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 NewsNational

MI: SCOTUS denies review in Snyder v. Doe

UPDATE: Statement from the Michigan ACLU

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will not hear the State of Michigan’s appeal in a challenge to the state¹ sex offender registration law, which was dealt a major blow by a federal appeals court in a unanimous decision last year.

Today’s announcement effectively requires the Michigan legislature to replace the existing law, thus creating an opportunity to reform Michigan’s registry, which has been widely criticized as bloated and ineffective. The lawsuit was originally brought by the ACLU of Michigan and the University of Michigan Clinical Law Program in 2012.¹

“Courts have repeatedly recognized that Michigan’s sex offender registry is not just unconstitutional, but it’s an abject failure,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney. “Our communities deserve effective public-safety measures that are based in facts and research, not wasteful and counterproductive policies based in fear. We look forward to working with the legislature on a common-sense approach that serves our communities.”

In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants. The amendments retroactively made most registrants register for life and imposed geographic exclusion zones barring them from living, working, or spending time with their children in large areas of every city and town. Additionally, the legislature added extensive and onerous new in-person reporting requirements that make it a crime for registrants to borrow a car, travel for a week, or get a new email account without immediately notifying the police. The changes were imposed without due process or a mechanism for review or appeal for the vast majority of registrants.

The plaintiffs in the case must all register for life despite decades old offenses and the fact that they do not pose a risk to their communities. Some plaintiffs were convicted as teens of consensual sex with younger teens, one person never committed a sex offense, and another was never convicted of a crime. All of the plaintiffs are parents or grandparents and as a result of SORA they cannot attend their children or grandchildren’s graduations, sports events or school performances. Because the state posts pictures and extensive personal information about the plaintiffs online – including maps of where they live and work – they have repeatedly lost housing and jobs, and one plaintiff even faced death threats.

By denying the review, the Supreme Court leaves in place a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared that portions of the law are unconstitutional. Noting the lack of evidence that registries actually protect the public, the appeals court held that restrictions added to the law after its original passage cannot be applied retroactively and that the state cannot cast people out as “moral lepers” solely on the basis of a past offense without a determination that they currently present a risk.¹ The state appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Research proves that registries do nothing to keep us safe – in fact, they makes us less safe, as people with past offenses are stigmatized and pushed to the margins of society, making it harder for them to get jobs or an education, find homes, or take care of their families,” said Paul Reingold of the University of Michigan Law School. “Smart public policy and current research show that this law should be reconsidered from the ground up.”

Michigan has nearly 44,000 registrants, making it the fourth largest sex offender registry in the country, with the third highest registration rate per capita of any state. Michigan adds about 2,000 people to the registry each year, or about 5 a day.

To learn more about this case, go to: www.aclumich.org/SORAinfo

===============

Breaking news: The Supreme Court also denied review in Snyder v. Doe, a challenge to Michigan’s sex-offender registry (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.)

Order list

Case Page

Related

First big SCOTUS order list has lots of big “cert denied” decisions in big sentencing cases

 

Join the discussion

  1. TXSO4life

    So now what does this denial mean? There are now many legal variables in question. For once, federal laws adam wash act (sorna) is now applying differently in different circuits and / or states. What is unconstitutional in ones is considered constitutional in others. It is a great day for post sorna registrants within the 6th circuit area, at least for now. Perhaps a new case in other federal circuits should file and cited the DOJ brief in support of the 6th? What distinguished the 6th denial of cert from other bad ruling from other circuits (as mentioned in my other post), is the called of the DOJ opinion from Scotus in the matter. Maybe this denial of cert was more significant than the rest of SO cases because of the DOJ supporting the 6th?

  2. who removes from list

    My husband wanted to tell you this, If the US Supreme Court agreed to hear appeal they would agreed with us. That means 500,000 people come off the registry. Due to them denying it, it says, without saying, leave it up to each state supreme court to figure it out. They basically said, we don’t want this battle!

    • Davidh

      @ Who removes from the list

      I can live with that; I think it should have always been a State issue–it was the federal government that insisted otherwise!

  3. Ray

    I am trying to understand the underlying impact on Michigan SO. After denying Doe vs Snyder, does it mean we go back to pre 2006 rules only or other issues will be addressed like tiers base system, life registration, traveling and so forth. If the other issues will be addressed, which court will handle that?

    • who removes from list

      My husband wanted to tell you this. For the ones who were added too, increased requirements, after the fact, ex post facto, either you go back to the original registry you were under or you go back to being off of it. But if you were sentenced to after Sora or Sorna enactment, you are still required to register as you did yesterday. Nothing changes for who was sentenced the pre sorna date. That is your punishment. Pre Sora or Sorna goes back to your old punishment requirements.

    • Davidh

      @ Ray

      when you say “we” who is we? and what State do you live in? The Doe Synder case only affects States in the 6th circuit!

  4. TS

    This can be used in other circuits, e.g. the Tenth, et al, as reference point going forward on challenges against the registry, SORNA, etc.

    Being off paper is off paper and no one should have to register when off paper, in addition to not having to register while on paper.

  5. AJ

    This is certainly a disappointing result for those not in 6th and/or MI. It makes for a tougher, longer, more expensive battle in court after court. I’ve never so wished to have been right, but was obviously quite wrong in my SCOTUS prognostications. I’m amazed fewer than 4 Justices felt it merited review. I guess SCOTUS sees as properly adjudicated by the 6th and review would be a waste of time? Or there’s not “enough” of a dispute among the Circuits? Or maybe they were hoodwinked by USSG reframing the question? Perhaps now if Snyder is used in other Circuits and is disregarded, then SCOTUS is more interested? To me, SCOTUS has given more questions than answers!

    This does not bode well for PA’s chances of getting accepted.

    So now the question is, what combination of burdens comprises “punishment”? Is it the combination of all the burdens? Is it some of the burdens?

    I’m curious what the op-eds, etc, will have to say about this!

    P.S. I’m giving up reading SCOTUS tea leaves and similar prognostications.

    • TS

      @AJ

      What was the Snyder count and in which direction by who? Did it fall close to their leanings and previous thoughts?

      • AJ

        @TS:
        SCOTUS doesn’t release that information. All we can be sure of is that it was fewer than 4, the number needed to grant cert.

        • TS

          @AJ

          Of course, makes sense.

          • TS

            @AJ

            What gets me is they did it without comment. No fuel for the fire? One can only speculate of course, but interesting nonetheless, IMO

            • AJ

              @TS:
              SCOTUS rarely comments on denials or per curiams. It’s a rather enigmatic entity.

        • Jim

          AJ – what is your thinking on Muniz given Snyder was not accepted?

          More or less likely to be accepted in light of this?

          • AJ

            @Jim:
            What, trying to draw me right back into reading tea leaves shortly after I swore them off? 🙂

            I’ll simply re-post what I said above: “This does not bode well for PA’s chances of getting accepted.”
            Muniz has, at best, the same merits Snyder did, but also suffers a couple other problems.
            Calder v Bull dealing with State supremacy over State constitutional issues by itself *should* be enough for SCOTUS to deny. Adding in the last-resort rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule), based on a couple SCOTUS cases, and it would seem to be a slam dunk. But, only SCOTUS knows.

            FYI, still no docket for Muniz on SCOTUS’s website.

    • Lovecraft

      I feared this would be the case. Its really not surprising though. Normally scotus does not “reach” for cases and since there was no difference in opinion across cases or states on this particular issue it hasnt matured into a case scotus will except. What we need now is one of these other cases in the pipeline like they nc lawsuit, or ohio, or about 6 other states have their lawsuit(s) ruled in direct contrast to the Michigan case. Then and only then will scotus likely take on the issue.

      I will add that this chink in sorna’s armor will ultimately have a trickle down effect. Imagine what will happen when michigan has to overhaul their registry…its likely to be a shell of what it was. On top of that, they will either have to make the registry less strict across the board or make the new draconian registry (if they want to keep that scheme) only apply to those who commit crimes after its creation date. Either way Michigan will become the new Oregon and when you have a mass influx of rc’s into the state I imgaine Michigan will scream bloody murder. Change will have to occur in other states.

      • Robert

        Unfortunately it comes down to judicial ripeness, we need more than a single circuit decision to get SCOTUS to redo Smith v. Doe.
        Regardless, Snyder is still a big win. It will likely weaken the momentum of the AWA and brings the truth regarding the punishment of the registry to a more accepted view to other courts.

    • Davidh

      @ AJ
      In my view, I say let Michigan and Pennsylvania and every other State lt their respective Supreme courts decide, or one level up to the federal circuit courts–it’s only after the circuit courts are battling would the Supreme court take it.

      It was always a State issue, the federal government and SORNA should never have encouraged it or gotten involved, my opinion

      • AJ

        @Davidh:
        Agreed! As usual, the Feds like to poke their noses into things the States are handling just fine, and then twist their arms to try to make them comply to some national standard. I wish the meatheads in D.C. would realize not everything needs to be federalized.

        • David_X

          On the contrary, AJ, I think the Feds should overrule the States on residence restrictions, presence restrictions and compliance restrictions. This crazy BS from one State saying you must register within 48 hours vs. other States saying 5 days, 7 days, 10 days. This patchwork becomes a real mess to try to adhere to and, if these restrictions are going to exist at all, they should be simple to understand, universal, and least onerous as possible.

