Roughly two weeks ago the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed the state’s current sex offender registration law to be punishment and ultimately barred by both the state and federal constitutions when applied retroactively.
That decision may now end up under review from the highest court in the country.
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said Friday his office would ask the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, which was handed down on July 19. Full Article
I believe this will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back in regards to the scotus taking the snyder case. Granted we are talking state vs fed, but the Pennsylvania decision has some federal undertones with awa. I really think Kennedy wants to correct what was misunderstood (or ignored) during the smith v doe case, which he more or less referenced in the Packingham case. I serioisly doubt he would have gone that far off topic in the Packingham opinion unless there was good reason to do so. I realize that both the Michigan federal district and the Pennsylvania supreme court have ruled in favor of registrants and normally the scotus looks for a difference of opinion, but based on what I listed above this will be an exception to the rule.
Someone needs to explain to this DA that SCOTUS itself has long ago stated it has no jurisdiction over deciding whether a State law violates a State constitution. The PA SC clearly decided PA’s SORNA does just that. I guess the DA considers the Chief Justice as lone dissenter enough of a split to appeal–though I’m guessing were the decision the other way, he’d call it a resounding or clear statement from the Court and a decided matter. It doesn’t *matter* what the Federal outcome is, the State law violates the State constitution. The State is not allowed to follow a Federal law while violating State law, especially one like AWA where compliance is not mandatory. Hopefully PA’s Office of General Counsel is a bit smarter than this County DA seems to be and cedes the fight.
Regardless, this is saddening news for those in PA who are helped by this decision and see the light at the end of the tunnel. If the State does apply for a stay, it may have a pretty good shot: PA is in the Third District, and that’s Justice Alito’s oversight. As ultra-right as he is, I can easily see him issuing a stay on the ruling, pushing the case into at least late-September for SCOTUS to decide whether to grant cert or not. (I think if it gets that far, SCOTUS may combine it with Snyder.) But…if even someone as far-right as Alito denies the State’s application for a stay, I think it’s game over for not only PA, but for the entire scheme. If that happens, hopefully PA will curl its tail, slink away and lick its wounds. I personally think that if Alito denies a stay, Snyder is pretty much decided in our favor. Given what denying a stay would signal and do, I’ll be stunned if Alito doesn’t issue one. But, say some prayers in earnest, cross your fingers, and stay tuned for what happens!
It all boils down to what I’ve said before: all these cases will always go to the ultimate court of law available because the State refuses to admit defeat or the uselessness of the scheme, and the RC wants her/his rights back. PA’s probable action only bolsters my argument.
As to the article itself, I thought it was one of the fairer and more-balanced of those that have been put out. I wonder if Longo would be willing to file an amicus on behalf of Does? 🙂 He doesn’t even believe in his own words that created this whole mess in 2003!
Finally, I’m awfully tempted to start filing FOIA requests for discovery of these legislative findings. Let’s see if they ever actually did a finding (I’m sure they didn’t) or if it just came into being.
Is this a political maneuver by the DA to save his job to show he did what he could do and did not take it lying down? You know, a losing fight CYA?
An excerpt from the article:
==========================
Blasko said the notion of high recidivism rates for all of the people on the registry is not true.
A wide-scale study released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2016 looking at inmates who were released from prison found only 5 percent of people convicted of rape went on to be arrested for a new sexual offense within three years of their release.
Between 2013 and 2016, there were more than 300 charged sexual offense cases in Cumberland County.
Less than 2 percent of those cases involved defendants on the state sex offender registry, according to an analysis of court records conducted by The Sentinel.
==========================
Notice how this statistic was presented. It was presented of sex offender over total charged sexual offenses. It comes out to less than 2%.
This is similar to CASOMB’s results, but CASOMB recorded it at less than 1%.
Alito was trying to manipulate statistics in a skewed way, comparing re-offense rate with non-re-offense rates. Then stating registrants are five times more dangerous to recidivate by NOT USING total charged sexual offenses.
Freed himself has called the registry punishment. Freed said the low number of defendants on the sex offender registry may also be an indicator the policies are working.
“Would they be more likely to do so if we didn’t have a registry?” he said. “I can’t answer that. … Is it effective? That’s the question for all these punishments.”
Any talk of a class action law suit against the state for violating our constitutional rights? Sign me up!
