MI: Man barred from visiting home county by court

The unusual restriction was upheld this week by a federal appeals court. When ____ ____ is released from prison this year, he can’t set foot in his home county, Baraga, while under the supervision of a probation officer.

____ was convicted of a sex crime in 2009. He has twice been returned to prison for violating conditions of supervised release.

____ admits that Baraga, a remote and sparsely populated area in the Upper Peninsula, isn’t a good place for him to deal with drug and alcohol problems. He said he doesn’t want to live there, but he objects to being banished for years. Full Article

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

Hmmmm The residency restrictions were labeled as a constitutional violation so I don’t think that would be enforcable under the SOR registry restrictions. I think the MDOC could restrict where he lives as long as he is under supervision. They pretty much let me know first thing that they can do whatever they want to me and I have very little recourse. I never understand the logic that MDOC uses in trying to control registrants or any other person convicted of a crime. It seems their main goal is to destablize and destroy. So much for rehabilitation and reintegration.

He should just serve out his time and refuse probation.

The good thing about this, unlike the entire Registration Scheme, is that at least the restrictions were controlled by a judge, tailored to the individual’s situation, he has access to due process of filing appeals, and it all ends when the supervision period is over. It is the goal of the justice department to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public from convicted offenders.

Sex Offender registration was created by legislation to completely bypass the judiciary and its due process as a separate system. It violates separation of powers since the legislation is not the branch assigned to control punishment, rehabilitation, and protecting the public from convicted offenders.

I just wish SCOTUS would someday actually do their job and uphold the separation of powers. They could have done so way back in Smith V Doe and Connecticut Dept of Public Safety V Doe but failed miserably and didn’t fact check the lies from the Solicitor General that convinced them to put aside the US Constitution.