          • Tim Moore

            Quite true. This Byzantine maze of local laws we have to go through in order to travel safely out of our state stifles freedom of movement.

          • AJ

            @David_X:
            I was talking about the Feds making things *worse* by poking their noses into something. The States were, for the most part, less restrictive until AWA, SORNA and IML came along. The same fights could have been made against States, but now one must also attack the Federal laws. IML could be particularly difficult to snuff.

            The patchwork is certainly a problem, but in NO WAY do I want the Feds mandating the standards, as they will take the harshest as their standard. At least now, one can learn to avoid some places (FL, LA, NY, etc) and live a *smidgen* better.

            I say anyone who thinks asking the Feds to step in to make a “better” law is a good idea is perhaps smoking something!

            • Civil rights first

              @AJ…. But if the registry were to fall and if I’m correct for the government to send the notice to a country you’re intending on visiting depends on being in the registry. So if no registry wouldn’t IML fall as well?

              • AJ

                @CR 1st:
                Yeah, I think IML may well fail for the same reasons as the domestic MLs are starting to: excessive, no individualized risk assessment (i.e. no determination of dangerousness). As for whether the notifications would stop, I’m not so sure. Some on here (David Kennerly? Paul?) recently posted about how the nations send each other stuff all the time about one’s offenses. So I guess I see it as a big maybe. The 21-day notification would go away, but there’s nothing prohibiting the USG from issuing a Green Alert when your name pings during a search of a passenger manifest 48 hours ahead of travel.

                I don’t foresee a total abolition, or even LE-only restriction, of registries. For one, it would require Smith being reversed, and I don’t see any way that’s possible under a Smith-like registry. The Martinez-Mendoza factors used in Smith would need to fall our way, and I don’t see how SCOTUS will ever see that–if they even take such a case. Beyond all that, I see our society as so hyper-vigilant fearful, as well as relying on Big Daddy Government to solve all our problems, that watching the citizenry (i.e. registries) will be the norm, not the exception. *sigh* I recall a day when we Americans would bristle at the thought that we’re supposed to spy and tell on each other. And we like to kid ourselves the terrorists didn’t win, or at least score a significant victory…. Riiiight.

    • Fred

      If the Supreme Court had taken this case it would had been to reverse the 6th’s decision. The fact that they didn’t take it, implies that they see nothing wrong in the 6th’s decision that needs their review. If they had taken it, it would had been very bad for registrants nationwide, because they didn’t, other states can now use this case for leverage.

      • AJ

        @Fred:
        “If the Supreme Court had taken this case it would had been to reverse the 6th’s decision.”
        —–
        Upon what do you base this “factual” statement? If all cases SCOTUS takes were reversals, there would be no need for oral argument or deliberation! SCOTUS could simply say accept means reverse, and deny means affirm.
        =====
        “The fact that they didn’t take it, implies that they see nothing wrong in the 6th’s decision that needs their review.”
        —–
        This statement is contrary to your first statement. According to you, SCOTUS would have struck Snyder had they taken it, yet by not taking it, “they see nothing wrong.” Again, you seem of the belief that SCOTUS only takes cases they will reverse. This is patently false and a rather parochial view of the process. As well, their denial doesn’t mean they wholly agree with it, it just means there’s not enough (perhaps anything) wrong with it to hear it. As others have pointed out, the topic itself, both on merits and Circuit conflict, may not yet be ripe enough for SCOTUS to accept it.

        • Paul 2

          I agree. They would most likely put the most weight on two things 1 does it step on states toes and 2 should we wait for more cases to make a better decision that will outline the facts better.

      • AlexO

        Not true (at least not a guarantee). They could’ve chosen to take it and affirm it so that it because the law of the land coast-to-coast. By not taking it they largely limited to the 6th as it’s a non-binding ruling outside of the circuit. It’s a win but a smaller win.

        • Harry

          Much of this legal stuff is confusing to me, on a good day, however, Snyder v. Doe SCOTUS affirmation could give other courts courage and legal footing to do the same in the rest of nation. Could this be a small snowball starting to roll?

  6. SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

    This is a sad day… They had a chance to fix the mistakes of Doe v Smith and choose not to…

    • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

      I’m worried about what this means for eventual SCOTUS cases which will very likely include new Justices appointed by Trump. Gorsuch might have been a fluke. Who knows what the future will bring to the Court?

      I think that this and the other organizations e.g. NARSOL need to grow and we need to become much more visible and militant.

      • Tim Moore

        Fellow containee, I concur. We can speculate all we want on these pages, but it won’t influence the powers one iota. Only doing something in public view, many coordinated small things even, in earnest will likely change things.

    • Davidh

      Chances are had the US Supreme court heard it–we’d probably would have been screwed

  7. Who removes from list

    Didnt they get it right? They said denied, that means they agree with Doe. What isnt anyone understanding?

    • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

      Everyone outside the 6th circuit was hopeful the court would take it and uphold the decision making it binding on every court in the land, by denying cert, someone live in the 2nd Circuit like me (New York) would need money (since the ACLU won’t help) to fight saying changes are punishment.

      • PK

        Me too, regsitered in 2nd, but haven’t been back in New York for 15 years!
        Speaking of fighting, have you spoken with Kathy?

        • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

          I haven’t. I couldn’t locate her contact info yesterday. I did email the local ACLU who in the past told me by policy they do not assist registered citizens… I’ll try to find her email and pen something to her today although I’m unsure i can afford to hire her at this moment

          • PK

            I have if you would like to email me I think you would need to go through the Moderator.
            A case with many Plaintiffs would be less expensive. We have been in communication about this topic.

          • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

            I’m curious how they put that and if it something we could quote.

            • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

              @David Kennerly

              They were smart enough to call and inform me over the phone they do not assist Sex Offenders, they did not put it in writing I do not believe but I will go through old emails and correspondence this weekend.

              • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

                That is really astounding that they would come right out and say that they do not assist sex offenders. As if there is no injustice meted out to us that would not be entirely within their remit as a justice organization worthy of challenge. That should be seen as an extremely shameful statement. I assume that this is the New York ACLU? Mind you, I wouldn’t be shocked to know that they privately held such a position but to come right out and say it is very shocking. Roger Baldwin must be spinning in his grave.

                • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

                  It was the Nassau County chapter of the ACLU.

                  The NYC Chapter currently is assisting with a lawsuit attacking parents for megans law and suffolk county. So its interesting how one county can be so closed minded

          • AJ

            I guess ACLU-NY buys into RCs being incurable and subject to “frightening and high” recidivism. Why other reason is there for such a policy? RCs don’t deserve what the CL is ACLU stands for?

    • AlexO

      They agreed with Doe, but by denying it they limit this ruling to the 6th. Courts in other circuits can cite the 6th, but it’s non binding. Had SCOTUS taken it and ruled it in our favor, then every single district in the country would be bound by it. So this is a great victory for those in the 6th, but but a steeping stone everywhere else.

  8. Randall Saunders

    What does this mean? Pre-2006 requirements? Or will I be removed? 04-20-2000 was my conviction!

    • TXSO4Life

      Randol, if you are from Michigan or affected states within the 6th circuit, you should contact ACLU of Michigan and asked those questions. They are the organization that won the snyder case. Link to them is below.
      http://www.aclumich.org/SORAinfo

    • AlexO

      What was supposed to be the duration of your registration when you were convicted? Whatever it was, that’s what it’s now again. So if you were only supposed to register 10-15 years, then you should now be free from registering. Of course make sure you speak with a lawyer first before you decided to skip your next registration.

  9. anon

    The Supreme Court had several options. The worst would have been them accepting the case and reversing. The best would have been them accepting and affirming. Denying certiorari leaves the decision in place for the 6th District. If the exact case had been brought from any other district, we can presume the Supreme Court would have left the case intact with those cases also. So what will it take to bring a case in the 9th District to get the same benefits?

  10. AlexO

    Maybe SCOTUS is doing this on purpose with a goal in mind of creating so much rift among the states that eventually they’ll be forced to hear a case on the registry as a whole rather then ex post facto of particular time periods. Basically, create such a mess, that the ultimate outcome is inevitable?

    • i can't wait to die

      There is a big case in the 11th to keep an eye on.

    • TXSO4Life

      Alex <<< I doubt they are denying it on purpose, as there are 9 minds within that sept 25 conference, and half of them Justices are against the other half for political reason. The way I see it; it was less importance of them to consider (at this point) when combined with all the meaningful cases. I see at some point, perhaps the recent Colorado case, we will be again in suspense of a cert petition like this one. But then again, that is just my wistful thinking…

  11. RP

    This is a total win for our side. The more lower courts rule these laws and their enhancements as unconstitutional the better. If it ever goes to SCOTUS they will have a solid foundation to make change on. They and yes we want a history of case law behind this before it gets to them. They don’t want a battle royal in their court, they want to affirm lower court rulings to do the job for them. Also this will help cut down on new law schemes down the road. Lawmakers will understand that these laws will be shot down long before it gets to the highest court. The legal atmosphere will help create an environment where the registry go out with a wimper

  12. steve

    Did the Colorado ruling encompass the entire registry or just SORNA? If I remember right many of their arguments could be applied to the entire registration scheme.

    • AJ

      @steve:
      Millard was an as-applied challenge to CO’s SORA being in violation of the US Constitution. It did not address AWA (federal SORNA) at all.

