MO: Missouri Supreme Court rules against sex offenders

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri’s Supreme Court on Tuesday sided against three men previously convicted of a sex crime and facing a new criminal charge under a law making it illegal for them to be near certain parks.

The cases are the most recent to focus on a portion of the Missouri Constitution barring retrospective and ex post facto laws. The high court ruled last month the ban on retrospective laws does not apply to criminal statutes. A divided Missouri Supreme Court concluded Tuesday the parks restriction is a criminal law and the retrospective laws prohibition does not apply. Full Article

See also:

Related posts

Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Can Janice or someone with some basic legal background read this decision and weigh in on this? (I realize Janice is not an attorney in MO, but maybe she can lend some insight just the same).
So, now we have a supreme court saying that restrictions put upon someone who were convicted of a specific crime are criminal and not civil. Even if they are, aren’t such restrictions covered under ex post facto laws?
And, what about the part about where the statute says for out-of-state offenders convicted of a law that is similar to the ones in this chapter. Talk about unconstitutionally vague. Then, they compare it to gun restrictions for felons. What about those convicted of a misdemeanor “sex offense.”
This is either decision is either really: 1) stupid for the government and good for registered citizens (because it could pave the way for big-time challenges against these laws given that they now deem them as criminal statutes and not civil) or 2) scary because the supreme court is implying that any law restricting someone convicted of a crime in the past is okay because it’s not civil.
Didn’t the US Supreme Court essentially say that all S.O. Registration Laws are okay as applied retroactively because they are CIVIL??? Thus, if said laws are deemed CRIMINAL, then hasn’t the US Supreme Court essentially banned them as applied retroactively???
This ruling could either be really bad or really good.
I would love for some legal insight from Janice, et al, if they have the time.

I am not a lawyer but if this is considered criminal law that prohibits sex offenders from areas. Isn’t that singling out a certain class of people? That were ruled unconstitutional centuries ago. Discrimination period.

It appears as if the courts in general are neck deep in the crap they’ve created and can’t figure a way to climb out of this deepening legal cesspool. I’m not a betting man, but history tells me that the losers will be RSO’s (again).

The headline should read missouri rules against the Constitution ……that’s what they basically did…..I like the
Rams and Cardinals (just not when they play the Dodgers)….
but that ruling by missouri subverts Constitutional Rights and they failed to protect support it…….ex post facto …double jeopardy …equal protection …due process…just for
openers to appeal that missouri court…they are grossly wrong and sue BIG $$$$$ lawsuits ….I want some of that
missouri jackpot $$$$$$$$.

I’ll keep supporting, that you can count on and I’ll keep plodding along in the marathon. I guess the effects of these unconstitutional laws are short term because of the legal challenges, and it seems like the consequences of those laws to registered citizens have a longer effect. I live for the day when the registry is gone or includes everyone! I prefer gone. Thank you.

Glad you here Janice to calm us down on headline like this!!

Janice Bellucci is what I call a TRUE hero, A person who fights for the rights of others, I do not live in California but keep the good work up.

Thank you Janice and the people that support you. I hope the marathon can be completed in a few more years.