ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: [details]

Other Events
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

National

MI: Supreme Court Hearing Sex Offender Registry Case

The Michigan Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case of a man who was placed on the sex offender registry for touching a girl’s breasts, even though his case was dismissed in 1997 after successful probation and community service. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Who removes from list

    Im quessing Michigan didnt get the point by US Supreme Court. Who knows on this one. Definately ex post facto involved here too.

    • AJ

      Apparently MI AG Schuette is going for the double b!tch-slapping from the courts.

  2. Eric Knight

    Link to previous MI Supreme Court case last December involving the registrant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaW7R3ZdrvI

  3. Biol57

    Here is the explanation why they Supreme Court of Michigan is holding new oral arguments in this case:
    “The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in 2015, and heard oral argument in December 2016. In May 2017, in light of new developments, this Court voted to hear reargument to address: (1) whether this case should be held in abeyance pending final action by the United States Supreme Court in Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696 (CA 6, 2016); (2) whether a criminal defendant is denied due process of law if a statute offers a benefit in exchange for pleading guilty, the defendant’s plea is induced by the expectation of that benefit, but the benefit is vitiated in whole or in part; and (3) whether the Wayne Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendant’s SORA claim.”

    Here is a link to the live argument, which begins at 1 PM Eastern (10 AM Pacific)

    http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/live-streaming/Pages/live-streaming.aspx

  4. David M

    Greetings Tim my name is David and I am from Michigan and have been on the registry going on two decades. I am curious about any information you might have regarding crafting new sex offender laws in Michigan since you guys won recently.  Very good job and thank you.

    Sincerely David M

    Yes we are working on this with the State. It will NOT happen overnight.  We are looking for people who we may call upon to tell their story as to how the SOR has been a hardship on them.  These people may be called upon to testify before the House or Senate Committee’s that will handle these changes with our input.  If you are interested please submit your name all contact information including phone and address.  Also a short expiation of what happen including the age of the victim and your age at the time of the incident.  This will not be a chance to retry your case only a chance to assist with some positive changes. 

    Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan contact.

    • Bobby

      Tim sent, me the same e-mail, but that is the same type of e-mail back when the Snyder case was getting on it’s way. I thought since we won Snyder here in Michigan that the Temelkoski case wouldn’t even be necessary ,to hear anymore, because doesn’t the Snyder cases trump the Temelkoski case, therefore being he (Boban Temelkosi ) would win automatically.?

      • AJ

        @Bobby:
        I’m guessing they are hearing it to answer the 3 questions posed to the parties in May. Those are distinct questions from ex post facto…though Snyder certainly casts a huge shadow over this case.
        Hopefully Temolski’s attorneys pick up Muniz and Millard cases as further weapons.

        • Bobby

          One of Temelkoski’s lawyer’s is Ms Miriam Aukerman from Mi’s ACLU, the same lady that won the Snyder case. So with her on his side and the Snyder case this should be a slam dunk victory!! for Mr Boban Temelkoski .

          Also from Michigan’s ACLU intern, concerning the Snyder case, it will take at least a few more month’s for the changes to be made, they can’t just go back to the 1994 version like people think
          I asked if the 2013 amendment about the $50 annual fee was part of Snyder, but of course he wouldn’t give me an answer except for to say the legislature and the State police the AG and Governor have to get together and fix it, and no THEY can no longer kick the can down the road any longer, THET have no choice now but to revise the Michigan’s Registry.

          • AJ

            @Bobby:
            “[T]he legislature and the State police the AG and Governor have to get together and fix it, and no THEY can no longer kick the can down the road any longer, THEY have no choice now but to revise the Michigan’s Registry.”
            —–
            Now ML is a non-stop headache and problem for them (too)…such a shame the State is now playing defense. (CUE: crocodile tears)

    • Daniel

      I was convicted as a minor in 1993 for an incident I perpetuated with my little brother, and just recently I have now been required to register as a sex offender, now me and my wife have to move Because of the school being to close and now I can’t even pick up my son from school. Can I do anything to get off of these requirements? I was 15 yrs old when I plead to this charge my public lawyer at the time told me to plead and that it would be a sealed record when I turned 18. Please help !