      “ORDERED that judgment shall enter declaring that the Colorado Sex Offender
      Registration Act, C.R.S. §§ 16-22-101, et seq., as applied to Plaintiffs David Millard, Eugene
      Knight, and Arturo Vega, violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth
      Amendment to the United States Constitution[.]”

  13. AJ

    Denying cert doesn’t mean they agree in whole with the decision, it only means they didn’t disagree with it enough to hear it. Really, denial is the 2nd best option of the three we had available: grant and affirm, deny, or grant and reverse.

    Anyone outside MI, even within the 6th, will probably still have to fight it in court. The 6th’s ruling applied to *MI* law violating the US Constitution. So those in TN, KY, and OH will still need a judge to say their State’s laws are also Unconstitutional. Granted, this is a much easier path now, as the ruling is binding on all Federal courts in the 6th. But it will still be up to the RCs to show their State’s MLs are similar enough to MI’s.

    As SSUN addresses, it will be an even more difficult and expensive battle for those outside the 6th. Many don’t have the resources to raise a challenge and/or don’t want to file pro se and have their names attached to a suit.

    With a little time to digest this, I do see how this can legally work out…eventually. Suppose someone in LA (since they have very onerous MLs that probably top MI’s) sues in the 5th Circuit. The case goes all the way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and despite Snyder, they rule in favor of the State. Suppose then the is appealed to SCOTUS. This would present SCOTUS with two options: deny, thus creating the complete confusion of allowing Snyder to stand yet also allowing an “anti-Snyder” to stand (read: major conflict within the Circuits); or accept and clear up the issue. Unfortunately, unless there is a ripe case out there somewhere (perhaps the aforementioned case in the 11th), the next chance is sometime at least a year off.

    In short, it’s a helpful result, just not the end-all-be-all help for which many were hoping.

    P.S. Good for you, Bobby! Kick up your heels, brother!

    • Bobby

      @AJ,

      Thank you for the kind words really appreciate it , I really do feel bad for everyone else, I still can’t help but feel happy for my self that I will finally be off the stupid thing, I still pinch my self that this is happening, but it still is not far that people will still be on it and have to follow this unconstitutional registry while other’s will soon get relief from it, (again sorry for everyone that this doesn’t effect.)

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      The Seats of SCOTUS certainly hold within their thoughts that The statute at hand embeds an irrebuttable presumption that any sexual encounter whether Actual or Simply a thought in the minds of “Those Party To” is conclusively the result of misuse of a Bonafide Citizens Authority,

      In addition The Seats of SCOTUS are clearly Telescoping a “Creeping Determinism” a well established component of The Human Condition, Not a lack of their durability to endure Deep Thought upon Cognative Load.

      I speak Truth

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • Hopeful

      Can we just all move to Michigan and get off this crap? Seriously

  14. Bobby

    Please no one takes this wrong, though I feel conflicted, and feel bad for the people not in Michigan, Tennessee Ohio or Kentucky, I for one am gleaming from ear to ear, that I will finally be off this stupid thing, once and for all, since I should of never been placed on it to begin with, because Michigan had no registry in 1992, and I was not ordered to register by a judge, which clearly violated my right to due process, and other constitutional rights.

    My question is now since Michigan’s registry was found to be punishment and unconstitutional for pre 2006 and 2011 registrants, will people such as my self, be able to sue the state of Michigan for knowingly and clearly violating our Constitutional Rights as Americans. AGAIN I am sorry that it was not granted review so that everyone in the country would have a chance at removal from this registry.

    • Mike

      Bobby,

      Take your victory lap, you deserve it! I liken it to when our block mates got released, sad it was not our time but so very happy to see our fellow incarcerated citizens going back to their family and friends.

      As a PA RC on year 11 or a 10 year sentence, I await oct 17th and what is in store for the people of PA. I feel this case is a bit of a blow to the Commonwealth of PA proclamation that Muniz was not adjudicated properly. Muniz is such a mix or federal and state law that was handled at the highest level, I can’t see it being a vehicle that SCOTUS would take on.

    • Civil rights first

      That’s exactly why they denied cert. There was too much at stake. Yes we all wanted it reviewed and confirmed but if they did that… OMG can you imagine the fallout…

  15. American Detained in America

    Cowards, all of them…

  16. Bill

    I am with you bobby, I feel the same way! does the ACLU do civil law suits?

    • Bobby

      @Bill

      I’m not really sure I contacted Ms Aukerman from Michigan’s ACLU who brought Snyder to court, but I have not heard anything from her as of yet. I asked a hand full of questions which the 1# question, was can we sue Michigan for damages, and for knowingly violating our Constitutional Rights as Americans.

      • Bill

        Thank Bobby, please keep me posted!

      • Bill

        Hello Bobby, do you know, or anyone else know, of a MI case being heard this week or next week, I think its in the supreme court, I don’t have the correct spelling something like? Timocoski? I know there going to be using Snyder. I am trying to look up the case. thanks

        • Bill

          Okay,I found the case its michigan supreme court people of michigan vs Boban Temelkoski, I just found it through the search bar,it mirrors the snyder cases,hopefully it will be helpful to everyone

        • Bobby

          Bill

          The case you are referring to is Michigan v Boban Temelkoski that is suppose to be reargued on 10-11-17 I believe, which is also one Ms Aukermans cases. you can find the first argument on youtube. here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaW7R3ZdrvI&t=1967s

          Go to Michigan Supreme courts website you should find more info there, but again a re argument is scheduled for 10-11-17 . I think they were also dragging their feet to see what was going to happen in Snyder because they did bring Snyder up in the first oral argument..

          I hope this helps you out a little bit Bill.

          ps I still have not heard back from Ms Aukerman yet, as far as whether we can sue for damages in Snyder, but will let everyone know as soon as I hear from her.

          • Bill

            Checked out the video you told me about, thanks it was helpful, I thank the case would help, if the outcome is good, in civil court. What would help if the ruling is ,it is cruel & punishment

          • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

            I doubt you can sue for damages as when they were enforcing the law it was legal… If they continued to enforce the law after the decision you could possible get damages, but you also have to figure that the state would request a jury and how many jury’s are honestly going to provide you with financial gain?

            • TS

              @SCOTUS SAVE

              Robin at NARSOL addresses this in his comments regarding their article addressing this case. He says no lawsuit for damages would go forward based on same foundation you mention here.

          • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

            I just watched the video… Loved the part where the state’s attorney argues that you couldn’t make someone acquitted even with an admission of guilt you couldn’t force the person to register because it was covered by Double Jeopardy and Justice Larson responds ‘I don’t think you meant to say that because than you’d be admitting SORA is punishment…’

            • ML

              I like the way this court thinks. It appears that their thinking is that SORA provides many obstacles that goes beyond merely regulatory. My thinking has been that the impact on a person’s life is so significant, that of course it is punishment.

            • AJ

              Yeah. I also liked the commentary on Snyder toward the end…the MI dude was certainly even more disappointed than any of us were on Monday. 🙂 Of note, though, was his claim that Snyder is in conflict with 5 Circuits. If true, that tells me SCOTUS did indeed send a message by denying Snyder…though an odd one if there are that many disagreeing Circuits (which makes me think MI guy was being a bit duplicitous.)

              My fave judge on this video is Justice Joan Larsen…who Trump has nominated for the 6th Circuit. Nice rise in stature, considering she was appointed to MISC 9/30/2015! She was even on the short list for SCOTUS, but Gorsuch of course got it.

          • AlexO

            I love the Justices line of questioning but loath how simply it can all be dismissed by simply labeling as “regulatory”.

            “His record was expunged and he can truthfully state that he was never convicted”
            “What about the fact someone can look him up and see him as a convicted RC?”
            “Um… uh… Regulatory!! REGULATORY!!! Your question doesn’t count because it’s regulatory!!!”

            If someone wrote a fictional book about this in a world where this didn’t exist (hell, give the book to a layman in our world), they’d blast the book for poor writing and not making sense.

  17. cool CA RC

    Janice
    Will California have a lawsuit base on this one?
    What do we need help you get this done?

    • Janice Bellucci

      ACSOL will discuss a strategy potentially leading to a lawsuit that challenges the entire CA registry during its annual meeting in November. If the lawsuit is filed, we hope that everyone will remember that it will take several years to get the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will also take resources including plaintiffs and donations. If every person on the registry and/or only one family member donated $10, we would have at least $1,000,000 to work with during that time.

      • AlexO

        Thank you, Janice. I will certainly be making a donation and continue doing so whenever I can.

      • Just Wondering

        Quick question Janice. If this lawsuit was applied against the new tiered registry, is there is a risk that it could create a condition where by some type of injunctive action, the whole tiered registry law gets suspended or delayed in its implementation? For those who are eligible to come off in 2021, that would be a bummer to see that quashed by this other legal activity. Your thoughts? Thanks!

      • HopingForHope

        Consider it done!!

      • AJ

        @Janice:
        Thank you for fighting the good fight. Your efforts are making a difference, that I know.

        P.S. Check your tip jar. 😉

      • Not Really

        Janice,

        I don’t want to start a monthly donation until later in the month, but will donations via the Donate button help with this effort if pursued?

      • Hopeful

        Sounds good Janice… I’ll donate another 20 on payday this Friday. Thanks for all u do for my family. God bless u

      • Lake County CA

        I’m fairly certain that we would come up with the money if ACSOL keeps us advised of dedicated amounts received towards each stage of financial goals. We would of course have to reach out to other registrants in our area to advise them about ACSOL and our goals. I believe this is one goal that we will all agree with and it will have a great unifying effect among us all unlike the tiered registry bill.