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/closer_look/digital_data/crime-review-a-look-at-the-effectiveness-of-sex-offender/article_a9923f58-9d65-5379-9670-eb08ad9d6620.html
My experience is that it is NOT the police who are causing registrants like me problems where you aren’t subject to some crazy housing restrictions, etc. It is the card carrying members of the general public who see me on the interwebz. That is what destroyed any attempts I made to make a living after perusing the registry became a hobby for a lot of folks who don’t even live in my neighborhood around 2009-2010.
After reading DA Freed recent decision to proceed with asking for a review by the US Supreme Court.
Here is another obstacle he will have to over come….
Scenario: Say that the US Supreme Court does grant his attempt to move forward to an appeal. There is on stand by, two other decisions, Commonwealth v Reed and Commonwealth v Gilbert, both of which addressed the same issues of ex post facto, punishment, and right to reputation.
Both Reed and Gilbert will more than likely receive the same decision, SORNA is punishment, therefore is unconstitutional if applied retroactively.
With this said, DA Freed can only ask for the appeal on the Muniz Decision.
The other two DA’s that handle the Reed and Gilbert appeals, have to appeal there own case.
Now we all watched the DA for the Reed appeal, he did not even know the constitution in PA. He may not want to go up against the US Supreme Court because of his lack of knowledge. If he makes a choose to not file for appeal in his case, then again PRE SORNA will be removed. DA Freed cant stop it from happening on this case.
Who knows what the DA in the Gilbert Appeal would do, however, THREE MAJORS DECISIONS all in the favor of punishment, holds weight for the US Supreme Court, why would he US Supreme Court want a build a bad relationship with the PA Supreme Court why would they want to over turn 3 VERY THOUGHT OUT DECISIONS, by the PA SUPREME COURT.
I feel that if DA Freed, does get granted an appeal opportunity, the US Supreme Court may not “stay” the decision of Muniz, because there is a state constitution violation in the decision of Muniz. My husband still feels like he 4500 others will start receiving letters from PSP with in the next 30 days.
They can “stay” the federal, however I believe there hands my be tied with the state ruling by the PA Supreme Court.
I am not a lawyer, but my husband has followed Muniz Case for 2 year now and he reads and followed it closely, he is educated and looks up all cases in the fight, read Commonwealth v Koch, his decision in May 2017 was on stand by due waiting for Muniz Decision. He was convicted of a failure to register under SORNA, he was not to be on SORNA, due to the MUNIZ DECISION. His case will be a huge victory that even if you were convicted of SORNA violations and you werent supposed to be on SORNA due to the MUNIZ DECISION, cases will be overturned and people will be released from prison. PRE SORNA CITIZENS.
The decision of Muniz wasn’t a decision based off how the PA Supreme Court felt about Sex Offenders, it was about doing the right thing for citizens of the PA AND THE USA.
The US Supreme Court knows the PA Supreme Court decision was based off of law and not feeling, because if it was about feeling, the Sex Offender would of lost.
They looked at Muniz as a person and not a Sex Offender when they made this decision.
Back to Reed and Gilbert, the Muniz Decision will be used to decide those two cases.
As my husband allows says to me, “I may be a Sex Offender in the eyes of the world, but I am father, husband, to his wife and children.”
Keep your heads up, DA Freed may win his opportunity to be heard again, with more than likely the same outcome, but we all know that STATE DECISION may just get PRE SORNA CITIZENS either off the list or back to MEGANS LAW 3.
Copied from an article – in Michigan? Did the US Supreme Court stay the ruling or not in Michigan??
In November of 2016.
LANSING — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Tuesday denied Michigan’s request to halt a lower court decision that found the state unconstitutionally put new restrictions on registered sex offenders long after their convictions.
Justice Elena Kagan’s decision means law enforcement can no longer retroactively enforce 2006 and 2011 changes to the country’s fourth-largest sex offender list while the state pursues an underlying appeal in the high court, said Miriam Aukerman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August said Michigan’s revisions, which included restricting sex offenders’ movements near schools and listing many on the registry for life, retroactively penalized offenders as “moral lepers” and there is “scant” evidence that the law accomplishes goals such as reducing recidivism. Kagan rejected Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s emergency appeal to block the ruling. His office still plans to ask the high court to review the appellate court’s decision.
In a filing last week, Schuette warned that the 6th Circuit’s ruling would take effect early this week unless a stay was granted. He said the state should be able to appeal “without being forced to make costly, time-consuming, and complex changes to its sex-offender registry and enforcement protocols that may prove unnecessary should this Court decide to grant review.”
A Schuette spokeswoman said the office was reviewing the decision. The Michigan State Police, which maintains the list, issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies on Oct. 14 notifying them of the earlier appellate opinion.
“We have instructed law enforcement officers to consult with their prosecutor’s office prior to taking any enforcement action related to the 2006 and 2011 amendments to Michigan’s” Sex Offenders Registration Act, agency spokeswoman Shanon Banner said.
AND IN RELATED NEWS:
The DOJ/Acting Person, who US SUPREME COURT asked for his personal opinion, has REQUESTED the US SUPREME COURT NOT TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON THE MICHIGAN EX POST FACTO RULING!!
Hope this gives you hope, my husband just located this!!
The question is, what does Josh Shapiro think about the courts decision? It won’t much matter what any District Attorney does if Shapiro is going to abide by the courts decision and instruct PSP to start removing people from the database.
….
Federal courts do have the power and jurisdiction to block state laws..
A federal judge Thursday granted a request by attorneys for the National Rifle Assn. to block a law that requires Californians to dispose of large-capacity ammunition magazines by Saturday or face fines and possible jail time.
U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote in San Diego that the rights of voters who approved Proposition 63 in November have to be balanced against the rights of gun owners.
This is a great quote…Good find..
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed “Would they be more likely to do so if we didn’t have a registry?” he said. “I can’t answer that. … Is it effective? That’s the question for all these punishments.”
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/closer_look/digital_data/crime-review-a-look-at-the-effectiveness-of-sex-offender/article_a9923f58-9d65-5379-9670-eb08ad9d6620.html
As of now, my husband is researching case law daily.
In a recent decision, by Superior Court, granted to withdraw a plea of guilt, August 3, 2017, Commonwealth v Peebles, Bucks County Pa. Failure to register under SORNA as a sex offender was his crime.
Summary: He was convicted in 2010, a PRE SORNA sex offense. He took an open plea in late 2016 for failure to register under SORNA, he was sentences outside the guidelines and the Superior Court just granted Peebles a withdraw of his plea agreement for excessive sentence to an open plea. Superior Court Agreed and granted withdrawal of his plea agreement.
The superior court decision for Peebles to withdraw plea was today Aug 3 2017.
Peebles would not have known the Muniz Decision was going to come out during his Superior Court appeal. But it did, on July 19 2017.
NOW, Peebles is PRE-SORNA sex offense conviction. As of July 19 2017, he should not be under SORNA.
Just a thought, his attorney, knowing the MUNIZ DECISION effects Peebles, due Peebles sex offense was prior to SORNA in 2010. Are these SORNA VIOLATIONS against him valid or legal?
Could the attorney use the MUNIZ DECISION in Peebles favor and arguement to drop the charges, stating that due to the recent decision of Muniz, and the fact he was allowed to withdraw his plea agreement for failure to register under SORNA making him an “innocent until proven guilty” defendant again?
As of now, Peebles, should not be register under SORNA or can not be convicted for a failure to register under SORNA requirements, if he was PRE SORNA, his conviction to his only sex crime was in 2010 prior to SORNA. SORNA cannot be applied to him, due its added punishment, and unconstitutional.
Peebles should not be required to register under SORNA, therefore he is innocent until proven guilty at the moment the superior court decided to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilt, as of today August 3 2017.
As of now Peebles is an innocent man accused of SORNA VIOLATIONS, back into the trial phase of his 2015 failure to register conviction under SORNA.
However, the MUNIZ DECISION applied to Peebles, being convicted of his sex offense prior to SORNA, that SORNA cannot be applied to him retroactively, therefore, his charges would be illegal against him too, because he is innocent until proven guilty???
The MUNIZ DECISION says he doesnt need to comply with SORNA, so how can BUCKS COUNTY PA prosecute Peebles now that he has the MUNIZ decision as his defense, he is innocent as of today, because they withdrew his plea of guilt, and now the MUNIZ DECISION can be used as his argument, may get the charges dismissed against him, moving forward in his new trial phase.
My husband will keep an eye on this case for you!
Any insight AJ??
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/j-s41043-17m%20-%2010319752222423106.pdf#search=%22sorna 2017%22
My husband wanted to allow you know his today’s research.
Pa Supreme Court Applied Muniz Decision because is it now LAW! – Read this Leroy Spann decision. Even though its a concurring statement, it says they still have to applied Muniz Decision even though they dont agree!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/concurring%20statement%20-%20affirmed-reversed%20-%2010321130522850710.pdf#search=%22sorna 2017%22
My husband wanted me to tell everyone that if you go to Pa Supreme Court Judicial Page, go to search and type SORNA 2017. You can see another Victory applying the Muniz Decision. He checks it daily and be has been praying for all of you who violated SORNA requirements when you were not to be under it to begin with. God is watching over all of us, white, black, spanish, chinese, japanese, muslim, Christian, jewish, and even a sexual sin offender. God set PA sex offenders free and this case will be the case to sway other states to fix there policies! God cares and in one moment and only on his time, July 19 2017, Commomwealth V Muniz, God showed he exists for my husband, other sex offenders, and families effects by SORNA. Rc, sex offenders, etc, whatever human label you here from someone, just as my husband was given a name, he isnt and will never be offended by the words sex offender. That is why I use it in my writings. He knows his heart and humbles to the feelings of others. Thats why he is a successful sex offender.
My husband located another one for all of you!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/memorandum%20-%20vacated-remanded%20-%2010321483522896211.pdf
Vacated and remanded back to lower court for sentencing to old megans law, applied Muniz Decision.
Another good read from same paper:
http://www.dailyitem.com/news/state-police-scrambling-to-comply-with-change-to-megan-s/article_66084642-848c-11e7-92b2-4fe13fa9b115.html
My husband will be taking all three recent decisions that applied the Muniz Decision and the Muniz Decision to form a pro se motion to enforce or compel his sentencing court to order his removal from Sorna effective immediatly.
He is also taking the same information to send a letter to the PSP Headquarters, Megans Law Division to comply with the law, and remove all his private information from the web site immediately and leave his car, his home, his school, his job on the site.
Also he doesnt believe that in 2006 Megans Law Website provided much, if any of those three to the public. And of now his right to private information is on the site.
And Oh by the way, Muniz has been removed from the Sorna/Megan’s Law website, because his original 10 years is up if he was sentenced in 2007.
So the question is, if they honored the law for Muniz and didnt wait for a stay in the decision or an appeal, then why is my husband and 4500 other people still on the site or not brought back to there original sentence to Pre Sorna Megans Law?
Fear of one law suit from Muniz to remove him??
Maybe a law suit from my husband and 4500 other citizens of Pa would help sway a decision to stop scrambling, but instead just humble themselves and honor the law of the Muniz Decision.
As of right now whoever is not removing my husband or 4500 other people is in violation of the law!
The ruling on Muniz said “if he was sentenced in 2007. He would of registereed for 10 years under old megans law.”
Since sorna is unconstitution applied to him and muniz never being sentence or read any pre sorna requirements, is probably why unlike my husband he doesnt have any requirements to go back too because he was never told any thing but sorna requirements. Therefore he was probably just removed.
And he was to be sentenced in 2007. It is 2017.
Looks like reed and Gilbert got a favorable decision today. Thats all she wrote.
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2017/48-map-2016.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2017/48-map-2016-0.html
REED WON!
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2017/10-wap-2016.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2017/10-wap-2016-0.html
Don’t see any guidance from court.
So the question still stands, why are the PSP dragging their feet after the Muniz Decision, the Spann v parole and psp. Decision, the reed and gilbert decision?
Any in here get removed yet?
Other than these men!!
Spoke with Riley Yates from the morning call news , he doesn’t have any plans to do a follow up yet on the PSP’s plans. He did state that he has recently personally seen the Northampton Co DAs office Not pursue Failure to comply with SORNA charges on defendants based on the Muniz decision. He thinks “PSP will wait till the 90days is up.” I told him a lot of tax payer and defendant $ are going to be wasted in the mean time, and that it would make a good story. Also emailed the Philly inquirer .
There is no stay. They didnt get the stay approved because if they did then we wouldn’t have had 5 cases that used Muniz to make a decision. Last week on the 16th 17th and 18th the Muniz decision was a deciding factor and those court cases. As of yesterday Gilbert and Reed won their case because of the Muniz decision. PSP is just blowing smoke and not giving you guys straight answers. They’re delaying the process and hope that the US appeal court hears the case. If the Muniz decision was stayed then Muniz wouldn’t have been released from the registry. Take a look he’s not there.