      • CR

        I don’t know what you can do, Daniel. Being prevented from participating in your own child’s life is one of the most dire and despicable consequences of having to register. It’s patently unfair, and I’m very sorry for you and for your family that you are being affected in this way.

        Contact a good lawyer. I don’t think you should have to register, but the state doesn’t care what you or I think. You’re not likely to get out of it, frankly. But registrants who were minors when they did whatever it was that got them on the registry are often good candidates for law suits to challenge aspects of registration. At least think about it.

  5. KM

    One of the most important statements made by the Judges today was that the Court is compelled as a matter of federal law to recognize that much of the Michigan Sex Offender Registry is punitive.

    I’m pretty sure this guy is going to get what he’s asking for.

  6. Chris F

    I would like to see more attention to the fact that the registry is mandatory even for those given a type of “deferred adjudication” and never convicted. With SORA, either the legislation illegally delegated the authority to the A.G. to define what required registration, or the A.G. illegally took that authority. He should not have been allowed to re-define “convicted” to mean “convicted, or not convicted”.

    Essentially, that invalidates almost everything about taking a plea deal where you are told you won’t be convicted if you do everything right during probation. It means you are treated the same as someone the state had iron-clad evidence of wrongdoing VS a situation where there were different factors and a reason for leniency or doubt of a crime. It means more cases won’t settle for deferred now, and children and other potential victims may be dragged through the mud of a court hearing and be further damaged, all because someone decided to re-define “convicted” to mean “not convicted” as well.

    In Texas, they also took away the ability to have your record sealed after a number of years if it was for a sex crime, deferred or not. How is that not a violation of equal protection? They did it with a wide brush, with no difference between a violent crime of a recidivist or a one time minor infraction. You can kill people by selling them bad drugs and get your record sealed, but flash someone and it’s on there for life.

    The legislation has removed all discretion and tailoring a punishment and length of punishment from the judges, but only for sex offences. Judges are just overpaid gate-keepers now and puppets for the legislature’s amusement.

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      Welcome back from hiatus. I’ve missed your comments, brother! Your point about convicted and non-convicted actually buttresses the argument that a registry is regulation. Regulations apply to all who fit a certain criteria, criminal activity aside. This is also how in IL (I think?) a judge was putting someone on the registry, despite not having been convicted of a sexual offense. I believe MN has a similar provision that even though one may be convicted of a non-sexual offense, if there was a sexual element to the crime, one can still land on the list. (I’m guessing this is the Legislature’s way of preventing plea deals that would otherwise avoid registration.) I’m in no way supporting their activity, but it does hold some water from their perspective….assuming registries make sense to begin with, of course.

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        Thanks AJ!

        Sure, IF a registry is constitutional and proven to do what it says to protect the public in the least intrusive way possible, then a judge should be able to apply it to anyone THE JUDGE thinks needs it and everything negative that goes along with it. The judge then would determine the duration and the accused could appeal or could file motions to get removed.

        What gets me is how everything in regards to the registry bypasses the judiciary, other than getting the nod from the judge that the person committed, or plead guilty/no contest, to some sex crime.

        It’s going to be another interesting year I imagine. 🙂

    • CR

      This is exactly my situation. I am also in Texas. I made a plea arrangement for deferred adjudication and was given probation for 10 years. This was back in ’92. There was no requirement for me to register as a sex offender when I pled. At that time, I was told that I could have my record expunged upon successful completion of my probation. Then later in ’97 I was made to register for life under the revised statutes that were applied retroactively to all persons with a reportable “conviction or adjudication”, and the opportunity to someday petition to have my record expunged was removed.

      It has been my opinion from the beginning, and remains so, that registration is punishment. I believe that no matter what SCOTUS has said thus far, forcing me to register (for life) years after my plea bargain is a violation of ex post facto laws.

      I am glad that SCOTUS denied certiorari to Snyder v Does. It is somewhat encouraging. But it is important to remember that a denial of cert “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]” We’re not out of the woods yet by a long shot.

  7. TXSO4life

    @CR, I am in the same legal situation as you. From TX, convicted in 92, given 5 yrs sentence, completed in 97. Was made to register for 10 yrs and retroactively extended to life in 2006 due to new amendment. I had speak to a few attorneys about the expos facto issue, but they all stated it’s a settle law in TX and 5th circuit that registration and retroactively added restrictions are civil regulatory meant to help registrants being productive citizens. I questioned how it is helping us being productive by denying us housing, employment, education, chance to get involve in our children education. They simply stated it’s meant to protect the public from harms that registrants may cause them. I talked to a few more attorneys that simply refused to take a case that deal with over turning the registry.

    • Chris F (@CR and TXSO4LIFE)

      @CR and @TXSO4LIFE

      There are a couple IMPORTANT things you need to research, because lawyers DON’T know the Texas Constitution, even when they claim they do. Texas is one of only about 9 states that not only doesn’t allow Ex-Post Facto, but also does not allow retroactive CIVIL REGULATIONS!

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

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

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

      A retroactive law is one meant to act on things that are past. As such, a statute is retroactive which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates new obligations, imposes new duties, or adopts a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past, and which affects acts or rights accruing before it came into force. Turbeville v. Gowdy, Civ.App., 272 S.W. 559 (1925).
      *********
      Lawyers that try stuff mostly in Federal court won’t know much about this, because it’s not a federal issue or in the US Constitution. The 5th circuit wouldn’t rule on this unless it was a small part of a bigger federal case because the jurisdiction should be state court, and then possibly it could go to SCOTUS if Texas tries to not honor its own very clear constitution and rule against you.

      In addition, you also need to look back at the definition of “deferred adjudication” from back when you made the deal. They have to honor that as part of a contract. It should have said something about when you complete it, you are free of ALL burdens, and not just punishment burdens.

      • New Person

        I have been told by a lawyer that California’s 1203.4 doesn’t mean what I think it means when it comes to registrants.

        Yet here is what 1203.4 states:
        =================
        (a) (1) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.
        =================

        I’ll just quote a smaller excerpt “… the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, …”

        Registration is a disability and if you don’t register, then there will be a penalty stemming from your conviction.

        Nowhere below does it state that a registrant must continue within 1203.4

        Now, conflate that with Ca Constitution Art. 1, Sec 7b:
        ===================
        A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
        or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
        Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
        revoked.
        ===================
        The 1203.4 immunity must be given to all who qualify and will not be abridged. So why do registrants who are awarded the 1203.4 must continue to register as if they were still convicted?

        The power of the state constitution isn’t being utilized in Ca.

      • lovewillprevail

        I was aware of these issues. I do not know much about law, but it was my understanding that since the TX courts have ruled it is ok to pass expo-facto laws against registered people even though the state constitution clearly states no expo-facto laws can be adopted, they have set a precedent in state court and since a precedent was set, it would be almost impossible to convince a state judge to not follow the precedent. If this is true, then it is almost impossible to fight the expo-facto issue in TX courts.

        I can not remember what the opinion stated, but in the federal Lewisville, TX case, I believe the 5th circuit stated no cases could be brought on expo-fact grounds as they ruled with prejudice on that constitutional issue.

        It just appears that state and federal judges in TX jurisdiction have a bias against registered people and they threw out the state and federal constitutions and at this point, the only way around this issue is supreme court expo-facto opinion by way of another case from another part of the country.

        I would think in TX, one would have to find another constitutional issue to argue that the 5th has not ruled with prejudice against. In my opinion, all those judges should be removed from office for not complying with the constitutions in making the decisions. Not sure at this point that any arguements can successfully be made in TX in state or federal courts using the expo-facto reasoning.

