PA: Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds state sex offender registration law punitive and thus unconstitutional to apply retroactively

Another nail in the coffin for the 2006 AWA!

State Supreme Courts in recent years that have held that the retroactive application of (SORNA) sex offender registration and notification laws violate their respective State Constitutions:

Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008)
Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009)
Maine v. Letalien, 985 A.2d 4 (Me. 2009)
State v. Williams, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (Ohio 2011)
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. Doe (MA March 2013)
Starkey v. Department of Corrections (OK June 25, 2013)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jose M. Munz (PA July 19, 2017)

“… though civil in design, was punitive in practice…”, Now there is a new legal phrase that can be useful?

Perhaps this is a sign that the avalanche needed to see the registry abolished could be coming…

I’ve read the opinion completely.

It’s great news, but I still have a few concerns.

They totally blew off the challenge to recidivism actually being low. The plaintiff provided tons of proof it was a low number, and the state, as usual, said they found some conflicting findings and even the low numbers don’t take into account the possible huge amount of unreported crimes. The state requests the determination of dangerous recidivism be left to the legislature and not addressed by the Judiciary. The judges agreed.

Here was the line from the State:
“appellant is misguided in asking this Court to second-guess legislative judgment since there is no absolute truth when it comes to the risk posed by sexual offenders”

Here was a judges quote on it:
“We recognize there are studies which find the majority of sexual offenders will
not re-offend, and that sex offender registration laws are ineffective in preventing reoffense;
we also recognize there are studies that reach contrary conclusions.”

I find it troubling that these issues aren’t attacked differently by plaintiffs. They need to protest that the “legislature” and executive branches are the ones that provided the totally debunked “80% recidivism” and “Frightening and high” that infected not only SCOTUS decisions since 2002 but then hundreds of cases, laws, and public opinion. All of this makes the legislatures involvement suspect, damaging to the pursuit of justice, and deceitful. The very punitive nature of the registry itself leads to the very problem with under-reporting that legislature uses as its excuse. We have a history of deferring to freedom over restrictions even when it comes to high chances of guilt. Just look at Miranda laws, double jeopardy, spouse can’t be forced to testify, right to remain silent, right to not self incriminate…etc..etc. How is it that just because something is declared sexual in nature does this theory of justice no longer apply?

I did like the following quote from the judge, which shows the direction other cases should take:
“However, we do find persuasive appellant’s argument that both the state
and offenders have an interest in the finality of sentencing, as well as the claim the
Pennsylvania Constitution’s special treatment of the right to reputation justifies greater
protections under the Pennsylvania ex post facto clause”

The dominoes continue to fall on Ex-Post Facto and the regulatory scheme is now clearly punitive.

Now we just need to attack the entire scheme under other Constitutional violations like Substantive Due Process, Separation of Powers, Bill of Attainder, Right to Privacy, Involuntary Servitude, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and any other relevant categories.

I’m keen on running with what SCOTUS declared in Packingham about how it is “troubling” that we have restrictions after supervision. That is clearly a violation of Substantive Due Process, and Separation of Powers in that it is the Judiciary’s role to protect the public during the fair sentencing phase of a trial and not the legislature. Unless legislature takes that away from judges, legislature is clearly interfering with ordered liberty and established judicial processes.

One other thing I didn’t like in this case was how they only determined reporting to the police is on par with parole/probation. It is actually FAR worse what registration requires. When I see my PO, it is in an office environment at a time that I schedule around work. To register, you do it every time something changes, at a police station, and at a time demanded by the police where they can make you wait as long as they want. The restrictions on probation/parole are more tailored to the individual and circumstances and can be reviewed and changed by a judge. The restrictions on registered people are set in stone and geared toward the worst offender. During parole/probation, the restrictions are also known to you and in effect wherever you go. With registration, any city can have different restrictions placed on you that you may not even be able to find or understand until you are arrested for something you knew nothing about.

UGh…I can go on and on…

Just using the wording punitive is epic. A state Suprime Court has said it is punitive and the US Suprime Court said in the past these laws are only civil.

This is a strong ruling that if peopl can keep building on will allow a documented history of legal rulings to show tSCOTUS that they need to end this practice

My husband was convicted in 2006. Sentence in 2006. Commonwealth v Muniz applies to him. But who is responsible for removing him from SORNA and putting him back on Megans Law 3. With all emotions set aside. The big issue is, who is resposible for removing his name from Sorna.

Very confused with the decision. My husband got off the Pa registry last year after fighting the courts. We were told that if we travel he may still have to register in another state. Does this decision absolve him from having to register in another state?