whether it violates ex post facto. They way they could expand it is to rule broadly on the punishment aspect, but SCOTUS is typically quite averse to ruling beyond the minimum needed to settle the question presented. In short, SCOTUS would almost assuredly rule on the items specific to MI’s SORA.
            =====
            “And if they keep it limited to ex post facto, than does that have any positive effect on people being convicted now and in the future in terms of having to register?”
            —–
            States will need to be more careful in crafting whatever laws they wish to impose, that’s for sure. As far as having to register, if it’s on the books when the offense is committed, then it’s part of the sentence possibilities (read: certainty) for the offender. It would probably get repackaged as mandatory supervision for however many years or life. I believe some States (NJ?) already have lifetime supervision for some RCs–including GPS, which the RC must fund.

            • AlexO

              Thanks AJ. But I don’t quite have the answer to my question. I agree that going forward many states will likely move towards longer, if not lifetime, supervision in order to maintain some sort of registry. But wouldn’t an ex post facto ruling mean that nearly all current 800,000+ registrants would be relived either immediately because they’re post supervision or relived once they complete supervision? From my understanding, ex post facto relies on the fact that something is punitive. And if something is punitive it cannot be applied post supervision regardless of the conviction date. So it shouldn’t matter if someone was convicted in 1960 or last month. If they’re no longer on supervision then ex post facto kicks in and they no longer need to register.

              Also, even if SCOTUS rules that the registry as a whole is punitive, I still see some states simply extending lifetime supervision to all sex crime cases, even if the registry doesn’t exist. And aside from maybe no longer being able to list people publicly, they could still likely apply all of the other restrictions the current registry has.

              If I’m wrong, please let me know, and please cite some sources (not that I don’t believe you, but I always like to see something in actual writing that I could then use to point out to others in the future).

              • TS

                @AlexO

                Your thinking is thought provoking and interesting. In this forum, that is a good thing…kudos to you and keep it coming.

                IMO, and two cents worth of that, depending on a new paradigm, lifelong supervision for all offenses could be considered cruel and unusual and still require individual assessment to be applicable. This would put it in line with what is supposed to be the correct way to admin justice, e.g. individual vs class based upon mandatory sentencing guidelines for crimes. I think it would need to get back to what has been said all along, individual assessment regardless of the cost and no going back to the past, but from a point in time going forward.

              • AJ

                @AlexO:
                “[W]ouldn’t an ex post facto ruling mean that nearly all current 800,000+ registrants would be relived either immediately because they’re post supervision or relieved once they complete supervision?”
                —–
                Perhaps. An ex post facto finding in these suits is contingent on the RC laws being deemed, “regulatory in intent, punitive in effect.” This is an important phrase, as it means that there could well end up being a continuum of RC laws, some of which are found punitive in effect, and perhaps some that aren’t. It will greatly depend on what a court of last resort (almost assuredly SCOTUS) decides. It may affirm that RC laws such as in Smith are still regulatory; it may decide something more than Smith, but less than SORA-MI and/or SORNA-PA, is regulatory; it may say the whole concept is punitive; it may say it’s all still regulatory. That all said, wherever the courts land, hopefully it establishes a “bright line” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule), or at least as brighter line, for RCs. Wherever the “punitive in effect” threshold is met will decide to whom ex post facto applies, and to whom it does not. That may mean all 800k (doubtful), or it could mean a sliver of that 800k.
                It really will all depend on where the tipping point is placed between “regulatory in intent and effect” and “regulatory in intent, but punitive in effect.” Anyone with a conviction, and off paper, prior to that tipping-point date would be free of those burdens immediately. Depending on what the parole/probation orders say, someone convicted prior, but still on paper after, could be subject until released from supervision. If it was never mentioned in probation/parole, but was merely a collateral consequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_consequences_of_criminal_conviction), someone may be able to argue they are not subject to it. IMHO, the people still on paper through (on paper before and after) that tipping-point date is a bit of a question mark. However, everyone would remain subject to what remnant remains that is considered regulatory.
                In very short terms: the number of RCs released will depend on where that ex post facto tipping point is set.

                (I usually like to include citations, but didn’t really feel they were warranted beyond the two supplied. If there’s something for which you’d like a citation, please say and I’ll do some digging.)
                =====
                I agree with TS about the lifetime supervision being excessive or cruel and unusual. If we presume the courts are swayed by the real recidivism data and liberty interest restrictions, lifetime supervision could well be found excessive. It’s one thing to pile on all sorts of regulations, but once they are viewed as punitive, the State and courts must have a punishment the reasonably fits the crime. I further agree with TS that it will all come down to individual risk assessment of the offender. That’s the only way a judge can determine what sentence–particularly rehabilitation–fits the offender and offense.
                =====
                Hopefully this is a better reply to your query. If not, I’ll try, try again. Cheers!

                • AlexO

                  Good explanation. Thank you! Watching law being made is certainly just as gruesome as watching sausage being made lol

                  I’m a bit unclear by what you mean being “on paper” though. Let’s use me as an example. I was convicted in 2014 and successfully completed my probation earlier this year. I’m in California (convicted and living in) and we’re currently a blanket life state. We’re literally weeks away from signing into law our own tiered registry but it’s not going to be SORNA compliant (for the moment, our tired registry is simply going to try and tier everyone based solely on PC codes with zero individual evaluation, so that in itself will present a ton of legal issues for the state).

                  Where would someone like me fall under an ex post facto ruling?

                  • TS

                    @AlexO

                    Off paper = released from all terms and conditions upon satisfactory completion of any parole, probation, supervision, etc and are essentially a free person.

                    The argument is any registration after completing the terms and conditions is additional punishment. The new CA RC law being applied to you after you have completed your terms and conditions and are released would be considered ex post facto.

                    ‘Bout as simplified as it can get….I think at least.

                    • AlexO

                      So does that then mean California and all other states will all technically each have dozens if not hundreds of “tiers” all with various don’ts, all based on the year of conviction and laws on the books up to that time because anything after that would technically fall under ex post facto?

                      That would be insane and completely unmanageable.

                  • AJ

                    @AlexO:
                    Sorry, that’s corrections lingo for someone’s supervision status.
                    On paper = probation, or parole (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=on%20paper).
                    Off paper = no longer on probation, or on parole (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%22off%20paper%22).
                    =====
                    Where would someone like me fall under an ex post facto ruling?
                    —–
                    This can only be answered once that “punitive tipping point” is delineated. Until then, it’s, as they say in certain circles, “p!ss!ng in the wind.”
                    =====
                    As to the dozens upon dozens of tiers, I say perhaps. There are only so many iterations of MLs that any given State has passed. They would have to use those dates to categorize who even needs to still register. But if the bare-bones law from the days of Moses passes the “inent and effect” test, every RC could still be stuck.
                    =====
                    That would be insane and completely unmanageable.
                    —–
                    Never underestimate the lengths government will go, especially if there’s “unlimited” money available to be thrown at the problem.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *