ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Mtgs: May 12: San Diego [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference – Sign Up Now 

National

MI: Supreme Court Rules in Sex Offender Registry Case

Michigan’s Supreme Court says a Detroit-area man who served probation and community service after being charged with touching a girl’s breast when he was 19 can be removed from a sex offender registry. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

    Good. Registry should be done away as a whole, but at the very least individuals who have had their cases dismissed should be released from the duty to register. Anything short of releasing a person from registering is nearly pointless as its the absolute biggest stain one can have on their record. Someone with a murder record would have an easier time finding a home and a job than someone with a “clean” record but on a registry.

  2. NPS

    A lot of us here in California are on the same boat. We have expunged records and don’t have to disclose that to potential employers, yet we’re still required to register. Once an employer finds out about 290 status, they’ll let you go anyway despite 290.46(L) So when do we get to see a case like this here in California?

    • Trish

      This story shows the absolute idiocies of a government that has power and does not do justice for all because they are not suited for their jobs! How does a registry get established before a government has a counter balance that protects the rights of the accused! What justice actually thought or believes/ed that a PUBLIC Registry would over reach or step the rights the government has over a group, class etc of individuals! HOW MANY DOCUMENTED Cases and PROFFESSIONAL RECORDS Show historically proven that this must not happen! THE AUTHORITIES KNEW THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO ESTABLISH MeGans law and Sorna etc!

      • Trish

        The law has a right to alert the public when absolutely needed! All points bulletin! Not a public shame, hit list or banishment effect! Why do we the people have to even argue such a rediculous thing! Why?

        • David

          Why? Because crime rates have been consistently falling for the last two decades and law enforcement has to do something to keep people fearful of that big, scary, dangerous world out there! A world filled with boogie monsters hiding around every corner! Residents are advised to stay inside, lock all doors, and hide under the covers until it’s safe! 😨

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          My question is how they have justices that actually decent to this unreal You have to be a barbarian to allow this to happen there should be a reg for them

  3. Mike

    Hey folks,

    I am from Michigan and I am one of those HYTA registrants that has no criminal conviction but still has to register. If you read the order carefully, it only removed the defendant in question because the registry was created AFTER he was sentenced to probation and the Holmes Youthful Training Act (HYTA). From that prospective, it cannot be retroactively applied. I would have thought that instead of a\n short “order”, the justices would have wrote an “Opinion” (like they normally due on important matters) on the whole ISSUE with HYTA and registration. They did not. The “order” only removed him due to the registry was not around at the time of his sentencing. The legislatures may use this to fix the system, however this court order in no way, shape, or form states that being assigned to HYTA is punishment or unconstitutional to register even though you have no conviction. So basically, all those remaining HYTA defendants sentenced AFTER the creation of the registry in 1995 are stuck on the registry. What baffles me is there was a TON of briefs, etc on the HYTA issue and how it is cruel and unusual punishment to make someone register, who has NO CONVICTION. Whats the point of pleading to this “diversion program”, if the sealed record is actually reflected on the registry? How stupid is that? After all the in depth briefs filed, the justices wrote a very TINY “order” reversing the court of appeals decision and allowed the defendant to be removed from the registry.

    This is a very important legal matter, and justices in other states such as the Muniz case wrote an actual lengthy OPINION. Why on earth would these justices create a tiny ORDER that doesn’t hardly address anything?? That’s Michigan for you.

    • Trish

      Because, they are known by their words…..whatever is in the heart the mouth speaks ! They must keep silent or to a bare minimum to sustain the facade of the registry, that it is unjust, un necessary, and violates the rights of the people !

  4. Josh

    Does anybody know what’s going on with Michigan and Does vs Snyder? When does the ACLU plan on filing their class action? If anybody has heard anything I’d be interested to know it…

    • David

      As to the question from Josh regarding doe v. Snyder, I can only give you an email of whom to contact to find out about the class action. Contact Tim at intern@aclumich.org.
      I would also like to point out that it is a sad time for all the people of the State of Michigan when the “Highest Court” of the land has handed down a ruling and once again Michigan does not want to comply with the law.
      Michigan government is no better than the criminals they punish. The sex offender registry should have already been corrected and fixed. But as usual, Michigan can’t accept loss and instead has decided to just ignore the law and the truth.

      • CR

        I don’t mean to detract from the sentiment you express about Michigan, with which I agree, but I think it is important to note that Snyder v Does was decided by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and is only binding in the states that comprise the 6th circuit. It is not the “Highest Court” that you refer to.

        The highest federal court is the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS did not render any ruling or opinion in this case. They only denied the State of MIchigan’s petition for writ of certiorari. This means that the decision of the 6th Circuit stands within that circuit only. The denial of certiorari by SCOTUS says nothing about the merits of the case, sets no precedent, and does not even imply that SCOTUS agrees with the decision of the 6th.

        It is a positive thing for registered citizens in the 6th circuit that SCOTUS denied certiorari, but that cannot be construed as a “ruling” by the “Highest Court”.

        And it is indeed sad that the State of Michigan is dragging its heals and ignoring the decision of the 6th Circuit.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • 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 *