        I think we can except that this will take several years if we are successful at every step. Especially since it’s the only way for the majority of us to have any real hope of getting off the public registry and having a life worth living.

        Of course, IML has got to go too!

        • AJ

          @LC CA:
          Agreed. Also, the more cases in the pipeline the better, and the sooner filed the better. Momentum builds on momentum. And it now seems to be in our favor.

          I’m more than willing to join in funding a suit like this, even though it’s outside my Federal Circuit. Because every win in each Circuit adds momentum (and pressure on the ensuing Circuits) to agree and rule rationally. And any dissenting Circuit merely sets up a stronger conflict among them, pressuring SCOTUS to act. Though honestly, anymore I just want the Circuits and perhaps State SCs to resolve it. My SCOTUS trust fades by the day as Breyer, Ginsburg and Kennedy look towards the door. (I can see Ginsburg sticking it out until death, right now out of spite of the right.)

          • ma.concerned.citizen

            I live WAY outside the CA circuit (3,000 miles to be exact, in MA!) and I still donate to this site. I follow it every day, and I believe Janice and company will eventually prevail for all of us!

            Another donation incoming Friday!

  18. TXSO4life

    After this ruling, there will be a segment of registrants (those to whom the ruling apply) within the 6th that will NOT have to report in person, adhere to loitering and residence restriction, and are subject to individualize and risk assessment? Am I missing anything else? Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, we still subject to the aforementioned restrictions and the lack of risk assessment.

  19. Paul

    Now I wonder how this could impact IML? If a RC in Michigan wants to travel overseas, and they were sentenced, say, 20 years ago, then they shouldn’t be subjected to IML at all. Correct? I mean, that’s a punishment as a direct result of a 20 year old conviction, is it not?

    • TS

      @Paul

      Off registration is off registration and no more feeding the IML machine would be the impact. Rights restored are rights restored across the board.

      • Paul

        That’s not at all accurate. They’d still be subjected to the INTERPOL green notice.

        • TS

          @Paul

          When you no longer have to notify your registering office of travel, no notifications are sent to US Marshals for processing.

          When INTERPOL gets involved, it’s a different thing because it comes from different system then.

          • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

            Interpol cannot release information about citizens whose governments have not authorized that release. It is clearly stated by Interpol that the individual governments control the dissemination of their citizen’s information through Interpol. This is how it is kept from becoming a rogue international agency beholden to no greater authority. It operates at the pleasure of its individual member states.

            If you’re saying that Interpol alerts exist separately from the Registrant notification system, then I believe that is correct.

            • TS

              @David Kennerly, A model

              Yes, what you said is what I meant about INTERPOL.

              You would think off paper people wouldn’t have to worry about their history being sent, unless they have shady activity they’re being watched for currently.

              • AJ

                Has anyone requested their information from INTERPOL? I downloaded the forms, but haven’t lifted a finger beyond. It’s the cost of mailing a letter to France. It’d be interesting to see what, if anything, lingers in our files, and for how long after the travel has been completed.

                • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

                  Does it go to France? Why wouldn’t it go the U.S. DOJ Interpol Office?

                  https://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington

                  • AJ

                    From the bottom of the INTERPOL form:
                    *****
                    The duly completed request and the appendices listed above should be sent to the Commission by postal mail at the following address:

                    Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
                    200 quai Charles de Gaulle
                    69006 Lyon
                    France
                    *****
                    Perhaps because it’s going to this specific Commission?

                • Robert

                  @AJ
                  Yes I made a request to Interpol last year and received a response fairly fast.
                  And yes you need to send the request to France. The postage was only about one dollar.

                  • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

                    What was their response? Also, what was your request?

                    • Robert

                      Request submitted: Any information regarding my name or personal information, any notice (i.e.. green notice) generated, or any information contained in Interpol’s files.

                      Response received: “The Commission consulted the INTERPOL National Central Bureau (NCB) in Washington. This NCB authorized the Commission to disclose that there is no data communicated by the United States concerning you in INTERPOL General Secretariat’s files.

                  • AJ

                    @Robert:
                    And this was after your having traveled as a RC? Had you been turned away? What nation(s) did you visit? How soon after the travel did you request the info?

                    I wonder if the Notice is sent, used, then deleted. So maybe 7 days after the end of the travel plans you gave for IML, it dies.

                    The funny thing about it is we have to send the letter to France so that they can contact the US in DC. Nothing like bureaucracy!

                    • Robert

                      @AJ
                      Yes, was deported from PI visiting my wife. I was able to obtain the US alert sent to the foreign country and there was a reference to “US Interpol email” on one alert so I sent in the request.

            • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

              “Interpol needs to stop helping dictators” Timely piece in Washington Post. I would say that it applies perfectly to IML, too.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/10/02/interpol-needs-to-stop-helping-dictators/?utm_term=.38fd01d3d1df

          • Paul

            unfortunately, it does not appear that you have researched how these notices are sent. Regardless of any other notification, your passport and other identifying information is cross-checked against several databases whenever you intend on flying internationallly. One of those checks involved a criminal history check. If a sex offense is discovered, then your information is forwarded to the US Marshal’s Sex Offender Targeting Center. They, in turn, notify INTERPOL which, in turn, sends a green notice to your destination.

            Therefore, even without an advance 21 day notice (which IML mandates), all of this happens before you ever leave the good ole USA.

            Hence my original question: for those who were sentenced pre-IML, would they be subjected to notifications?

            • Follow the $

              Of course. The decision is only binding in MI and only deals the the states application of it’s SORA laws and not the federal IML or Federal SORNA laws. Unless IML is nullified through the courts directly, nothing will change it’s scope or application. Sucks.

            • TS

              @Paul

              Anyone, according to the INTERPOL website, who has any convicted criminal activity has a green notice sent to INTERPOL, so RCs (off paper or not) are not the only people who have green notices sent. Given that, the same people are likely to repeat their crime they may have committed previously in life based upon the Green Notice definition below.

              Green Notice:
              To provide warnings and intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries.

              Pretty presumptuous of USM to send a notice to INTERPOL under these auspices, especially without any evidence that would indicate the person is recidivist. False stats won’t fly. If they do send it, I would challenge that presumption in court due to a SDP violation because of the assumption implied. DOJ might not like that. Who needs IML if you have USM doing the same job behind closed doors?

          • Lake County CA

            But if INTERPOL already has a file on us provided by the U.S. Government, is there a process for removal if we are off the registry? And what about Floridah that keeps everyone on the registry for life? And do we even have a right to ask INTERPOL to remove our data? What are we supposed to do if we have the right to have our old data removed but they do not comply? I would imagine it would cost a fortune to file a lawsuit against INTERPOL to get registry information removed.

            • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

              If the process is to contact INTERPOL HQ in France rather than our own representatives to INTERPOL, i.e. the U.S. DOJ who, after all, are said to control all information disseminated about its own citizens through INTERPOL, then the threat posed by INTERPOL goes much further than is widely known. We are citizens of the U.S., not of INTERPOL HQ Lyon. The US DOJ is responsible to us. This is pretty shocking in its own right. You don’t have to be a raving paranoid to recognize here the formation of a world government in which we have no elected representatives.

              • AJ

                @David Kennerly:
                I’m with you in general about the world government. In this case, however, I (sadly) would prefer some Frenchie dealing with my files than ANYone at DOJ. My trust in INTERPOL is higher than my trust in my own Government. That’s not so much a statement about INTERPOL as it is about the USG.

                • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

                  I would say that your relatively greater trust in INTERPOL is misplaced. They’re not necessarily French, either. The Lyon H.Q. is an international force, much like the EU in Brussels or the UN in New York. The child sex abuse head honcho there is an Irishman named Mick Moran, a zealot and a thug. INTERPOL is very aggressive and nasty and hysterical when it comes to Registrants and S.O. suspects/fugitives. They work hand-in-glove with ECPAT and other hystericist pressure groups, not to mention the Anglo Five Eyes.

                  Still, my point is that it is absurd that a U.S. citizen must contact an agency headquartered in France in regard to their rights, an agency without legitimate authority over U.S. citizens and not subject to their consent [as in, of the governed]. This is a total red flag that the U.S. government is subverting the Constitution.

  20. Bill

    I just looked on the MI, offender list, I think its time to unplug the list.

  21. TXSO4life

    what I said about the 11th circuit court earlier was incorrected. The McGuire case currently pending before the 11th circuit has almost identical issues (expo facto) raise and even went beyond. It looks like we may have another shot at cert in scotus within in a year or more. Check out the filing petition currently pending in the 11th circuit below. A must read!
    http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf

    • KM

      Alabama’s registry is absurd, and the most un_American law I have ever read. That should have been challenged a long time ago.

    • AJ

      @TXSO4life:
      Thanks for posting this. Yes, it does sound like a strong case. I like their mention of not only Snyder, but also the USSG’s position. Like you, I wonder why they omitted the Packingham Parenthetical, but I’m sure it will get raised–along with Snyder being allowed to stand–in future arguments. As well, if a win can be done in the 11th (FL, GA, AL), it will make things harder on the other Circuits to overlook things. On the other hand, a loss in the 11th will, as you mention, put it right back in SCOTUS’s lap–this time with a Circuit in defiance of Snyder.

    • G4Change

      I just read this link. So going to multiple baseball games in Alabama effectively establishes residency at that baseball stadium?!?!?! What the actual EFF???
      They have lost their minds in Alabama. How does this crap get passed into law???

      • AlexO

        Because the registry isn’t “punitive”. And because its not punitive, they could just about do whatever they want until someone forces the issue and brings it up the court ladder to contest it. Even then, its a huge battle.

        I’m curious if an RC parked their car in front of the judges/prosecutors house to sleep at night if he’d then need to register the judges home? I’d love to see someone actually try and do this. And I’m willing to bet it might actually work by technicality of the law. Wouldn’t that just be extra butter on popcorn if it happened?

        • AJ

          Yeah, a bunch of us on here bandied this about a while back. Camp out at the Capitol, maybe police stations, DA’s offices and homes, legislator’s homes, etc., and diligently register them all. It would sure make for a pretty push-pin map!

  22. steve

    So in California does this open the door to challenging laws like internet listing. Adopted in 2002 could this now be considered ex-post facto for those convicted before 2002? How about laws preventing someone from sponsoring a spouse to come over to the US? IML ex-post facto?

    • Mike G

      Gosh, I hope so, Steve. I have learned to cope with everything else, but IML is killing me. Tom Petty just died. I am the same age. How long will I have to wait before I can travel again? Hopefully before I am in a wheelchair, or just in the ground…

  23. TXSO4life

    It’s great to see the attorney in the McGuire case cited the USSG brief in the Snyder case. But he did not cite the PA case or the recent Colorado case, and also failed to mentioned the packingham troubling statement. I wonder why.

    • AJ

      @TXSO4life:
      The MCGuire document was filed July 13, 2017. Muniz was decided July 19, 2017, and Millard (CO) was decided August 31, 2017.

      • TS

        @AJ

        Can the atty go back and file a supplement with those two cases in tow? There seems to be so much more meat available now.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          IDK, but I don’t know that I would want to do so. They are already asking the 11th to keep the case, instead of remanding it back to District. The issue under discussion is whether the changes AL made to their laws changes the case enough to remand. McGuire says no. They can easily raise them in oral argument, and I would be surprised if they don’t.

    • AJ

      Sen. Rick Jones, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he’ll invite the ACLU, state police and prosecutors to discuss the next steps.

      “We’ll work together to bring (Michigan) into compliance,” he said. “What we’ve done is what a majority of Michiganders want. They want children to be protected from sex offenders.”
      —–
      The first paragraph made me think the Senator was somewhat admirable, as he’s including ACLU into the discussion. But then he did the classic finger-pointing (“we just did what the voters wanted”…umm, you morons are the ones creating the laws, not the voters!) and regurgitating (protecting from RCs).

      • Bobby

        @AJ,

        Rick Jones along with his cohort Rick Snyder are two of the biggest idiots in Michigan, and if you were to read comments from Michigander’s you would realize that about 90% of Michigan Citizens are against the registry and say it does not protect anyone, and to force registrants to pay $50 a year for something no one wants is irrational. Michigan gets more then a enough to maintain the stupid registry.

        Rick Jones is also a former pig(cop) and was one of a few to come up with this unconstitutional amendments. He and Snyder are two of the biggest jokes in Michigan. Then we have COL. KRISTE KIBBEY ETUE Director, Michigan State Police. who is now under investigation for comments she made on social media about the NFL and National Anthem. I bet all 3 are ticked off, now that they have to revamp the registry, and remove a whole lot of us from it, and there is NOTHING they can do about it now.

  24. mike r

    This may not be binding in all other circuits, but by them denying review the court implicitly states that it agrees with the reasoning behind the decision and that there was no judicial error when the lower court decided this case..Yes, we still need to file in individual districts, once again “but”, there goes retro-active tiers “by, by, CA’s retro tiered system” by,by ML’s retro application, by, by any and all restrictions or regulations applied after the fact of conviction. I don’t mean to repeat myself, but….

    Issue: 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.

    That denial speaks volumes man…”Punishment”. That opens the door for so many suits it’s ridiculous…..We can now bombard the courts with all kinds of of other claims such as: cruel and unusual punishment, ex post facto , and as the court already stated, unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive official actions, Separation of powers, and in every other way. Man, everything I have in my motion is now extremely relevant and all my arguments now have confirmed standing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Screw the Minnesota case, it wasn’t going to prevail the way it was argued……..I am frigging jumping for joy, AJ and Chris, do you guys see what this means????? The key is that by denying Snyder, it is now basically US Supreme Court confirmed “PUNISHMENT”!!!!!!!!<<<<<Amazing.
    Like I said in my other post, they will have to totally revamp the registry and only apply it to those that they can prove either with the preponderance of the evidence standard, or I believe a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, in some kind of tribunal with all the protections as outlined in the Minnesota case, that we pose a significant enough threat to re-offend (as they claim they have done in the Minnesota case) in order to encroach on our fundamental rights. This is what I am reading into this….

    • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

      I think california has the argument that Tiers are less “punishment” then the current system as some people will be removed from the registry and will stand.

      • AlexO

        Maybe. As the bill currently stands, they mostly just shuffled around who may get off, and it may actually be less people rather than more. Before the bill, 311.X (along with other codes) qualified for relief via CoR. Just about every code that’s T1 & T2 could be relieved via CoR at the 10 year mark (logistics of CoR aside). With this bill the CoR is no longer part of the equation and most 311.X codes are currently sitting in T3 which is blanket life. So technically the proposed tier would actually let less people off, not more.

        Regardless whether the tiered registry would let more people off, the fact that they’re going to classify people on codes alone with zero individual evaluation is a huge constitutional issue. Sure, those that land in T1 & T2 and have already been on the registry long enough to instantly qualify to petition for relief in 2021 won’t likely care one way or the other, but hose of us stuck in T3 certainly will be pressing the issue.

        At the end of the day, punishment is punishment whether its more or less. It’s like, does it really make it better if you choose to kick someone in the head instead of shooting them?

        • David

          (Alex, a better analogy might be that of a caning/whipping: whether it is 20 lashes or just 5 lashes, it is clearly still punishment.)

      • KM

        Even if that was a valid argument (Michigan has tiers too), California’s tiers don’t take effect for 3 years.

        • AJ

          I would think there being no tiers would only make the case stronger. From the McGuire (11th Circuit) case:
          *****
          As the Kentucky Supreme Court persuasively explained, “When a restriction is imposed equally upon all offenders, with no consideration given to how dangerous any particular registrant may be to public safety, that restriction begins to look far more like retribution for past offenses than a regulation intended to prevent future ones.” C’mwealth v. Baker, 295 S.W.3d 437, 444 (Ky. 2009)
          *****
          This wise statement from KYSC would seem to apply across the board. Though they didn’t use the words, they were essentially reiterating that lack of individualized risk assessment points towards punishment. They were referring to exclusion zones (restriction), but it could maybe also be applied to lifetime registration. Lifetime certainly isn’t giving, “consideration [] to how dangerous any particular [RC] may be to public safety.”

          • New Person

            I like that quote, AJ!

            Ca has one size fits all registry even though there are risk levels given out. Those with low risk levels/offenses get to qualify for 1203.4. If earned, then the case is dismissed, but you still have to register?! That is retributive because it essentially states that the risk levels mean nothing, even when included into case dismissal where it states specifically that all penalties and disabilities will be removed that was caused by the infraction.

    • CR

      @ mike r – the fact that SCOTUS denied cert in Snyder v Does is a win for us and will doubtless help us in our struggle, but it is important to know that a denial of cert, as explained by the court itself in several instances, definitely does not mean that the court “implicitly states that it agrees with the reasoning behind the decision and that there was no judicial error when the lower court decided this case.” In Missouri v Jenkins, 515 US 70 (1995), the court said “Of course, “[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.” United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923).

      Usually it just means that there were not four justices who wanted to review the lower courts decision, which may simply mean that the questions presented were not considered ripe for review. There is no split among the circuit courts on the question presented by this case that needs to be resolved by SCOTUS. It is likely that there will eventually be a split. When that occurs, SCOTUS will probably grant cert. Whatever decision they render could go for us or against us, despite the current denial of cert in Snyder v Does.

      That said, our attorneys need to capitalize on this win by citing it often and modeling cases in other circuits on it. The more wins we have under our belt before SCOTUS reviews, the better.

  25. mike r

    The following elements are extensive and it would be very difficult to severe the individual reasons that this was decided to be unconstitutional punishment…Good luck with that….

    Issue: 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.

    That is basically the entire registration scheme

    • Follow the $

      Doesn’t this only cover retroactive application of ML statutes inflicting additional more restrictive punishment than was existing at time of conviction? I’m not sure how this blows open the whole registry. Worst case is everyone decides now that it is punishment but those on the registry since time of conviction are screwed because it’s not retroactive. Basically a paradigm shift where it becomes part of the punishment for the crime.

      • AJ

        @Follow the $:
        To me, getting it declared punishment via the ex post facto suit is but a toehold, with more to come. If it’s punishment, one is entitled to due process. So it would seem to follow that everyone subject to the laws had their 14th and/or 5th Amendments violated, as it was blanket applied. This was one of the two prongs in Millard (CO), and the judge agreed.

      • Concerned

        So, just to be upfront, I live in a state where I was recently able to be removed from the registry for CP. Therefore I guess from a personal standpoint I only am affected by the difficulty in traveling to other states. Nonetheless I have dealt with this from 1999 until this year and it has deeply affected my life, therefore I do care and still track this. And care about how it affects others.

