UPDATE: Statement from the Michigan ACLU
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will not hear the State of Michigan’s appeal in a challenge to the state¹ sex offender registration law, which was dealt a major blow by a federal appeals court in a unanimous decision last year.
Today’s announcement effectively requires the Michigan legislature to replace the existing law, thus creating an opportunity to reform Michigan’s registry, which has been widely criticized as bloated and ineffective. The lawsuit was originally brought by the ACLU of Michigan and the University of Michigan Clinical Law Program in 2012.¹
“Courts have repeatedly recognized that Michigan’s sex offender registry is not just unconstitutional, but it’s an abject failure,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney. “Our communities deserve effective public-safety measures that are based in facts and research, not wasteful and counterproductive policies based in fear. We look forward to working with the legislature on a common-sense approach that serves our communities.”
In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants. The amendments retroactively made most registrants register for life and imposed geographic exclusion zones barring them from living, working, or spending time with their children in large areas of every city and town. Additionally, the legislature added extensive and onerous new in-person reporting requirements that make it a crime for registrants to borrow a car, travel for a week, or get a new email account without immediately notifying the police. The changes were imposed without due process or a mechanism for review or appeal for the vast majority of registrants.
The plaintiffs in the case must all register for life despite decades old offenses and the fact that they do not pose a risk to their communities. Some plaintiffs were convicted as teens of consensual sex with younger teens, one person never committed a sex offense, and another was never convicted of a crime. All of the plaintiffs are parents or grandparents and as a result of SORA they cannot attend their children or grandchildren’s graduations, sports events or school performances. Because the state posts pictures and extensive personal information about the plaintiffs online – including maps of where they live and work – they have repeatedly lost housing and jobs, and one plaintiff even faced death threats.
By denying the review, the Supreme Court leaves in place a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared that portions of the law are unconstitutional. Noting the lack of evidence that registries actually protect the public, the appeals court held that restrictions added to the law after its original passage cannot be applied retroactively and that the state cannot cast people out as “moral lepers” solely on the basis of a past offense without a determination that they currently present a risk.¹ The state appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Research proves that registries do nothing to keep us safe – in fact, they makes us less safe, as people with past offenses are stigmatized and pushed to the margins of society, making it harder for them to get jobs or an education, find homes, or take care of their families,” said Paul Reingold of the University of Michigan Law School. “Smart public policy and current research show that this law should be reconsidered from the ground up.”
Michigan has nearly 44,000 registrants, making it the fourth largest sex offender registry in the country, with the third highest registration rate per capita of any state. