MI: Sex Offender Registration After Does v. Snyder

The Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Does v. Snyder, __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 4473231 (6th Cir. 2016), has significant implications for the representation of current registrants who are charged with violating Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), current registrants seeking removal from the sex offender registry or exemptions from certain SORA provisions, defendants currently charged with sex offenses, and defendants in “recapture” cases. While every case is obviously unique, this memo seeks to provide some general guidance to Michigan’s criminal defense bar in the wake of the Does decision. Full Article


http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2016/10/alert-more-on-doe-v-snyder-mi-registry.html (with other links)

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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

Sounds good, right on the money. How anyone else can come to any other conclusion defies logic, but they do. At least it’s a beginning?

I don’t think the scrotus will hear this case, they are isolated penguins with no guts to actually use the laws of this nation like this case demonstrates. And the recent case in Illinois proves they are common criminals. I wish there was a better way to describe it, but its criminal to stand by and uphold these laws.

I don’t know what it really accomplished for Michigan residents. It does not change the exclusion zones, they will still have to register just not personally or to the extent they are, but the registry stands.

They will just pass more residency restrictions and more laws. Spend that money, it’s free from taxpayers, all.

Tremendous .. Tremendous decision that will reverberate to states so that this light shines from darkness.
Thank you again to all who argued the case and for our US 6thDistrict court for really listening and reading the arguments; Thank you.
The Constitution Works and that rumble shake isn’t an earthquake…
Its the Constitution coming to get after some of that california Gold .!
Tremendous decision.!

One provision I’d consider in my travels either domestic or international is the fact that the federal government has never reached out to me and informed me I have a SO label in every domestic or international location as far as a handful of legislators believe. They could never convict me of something I had no knowledge of nor intended to do. I will travel where I want for as long as I want without notice, until the State of California instructs me otherwise:

Strict Liability Defense

While the Sixth Circuit again did not reach the issue, the district court held that strict liability under SORA is unconstitutional. In other words, individuals must knowingly violate SORA to be criminally liable. This is an underused defense, and could be particularly helpful where individuals are charged with failures to register based on their reasonable belief that after Does v. Snyder they no longer need to register. (Courts have not yet begun to sort out the implications of the case, and registrants should not be expected to divine whether and what portions of SORA continue to apply to them.) Note, however, that the Michigan Court of Appeals has said that the failure to report is a strict liability offense and willfulness is not an element. See People v McFall, 309 Mich. App. 377; 873 NW2d 112 (2015). Depending on the nature of the charged violation, McFall may be distinguishable. (See the additional resources section.)

If, according to the story, the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay, doesn’t that mean there is no longer any legal sex offender registry in Michigan (and presumably the other states in the Sixth Circuit). Then why don’t we all just move to Michigan and live happily ever after?

Miriam Aukerman of the ACLU of Michigan, the lawyer for our side, who is quoted in the story above, is speaking in an event hosted by Illinois Voices For Reform, the state affiliate of RSOL, in Chicago on Nov 18. I will be attending and try to get clarification on this.

If you wish to attend get the details here


I really have lost all hope. I have nothing but negative thoughts about the criminal enterprise called SORA. The criminal politicians, state police and courts have all of the power. All we have is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The document given to us by our forefathers. Attorneys have dissected the meaning of our Constitution and Bill of Rights down to the individual letters of these documents to the point that the original meaning and intent has been lost or stolen. I pray many times a day that my life will be returned to me by my Lord and Savior. I thank God every day for Janice and Chance. I live in Michigan and do see and understand the victory in the 6th circuit decision. My “no touch”, internet crime has destroyed my life. I will only allow myself to appreciate the moment in that there are a few people out there that see how illegal and cruel these laws are. I am fully expecting that the attorney general and his minions will some how undermine this victory. There are too many millions of dollars at stake and an entire industry that stands to be lost. I can not allow myself to get my hopes up again only to have them dashed by some last minute dirty trick by politicians. Yes I have lost all hope…

The second big story mentioned in this article is what will the Michigan Supes do with People v Temelkowski ? This upcoming case is essentially all about the same stuff as Snyder. Remembering these same Supes very recently went unanimous against internet identifiers…

for those of you that might be wondering what is going on with Michigan’s Does v Snyder, I heard from Ms Aukerman today,even though she did not say much again. I asked her how long does it usually take for SCOTUS to to review a case,and either except it or deny it case,and this is all she said We probably won’t know till late spring. Sorry i don’t have much more to report, but that is were we are as of now.

Yes please Doug, could you please explain what that means in layman’s terms, how exactly is that good news, I keep asking Ms Aukerman,but she hardly explains her self,or say’s something only lawyers can comprehend.
Please explain what you mean by good news. Thank You