        My deepest concern in seeing some of the advances towards rolling back or removing the public registry, along with all the other restrictions that are imposed on RC’s after probation (which I do think will fall as being unconstitutional), is that many states will simply put in a mandatory 30-60 year probation, thus getting around the Ex Post Facto problem. I think that many, probably most, states won’t go down this path. Yet I fear that some states (think Florida and the rest of the deep south) will do that. And sadly, many that are marooned in those states, may lack the resources to go elsewhere. I am absolutely open to others thoughts.

  26. mike r

    That case didn’t even include the plethora of other issues that I have brought up in my motion….I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch, or jinks my case, but with this decision it appears to me that it will be a slam dunk…….

    • E

      @ Mike r

      Is there a link where we can see your filing? I missed it before; is it online after you file? Thanks and fingers crossed for you.

  27. Cool CA RC

    Who else is filing lawsuits after they announced that the court turned the haring down??
    I do not see any court actions related to ML.

  28. AJ

    The more I think about it, SCOTUS’s denial of Snyder was a (at least partial) confirmation of the Packingham Parenthetical. It kind of makes me wonder if they will refuse all cases that make it to them stating punishment, and will accept (for reversal) any that arrive saying not punishment.

    I think it would be useful to cite the parenthetical and Snyder together in any suit. First, SCOTUS makes the aside in Packingham, then SCOTUS lets stand a case that says MLs can rise to punishment.

    • Paul 2

      I was thinking the same thing. That way they don’t step on state SC. Also it would have more power because it would be a reversal like Muniz is. I am pretty sure they won’t accept Muniz and PSP will have to act I am hoping there will be an IML action soon too. I have an appointment this week with Reeds attorney Sam Stretton I will Let you all know his input when I can. Maybe a low cost way to speed up relief in PA. I said to him on the phone that Muniz had a stay and he said there is no stay on Reed.

    • TS

      @AJ, et al

      Certainly makes the intended Tenth Circuit Appeal by CO AG a bit harder now.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        Yes, I would think so. I would say it harms CO’s case regarding the 14th Amendment more than the 8th Amendment. But the 10th could very well use Snyder and say that yes, it clearly is punishment. They would then just have to decide if it’s excessive beyond the crime. Given no other crime is subjected to this type of punishment–either in severity or length, let alone both–hopefully it’s not too far a leap to say it’s also C&U.

    • AlexO

      So then, as scary as it may seem, we want the PA appeal to actually reverse the current ruling so that SCOTUS will accept it and then set the law of the land?

      • CR

        Not so fast, please. Hopefully we’ll have time to stack up a number of decisive wins before incurring a loss that will result in SCOTUS granting cert. The more well-argued state and federal district court and appellate court cases with well-reasoned opinions in our favor based on multiple constitutional grounds (ex post facto, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, etc), the better.

    • Lovecraft

      “It kind of makes me wonder if they will refuse all cases that make it to them stating punishment, and will accept (for reversal) any that arrive saying not punishment.”

      IMO that is exactly what is likely to happen. I actually posted this very thing in comment to your original post yesterday. SCOTUS is likely waiting for a difference in opinion before tackling this issue. I just hope there is a difference sooner than later. I worry many of the justices on our side may be gone in the next couple of years. I was really hoping Kennedy would get a second chance to change things especially in light of his comments in the Packingham case.

      Also do you or anyone on here know how to get something to ChrisF? I havent seen him post on here in awhile and I wasnt sure if he has just been busy or is MIA. I just got an email from our lawyer today i had given up hope on him responding yesterday and posted on here about trying to contact him with no success. (go figure) I emailed him a question chris asked several weeks ago about seperation of powers and he did his best to take time out of his day to answer it. I dont mind posting what he had to say on the issue, but I wanted to make sure chris would get to see it.

      • AJ

        @Lovecraft:
        Chris F posted today (http://all4consolaws.org/2017/10/get-rid-of-the-registry-opd-ed/#comment-188939), so he’s around. I haven’t tried it, but the best way to reach him outside here would probably be by volunteering your contact info to the Moderator(s) (moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org) and ask them to send it along to him.

        • Lovecraft

          Thanks AJ. I have been dealing with some personal stuff so I havent been around as much either. Ill probably just post his question and answer under his comment. If I dont see a reply from chrisf Ill ask the mods to forward my email address to him.

  29. TXSO4Life

    Exactly AJ, as I have repeatedly emphasized in numerous posts. The Packingham parenthetical is a very powerful antidote to the registry. Numerous co- ops articles and lawyers have referenced it. Judge Matsch (Colorado case) has used it in his opinion. One Federal circuit (2nd) mentioned it in dicta. A panel from a state appellate court in Indiana (John Doe, et al. v. The Boone County Prosecutor) read it during oral argument. When combined with cert denial to the Snyder case, I think it speaks volume! That’s why I was curious as to why (even in the latest addition to his briefing) the attorney in McGuire case did not used it to empowered his arguments! I mean if THAT has being used by judge to help his decision carry more weight, it surely has to be important!

  30. B.Wat

    I already donate monthly and I would be more than happy to bump it up another ten dollars! I wonder how many RC’s aren’t aware of this blog and don’t even know where to even send their donations? Is there some way to contact them and get every one on ” THE LIST” to contribute, after all when we win, every one of us will benefit! Come on Guys let’s get behind Janice and kick in ten bucks each, I know we can all afford such a small of money, to take this unconstitutional shit down!!

    • KM

      Sex Offender Registries prevent Sex offenders from accessing them. I had actually considered a constitutional challenge to the ban as it interferes with our right to peacefully assemble and, as a group, petition against the government.

      • AJ

        @KM:
        Not every State has that prohibition. In fact in my State, part of my registration paperwork says I am to notify the State of any errors or corrections to my listing on the site. To that I say, no thanks. They cannot compel me to do their fact and error checking, so I refrain from visiting it at all. (Well actually, they could disguise it as a regulatory matter and force me, but you get my point. Who needs–or has–a constitution, when civil laws are such wonderful workarounds?)

    • AJ

      Hmmm…if only there were some sort of publicly available list with every RC’s name and address (and in some cases, email addresses) on it…. Then someone could anonymously send postcards or flyers.

  31. TXSO4life

    Just did my part on a $30 donation. It’s not much, but it’s a start. Let keep the donations coming guys / gals. Let’s help Janice so she could have the resources to start the lawsuit to take down the whole registry regime.

  32. TXSO4life

    Here’s an update (from Narsol.org) from a gentleman name Tim P (Michigan ACLU) I wanted to thank all of you for your comments. I am Tim and I am working with the ACLU on this case and Legislative changes that we will be pushing for based on the court’s ruling. We are fortunate that some Elected officials are willing to make some positive changes but were waiting for what I call cover from a court ruling so they would not look like they were “Easy on Crime” I always tell them no you should Be Smart on Crime when you write laws. Look at the real facts and studies not just what you think they are. Anyway this process will not happen overnight but we are now headed in the right direction.Please be patient with this process. Our Legal Team on this case is now reviewing what the next best steps are and we are currently looking at other issues with SOR and how and if we can accomplish wins with some of them also. However we will have a priority that if the Legislators do not act in a way that we feel the court ruled we will be back in court for court orders to make them do so. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ANYONE CURRENTLY ON THE SOR FOLLOWS THE LAWS AS THEY ARE NOW WRITTEN, we also would like people to be patient and NOT file cases based on this as that will just slow things down or could result in bad lower court rulings that could hurt or destroy your chances for removal from the SOR. Our Legal and Legislative Teams are working hard and we would ask that if you are a Michigan Resident and you have questions or concerns please contact me (Tim P) at intern@aclumich.org and I will attempt to answer them. I am always looking for people who will be willing to testify so if you are please contact me at the email above, I will respond as quickly as possible but we are being overloaded at this time.

    Good Luck to all and better days are coming for all if we keep pushing back on these SOR punitive laws.

    Tim P: ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan Contact

    intern@aclumich.org

  33. mike r

    I will be more then happy to donate, and I am ecstatic that Janice and team are discussing and maybe considering a suit challenging the entire CA registry. Although well over due, that is music to my ears. I hope they consider supporting my case, and maybe even filing a friend of the court brief or geting envoled in some way. There is still time before march 4 to submit such a doc, and there will be plenty of more times in the very near future. Either way I am going forward, and my respect for this org. if it isn’t just talking, has grown exponentially because of the talk, and realization that a challenge to the entire scheme is ripe and winnable..If your interested in assisting me, let me know. I have started the ball rolling, even if I am an amateur and have no professional training, I nonetheless am in the game and on the field and will I’ll be coming up to bat shortly….

    • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

      “and I am ecstatic that Janice and team are discussing and maybe considering a suit challenging the entire CA registry.”

      I hope that’s true but I’m not finding it here. Where was this discussed?

      • AlexO

        Janice said this in this thread. Do Ctrl+F and search for Janice if you don’t want to read through everything.

      • Not Really

        Open the last 100 comments

        http://all4consolaws.org/recent-comments/

        and search for her name.

        • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

          Thanks! I had done that but still managed to miss the message from Janice. This is, indeed, excellent and encouraging news!