        • Chris F (@lovewillprevail)

          @lovewillprevail

          To quote the Texas Constitution:

          Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution. Adopted February 15, 1876: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.

          So, in the cases where Texas courts ruled on Ex-post facto, did they rule on just that, or did they include any ruling on “retroactive law”? It can’t be fought in federal court, since “retroactive law” isn’t in our US Constution.

          • terry brunson

            Check U.S. Constitution Article 1 section 10 and you will find what you say is not there. Retroactive and ex post facto are the same thing – – – – – – When retoactive law is in application is done that makes the new Law Ex Post Facto

            • AJ

              @terry brunson:
              In Calder v Bull (1798), SCOTUS ruled ex post facto only applies to criminal (i.e. punitive) situations. Retroactive is a more generic term, which could ostensibly be used in civil litigation as well. That’s why reliance on TX’s constitutional wording is needed.

  8. Bobby

    hello every

    I have just received the re-oral argument of of Mr Boban Temelkoski case: People of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski: So for those that are interested here is the link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiXuxka9UQ

    please let me know if the link does not work for some reason.

    • Bobby

      Hey Everyone

      I am watching the Temelkoski case right now and about 45 minutes in so far, and I love how Justice Bernstein , is trying to get the lady from the state, to understand what she is arguing right now, about why Temelkoski, should remain on sora doesn’t make sense to him. This is great so far, it sounds like the state is going to lose this case as well, or at least should lose this case.

      • Bill

        Think for the link Bobby,I watched it twice, I think it looks good, seemed like most judges got it right!

      • Chris F

        By the end, I don’t know if the state will lose. The state is saying that they can’t argue the violation of Due Process, because it wasn’t before the lower courts and can’t be brought now. It’s coming down to just an ex-post-facto, and I am worried the judges could say it’s regulatory as long as he is just registered for life under the restrictions prior to 2006 and rule against the guy.

        I hate the years it takes to get a case heard and then you can’t argue the real issues because they weren’t brought up originally. Such a waste of time.

        To change the subject to one of our frequent posters:
        Unlike this case, I like how Mike R’s case hits on every Constitutional violation to avoid that problem, but after watching these hearings where each side only has 20 minutes to argue, how would Mike R argue half a dozen Constitutional issues effectively if that is all they give? I supposed that is why lawyers focus on just a few top ones, but that doesn’t paint the complete picture needed to fairly judge the registry problems. Is anyone aware of a case of multiple Constitutional violations reaching a high court and how is time managed for proper argument?

        • New Person

          @ Chris F
          ================
          By the end, I don’t know if the state will lose. The state is saying that they can’t argue the violation of Due Process, because it wasn’t before the lower courts and can’t be brought now.
          ================

          That idea was refuted with a newer case “dation” iirc, that said the court can expand the scope.

          But what was pointed out here was the whole idea of conviction vs non-conviction. The long, arduous fluff response the state gave to why does Tellemoski state he has no conviction, but is register was quite comical. Then Tellemoski’s lawyer later rebutted stating that 2003 Smith v Doe only focused in on “convicted” persons.

          In California, presence and residency restrictions were recently considered unconstitutional. Yet those were part of the terms given to a registrant that can be deemed as punishment. So any person that has completed probation before re:Taylor was decided can utilized that as a disability in respect to 1203.4 case dismissal immunities where it states that a person will be released from all penalties and disabilities stemming from the conviction.

          NPS getting fired from her job just because she was on the registry can now serve as a direct disability that has affected her and the 1203.4 was supposed to provide such an immunity for all who qualify. Here, it did not protect her.

          This Tellimoski case has a lot of bearing to me because registrants who do qualify for the 1203.4 are not receiving the benefits that was part and parcel with the judgment to give probation. The state of California truly cannot refute what 1203.4 states so obviously within its statutes, and stating the only exceptions will be noted below inside the statute. No where does it state a registrant needs to continue to register, but it does state which registrants cannot receive the 1203.4.