      • TXSO4Life

        @David Kennerly, here’s a copy of Janice recent post: Janice Bellucci
        October 3, 2017
        ACSOL will discuss a strategy potentially leading to a lawsuit that challenges the entire CA registry during its annual meeting in November. If the lawsuit is filed, we hope that everyone will remember that it will take several years to get the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will also take resources including plaintiffs and donations. If every person on the registry and/or only one family member donated $10, we would have at least $1,000,000 to work with during that time.

        • Tim Moore

          Money is necessary, but what if anything can we do elsewise to support this suit? You give money and you wait for something to happen. You’re not in it, but a bystander looking in. You put your hands into something, you see it take shape, have an ownership in the process. Everyone needs a sense of self reliance fostered by doing. This is what many of us need, especially for us to counter the image society places on us of being the lowest of the low. I think, for us to empower each other is greater than money, will bring money as needed, and be key to pulling together and winning.

  34. mike r

    I will not give in without a real fight, I can tell you that..I will fight tooth and nail when they try to dismiss or deny me my right to judicial redress. I am sure they will do everything possible to do just that, but I have a fundamental, ingrained in the constitution, constitutional right to access the courts, and a right to a fair and just judicial process. Like I said before, as long as I am acting in good faith they have to take me seriously. Just as my motion was reviewed, and considered cognizable, and was determined that it isn’t frivolous or with malice intent, they had to taje it seriously. I’ve already gave the US Marshall all the paperwork to serve the AG’s, and am sure they will be preparing a response shortly.

  35. i can't wait to die

    IMO –

    Right now and quick should be the time court cases get filed as the recent decision to let MI case stand and it’s a hot issue right now

    BUT

    Gun Rights Supporters are the whipping child right now with Orlando and now Vegas

    We all know that a tragedy sets off dozens of feel-good laws

  36. Who removes from list

    http://cases.justia.com/pennsylvania/superior-court/2017-2191-eda-2016-0.pdf?ts=1507140749

    OVER IN PENNSYLVANIA MY HUSBAND WANTS TO MAKE YOU ALL AWARE THE MUNIZ DECISION IS NOT STAYED BY ALL MEANS.

    WILLIAMS WHO WAS CONVICTED OF FAILURE TO REGISTER UNDER SORNA WHEN HE WAS NOT TO UNDER SORNA JUST HAD HIS CONVICTION OVERTURNED TODAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT USING MUNIZ AS THE REASON WHY….

    http://cases.justia.com/pennsylvania/superior-court/2017-2191-eda-2016-0.pdf?ts=1507140749

    • Lake County CA

      What’s that I hear? Retroactive laws falling like dominoes?

    • Paul 2

      I was told last month by a reporter from the Morning Call that he knew that Northampton co was not prosecuting reg cases. My question is will PSP take this guy off the reg now? Are they liable now for keeping people on the reg? This case is referring to the day after the Muniz ruling before the stay does this mean anything? PSP is going to have to take this guy off for sure ASAP. I say we get a go fund me page up for a case to attack IML and AWA with a dream team 800,000 can contribute. AJ what say you?

    • Bill

      Great read, Helpful, thanks

  37. mike r

    Scotus, I will post in general comments when I get the response….

  38. Bobby

    Hello

    To Bill and anyone else interested in Michigan v Boban Temelkoski ,

    here is a link, to the cases being heard/oral arguments, on the 11th of Oct.

    http://courts.mi.gov/News-Events/press_releases/Documents/Oral%20Argument%20Media%20Advisory%20October%20-%202.pdf

    • Bill

      Thanks,I look it up. I actually talk to one of the attorneys on that case (Dave) the other day, He said we have see what happens, he is sending me some paperwork, I’ll keep you posted. Did you see the Pennsylvania V Muniz Ruled yesterday. its posted on this page. Have a good day.

  39. mike r

    Man there is so much fodder for what needs to be “our offensive tactics” in every case out there now it’s ridiculous….It’s only a matter of time now, which will be soon, before we get a decisive decision on whether this draconian registry is either deemed unconstitutional or can stand…We’ll see, but it is coming…..This is really a decision on what type of America we will become. It is a major turning point in the history of this country, no matter which way it goes….Hopefully the protections and visions of our founding fathers, and all our family and friends’ blood and treasure that has been shed to protect, will be intact after this is all over, if not the country will just keep declining into chaos and deeper inequalities, and will be falling into civil revolution in the very near future….Just think of all the falling heroes that will have died in vain….As Trump says “SAD”!!!!!

  40. mike r

    Also that civil commitment case has to be re-argued in the near future….Those people need to show that in order for the government to commit them it has to be proven in a trial with a jury of our peers, not by some appointed entity that has a vested fiduciary, or monetary conflict of interest, that they pose a risk to themselves or others that is sufficient enough to deprive them of their constitutional protections, that standard can be no lower then beyond a reasonable doubt……..Anything less is repugnant to the values of the US constitution….If argued correctly it would prevail…..

  41. johnny

    HI Group,

    I got off the registry and changed my name and I just got back from Mexico.. SO nothing happen no 21 day stupid notice and nothing happen went right through customs… I also have an enhanced DL that 4 states have for border crossing without having a passport. This gets you in Canada and also México by driving or walking across the border. so it worked for me….

    • AJ

      @johnny:
      It’s good to hear about one who “got over the fence” and is living normal life. Good for you!

  42. jason W

    To let everyone know that a lawsuit will be filed in Texas this month. The lawsuit will cite Colorado, Michigan and Penn.. everyone keep a lookout IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION…. I will post additional information in the general comments after it is filed. In addition, will attach the federal lawsuit as well.

    Thank you

    • AJ

      @jason W:
      Excellent news! A successful challenge in the 5th would be a nice one in the win column. Hopefully the suit also mentions the Packingham Parenthetical. As well, PA is merely the latest, but hardly the only, State to strike MLs.

      I look forward to updates.

      • lovewillprevail

        AJ, don’t count on it. The 5th has already ruled banishment to be constitutional in Texas and has already in the same opinion, made a prejudicial statement against several other constitutional arguements that were successful in other circuts. One would have to argue successfully on a very narrow range of constitutional issues that were not part of the prejudicial opinion It will be a very uphill battle in Texas.

        • CR

          @lovewillprevail do you happen to know what case it was where the 5th ruled on banishment? I’d like to read it. I’m in tx, and I know it’s going to be a long, hard, uphill battle for those of us here.

          • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

            the only positive of a loss in Texas on the Same issues as Snyder is then the Supreme Court should take the case since the circuits would have split. Getting this case to the court sooner then later I think is important with the current makeup of the court

          • TXSO4life

            @CR…the case in the 5th circuit is Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, No. 15-41456 (5th Cir. 2017). The 5th circuit ruled sex offender banishment is only civil and / or regulatory and therefore does not violate equal protection or procedure due process protection under the 14th amendment. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/15-41456/15-41456-2017-05-30.html

            • CR

              Thank you. Rational basis review applied to a law that irrationally distinguishes similarly situated individuals for unequal treatment results in a predictable outcome.

              @SCOTUS SAVE US NOW – I don’t think this case is similar to Snyder, so probably doesn’t create a split. There is no ex post facto argument made in this case.

              • AJ

                @CR:
                No, Duarte v. Lewisville is more like CT DPS, which was a 9-0 train wreck at SCOTUS in 2003 with PDP arguments that fell flat. (To be fair, there was probably a fair amount of naivety about it all back then.)

                This does mean that even is Duarte were dismissed with prejudice, similar issues can be raised under other claims besides PDP.

                @lovewillprevail:
                That the 5th dismissed the claim based only on PDP means an ex post facto challenge is still available. Let’s see what the 5th has to say about it now, especially with Snyder and Packingham out there.

        • AJ

          @lovewillprevail:
          Oh I’m not counting on it one bit. I’m just thinking how nice it would be were we to land a win here. I think in some ways, a loss is also a win, as it contributes to discord among the Circuits–and a decision contrary to a case (Snyder) SCOTUS didn’t feel warranted review.

          As for it being in TX, that doesn’t matter, as it’s Federal and will head to NOLA on appeal. (I know, not a whole lot better, but still better than trapped in the TX system.)

    • G4Change

      @jason W: PLEASE keep us updated. Send any media stories to the mods. of this site so they can publish them. Godspeed to you!!!!!

    • TXSO4life

      @Jason, could u forward the attorney info? I am from Texas as well. I might want to contact him and joint the suit since my conviction was in 1992 (no registry at the time) and I was retroactively put on the registry for life. I may be one of the best plaintiff to joint since I was 18 and my ex was 17 and I was drunk as hell when my crime took place.

      • James

        TXSO4life….you are a GREAT Plaintiff…I hope someone takes up your cause.

        Best Wishes, James

  43. Michael

    I’d expect any review of the PA Supreme Courts recent decision will be mute as well.

  44. JD

    Great news for Michigan, hopefully the rest of the country will follow suit. I have just a quick question. I was incarcerated for 10 yrs. I have been out for 20 now. I originally had a registration date that was for 25 years, now it is a lifetime registration due to the new tier system. My s/o page states that my registration beginning date was May 1987, when I was convicted. Will I be affected by the new rules and if so, how…
    Thanks for any input.

    • Therealityofitall

      JD
      I believe that your registration date begins with your release from prison/parole/probation, whichever is later. So if you were away for 20 and the registration requirement is 25 yrs then the total would be 45 yrs. However, being that your date of offense in back in the 80’s, I am not sure what the laws were then.

      • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

        I guess its state by state, in NY reg date is based on conviction date…

    • Paul 2

      I have seen cases in PA Muniz that went by conviction date to start reg I think a court would legally have to go by your conviction date, the law use to be reg starts when you are out of jail but I believe it starts when you are convicted. If you look at Muniz the court said his time would have been up by 2012 when they started SORNA but what if he was sentenced too 30yrs ? I think his reg would have started after the 30 but the court used his conviction date. The PSP on the other hand would interpret it the other way.

  45. Matthew

    I was reading that 10,000 cases are sent to the Supreme Court and on average they only hear about 80 of them..

  46. Bobby

    hello everyone,

    I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, I know that they found the 2006 and 2011 previsions to be unconstitutional , but is that also going to include the extortion fee they passed in 2013 were they are stealing $50 dollars a year from us for NO REASON, They claim it’s to help maintain the registry, but they get plenty from the government to pay for it. Michigan has already stolen $250 dollars from me so far, so I am hopeful that this annual fee is also found to be punishment, like the 2006 and 2011 previsions..

    • Reg

      In theory, you should get your money right away. In practice, I doubt it very much.

    • Bill

      I agree with you again Bobby, I was told to keep doing the reporting until I hear different, but next time I’ll not pay up front. I plated a truck the other day, and let them know. I was the only one there, hoping I’d get papers telling me I was/ma done?

      • Bobby

        @ Bill

        I live in a small town probably around 11,000 plus and there is only 19 people on it mostly tier 3 , any my mom lives with me and she has a car that use sometimes for grocery shopping ect, ect I told clerk at our local cop shop, that it is her car though I use it on occasion, then I told her that my mom refuses to have her private info on a website for everyone to see, and if you have a problem with it take it up with my mother. They (cops) refuse to talk with her and ever since then and this was at the beginning of my registration they have not hassled me about it at all, and they see me in the car all the time. Then the last time I was in there September they wanted me to verify my info, and I told them you do realize that your not suppose to enforce any of this crap( used the other word) and they said wait here, they came back and said it’s still in court, but basically your correct. then they just sais take care Bobby hope you guys win because the registry in bull crap. well we all know what happened now. winner,

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      This would probably be a good question to ask ACLU-MI. It makes sense that if you were paying “fees” for a regulatory measure, those become “fines” when that measure is found to be punishment. However, realize, “makes sense” doesn’t often come into play with legalities…especially when it has to do with prying money out of States’ hands!

      A sharp attorney may be able to parlay Nelson v Colorado (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-exonerated-fines-20170419-story.html & https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/) and get money back.

      • Bobby

        Thanks AJ

        • Bill

          I was told ‘I should have came off the registry in 2006 and to keep reporting, we will see what happens! ?

          • AJ

            @Bill:
            This points to what a byzantine, scary, oppressive scheme the laws are. People all “know” you should be off the list, but you’re told to keep on going anyway. Reason? Oh yeah, because one simple mistake–even if you follow the State’s opinion–could give you a felony and a trip (back) to the pokey…not to mention a resetting of your RC chronometer.

            Lack of understanding whether or not one can or must follow a law is always a solid argument towards (unconstitutional) vagueness.

  47. JD

    Does anyone know if there is any time frame that Michigan has to comply with the orders?

    • AJ

      @JD:
      Other than any justifiable administrative delays, the court order became final and binding the moment SCOTUS issued its denial. Were I in MI, I’d contact ACLU-MI and/or the AG’s office to see what the plan is. The former I’d trust by voice, the latter I’d only engage by email or snail mail.

    • Bobby

      @JD and AJ and anyone else interested.

      I was on the NACRSOL site and asked Fred or Robin, How long Michigan has to revise Michigan’s Registry , and this is what they have to say it’s kind of long, and I am still trying to comprehend what their trying to say, but here it is
      Robin
      Keymaster
      States are sovereign. The only timelines states have are those which they establish for themselves or those to which they have bound themselves in agreements with other states or by virtue of having ratified the Constitution (which places hardly any obligations upon the states regarding dates and times).
      Each state has divided (separated) branches of government which are co-equal. And each branch typically operates by its own set of rules and timelines. It is not uncommon to see legislatures (and even courts) attempt to dictate times and deadlines to other branches of government, and, depending upon the targeted action, such requirements may or may not be constitutional (for that state…and under that state’s own constitution).
      This case has returned to the lower court: a federal District court. A federal court has the authority to require the state to do this or that by such and such time. However, it’s not entirely unprecedented for a state to ignore or even rebuff a federal order ESPECIALLY when the federal court has no power to enforce its order. This is where the executive power of the federal government becomes exceptionally important. Federal judges can rule this or that as unconstitutional. But the judiciary has no power to enforce its own orders without the help of the president and the attorney general.
      Drawing from a historical perspective, let’s consider the Civil Rights movement. Without Eisenhower’s decision to nationalize Arkansas’ state guard in 1957, Orval Faubus would have successfully prevented black students from enrolling at Central High School in Little Rock. Likewise, and a few years later, without the Kennedy brothers deciding to face-off with Alabama Gov. George Wallace in 1963, the public school system would not have capitulated to desegregation.
      I apologize for the length of this answer. But I’m just trying to illustrate how important it is to have an administration that is ready to stand behind the federal judiciary when it comes to enforcing unpopular orders. It would not surprise me to see the Michigan Legislature, or its governor, to attempt to a version of this kind of “constitutional crisis” and put President Trump in the very uncomfortable position of having to enforce an extremely unpopular order. If that were to happen, I wouldn’t offer any wagers on how Trump will respond.
      In sum, yes, there will likely be some kind of deadline, but we have no idea what it will be at this point in time. But, even supposing there is one, there’s no compelling reason to believe that the state of Michigan will abide by it. I wish I could provide greater assurance, but I can’t. We will all have to wait and see how the thing unwinds. And there is likely to be more litigation in the effort to force the state’s compliance.

      I am also going to contact Ms Aukerman or that intern I have spoken to a couple of times and see what they have to say. I am certainly NOT going to contact Rick Snyder or Bill Schuette or the Michigan State Pigs, can’t trust those idiots at all.

      If anyone wants to contact them as well here is Tim P (The Intern) e-mail: intern@aclumich.org

      and of course Ms Miriam Aukerman: maukerman@aclumich.org

      I am going to try and contact one of them on Tuesday since Monday is a Holiday (Columbus Day)

      Miriam Aukerman
      maukerman@aclumich.org
      (616) 301-0930

      • TXSO4life

        @Bobby, or this could happen to PA >> In response to Missouri supreme court rulings (Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2006)), in 2007, several Missouri state Senators proposed an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would exempt sex offender registration laws from the ban on retrospective civil laws.[18] The proposed amendment passed the State Senate unanimously but was not passed by the Missouri House of Representatives before the end of the 2007 legislative session.[19] The same constitutional amendment was proposed in and passed by the Missouri Senate again in 2008, but also was not passed by the House of Representatives by the end of that year’s legislative session.[20] As a result, the decisions of the Missouri courts prohibiting the retrospective application of sex offender laws remained intact. http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Actions.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=88

        • Michael

          Many U.S. states enacted Constitutional amendments which prevented the recognition of some or all types of same-sex unions, however SCOTUS struck down all such amendments in Obergefell v. Hodges. I don’t see any red state getting away with discriminating against any class.

      • AJ

        @Bobby:
        Thanks for posting that info from NARSOL. I agree, getting compliance is a problem, and long has been. This problem goes at least as far back as President Andrew Jackson who, in response to a SCOTUS ruling he disliked, said, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” It’s only by respect for the rule of law and the judicial branch that the courts have any leverage at all. What could end up happening is a MI RC is not required to register, and doesn’t; MI arrests the RC for failure to register; RC goes to court, cites Snyder, and is released. In other words, they can ignore it all they want, and RCs may suffer some because of it, but the RC and MI will at some point face a judge who will respect the Snyder decision and throw out any charges. If MI keeps doing this, at some point they will find themselves getting sued for false arrest, I’m sure. Even if a state court upholds the charge and convicts, it would certainly get overturned on appeal at some point. That may mean with the MI SC, or it may even mean SCOTUS. I do not foresee any instance where the judicial branch in or overseeing MI will ignore Snyder, despite the legislative and executive branches’ wishes.

        So yes, as Robin says, there’s nothing that forces MI to act, but if they don’t, they will have trouble after trouble after trouble with any attempts to ignore Snyder. Snyder is legally binding as of the moment of SCOTUS issuing its denial; whether MI chooses to follow or ignore the rule of law remains to be seen. I really hope they’re not so stupid as to ignore.

    • AJ

      Yes, interesting in that it once again all seemed to have hinged on the need for individual risk assessments. Of note: “Absent the lifetime-registration-without-review provision, we would not find the other effects of the act sufficiently punitive to overcome the presumption of its constitutionality.”

      I also enjoyed reading what would later be echoed in Packingham: “Our communities have grown, and in many ways, the internet is our town square.” This is something that was not seen, let alone understood, when Smith was decided. But with what SCOTUS said in Packingham about social media*, it seems clear justices are starting to “get it.” This will only improve as more tech-aware judges such as Kagan and Gorsuch come along (and I mean at every level, not just SCOTUS).

      *”With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square,
      and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”
      —–
      “Modern public square.” I suspect that phrase will appear in many lawsuits in the future.

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 *