          And California has Article 1, Section 7b that protects equal immunity. Carving out registrants to partake in the benefits of 1203.4 is denial of equal immunity, which is stronger than just equal protection.

  9. Bobby

    I just looked at Michigan registry were I live, and they did change my registration date back to 11-22-1995
    were just a few day’s ago it was my conviction date 0r 6-19-1992.

    Now my tier still says 3 and that I have to register for life, but that should also change soon, i’m guessing, since I should only be 25 years, which would be sometime in 2020, but was changed to life time registration and goes back to 25 years, I should be able to petition, to be removed since I am past the 10 year mark with no other convictions.

    I also noticed on some of the other people on the registry in my town and surrounding area, that their registration dates are actually before their conviction dates, which don’t make any sense to me, how can some one have a registration date that is before their conviction date, but at least they are currently working on the mess, just like the state of Michigan says in the video, they have to start making the changes they have NO choice at this point. I will let every one know when I lose the tier stigma and my registry says 25 years.

    • Bill

      I would hope the state, would not make anyone petition the court, May conviction date is about the same as yours , I am under the 25 year punishment. I have 4 more times, ends in Nov. 2019,Its a 70 mile round trip. I wish everyone the best!

  10. TXSO4life

    @Chris, I had spoken to attorney regarding prohibition of expos facto in civil matter on TX constitution, and he stated that registration in tx laws and courts are not punishment and no civil disability exist to file claims in court. All the added or retroactive restrictions placed on registrants are just collateral consequences. He said there are bills in congress that would further ban registrants from malls and any public buildings that is in close proximity to parks, bus stop, shelters, nursing home, museums, and schools. And it will be made retroactive. He recommended not filing any suit and just wait and see how other cases around the country progress through courts. As for TX and those within the 5th circuit, he said just accepted it as it is, and hope one day congress might have a change of heart.

    • New Person

      But the Snyder case said that in-person reporting was unconstitutional b/c it was a trait of probation/parole, which is punishment.

      • Chris F

        And here you hit the nail on the head of how this needs to be challenged.

        Many of these things deemed “collateral consequences” were already the job of probation and parole and the judge when he determined what was needed to protect the public. The legislature created the registry to completely bypass the judiciary and the probation/parole process which historically has been the fair way to restrict people after a conviction. Restrictions to where one lives, where one goes, and keeping information updated always was done by probation/parole and tailored to the individual and the crime. Now legislature mandates all of it and doesn’t restrict it to the least intrusive needed to accomplish a goal. Sounds like a separation of powers constitutional violation.

    • Chris F

      Thanks for that update.

      I’ve read this good article on collateral consequences in Texas:

      http://randyleavitt.com/11_Leavitt.pdf

      It sounds like there has to be some logic behind restrictions though. The problem with the sex offender restrictions they’ve come up with and why they shouldn’t so easily be deemed “collateral consequences” is there weren’t incidences to show a need for the restriction, the restrictions are not narrowly tailored to those that would be even considered risky, and the length of times on the registry that triggers these consequences are completely arbitrary and not related to any risk assessment.

      I know judges don’t like to think that much though, so I guess it’s just too easy for them to dismiss any complaints and chock them up to collateral consequences. But if that is true, then why even include “ex post facto” and “retroactive legislation” in our constitution if it’s so easy to ignore as long as someone plead no contest to a crime? I guess we are stuck here in the 5th.

      • lovewillprevail

        Chris F, if the Supreme Court does not hear the Lewisville case and rule that citizens, especially those not on probation and not on parole, have a liberty interest in where one can live, then in the 5th, one would have to find another constitutional arguement that the 5th did not rule with prejudice when it made its Lewisville opinion. Otherwise, you are right, one would just have to wait until the Supreme Court makes rulings, which could take years, or possibly a generation if the ruling political party puts in its judges at the supreme court. So, in that case, one should just move to another part of the country where the same laws have been declared unconstitutional. And this country will just have a patchwork of laws where the same laws can be enforced in one area and not enforced in another. So be ready to move if necessary.

        • Chris F (@lovewillprevail)

          I believe that even though it was dismissed with prejudice, another person can still try the same Constitutional challenges, just not that person they ruled on.

          Even if not, they still have much better violations to challenge, such as Substantive Due Process and Bill of Attainder as well as challenging how the law is arbitrary government action because it goes against all government recommendations and studies. The restrictions are nothing more than a way for nearby cities to keep escalating their laws to push offenders to other cities until those cities laws raise the bar higher again and end up banishing the offenders.

          • lovewillprevail

            Chris F, I agree with you that these other arguements that you mentioned could be used as I believe there were not listed in the 5th Lewisville opinion, if I remember correctly. It just sucks and blows my mind that the state courts say it is ok to pass expo-facto sex offender laws when the state constitution clearly states the opposite. But, there is nothing one can do concerning that issue and that makes sense why attorneys will not fight that battle in Texas. As you state, you just have to find other arguements not yet ruled against by the courts. Though I guess one could file complaints with the state bar against the judges who made that decision for them not complying with the state constitution. Maybe at least they could get a reprimand, but that still does not change the precedent. But be prepared to be a sex offender all over the news for taking that action…

  11. mike r

    I agree Chris, time management and preparation is going to have to be a top priority in oral argument. I have to force the court to consider all the violations in a way that they are all in the appeal front and center. I think I will have an opening statement and a conclusive statement, so I really need to make them count….That is (once again) where your guy’s help is going to come into play, helping me write perfect statements addressing the respondent brief and all the issues. Together we can make this happen…I know it’s a bit cliche but, United we stand and divided we fall and all that………..

  12. mike r

    I need to argue that the complexity of the case, and issues and the fact that I am Pro per, demands that I have all the time I need to argue in order to satisfy my right to a fair and just judicial process, which is the foundation of ” access to the courts” and procedural due process………I am also going to argue that I want the court to redact and require defendants not to use the words sex offender, instead referring to me as the registrant, and the registry as SORNS or Megan’s law, since those monikers bring inherent biases and prejudices into the the consideration processes. I just want to do so as to show respect and integrity for the courts, so its a fine line….I think it is important though…

  13. mike r

    That really concerns me that in that oral the judge stated, like it is common knowledge, that the legislature can attached collateral consequences to a conviction, even retroactively, as long as it is attached to an actual conviction…..Hmmmm……..

    • Chris F

      Yes, Collateral Consequences has become the rug that apparently they can sweep anything under to avoid it being retroactive and unconstitutional.

      This is a good summary:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_consequences_of_criminal_conviction

      and for people like me in Texas, this is a good read:

      http://randyleavitt.com/11_Leavitt.pdf

      I think there is a line that can be drawn though, between what can and can’t be “collateral consequences”. There has to be some type of logic where it makes sense to ban someone from something because of a particular conviction, and not just done out of spite or to punish them. Denying someone convicted of manufacture and distributing drugs from federal housing assistance and food stamps may make sense because that type of assistance means they can spend money on drugs while the government foots the bill for necessities. Marking someone’s passport that results in denial into other countries for once looking at CP does not make sense. Denying someone who never touched a person from a shelter does not make sense.

  14. mike r

    I think you are on it Chris…There has to be some rational and nexus with the collateral consequence that you are subject to. It cannot just be arbitrary as you say….I need to think of some good metaphors for that………

  15. mike r

    I think it really doesn’t matter since I am claiming that the collateral consequences are not triggered by the conviction or the criminal record, but is a consequence of the state or fed gov”s publicly accessible website, which demonstrably is what causes most of these collateral consequence, not the conviction. So, just from a quick analyst-not for certain yet, those collateral consequences that are unconstitutional are only going to apply to such arguments as my right to reputation, unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and all the rest has to be challenged under substantive due process. I will definitely research this more when I get a chance……..

  16. Mike M

    Has anyone heard if the michigan supreme court ruled on Telemoski?

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.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

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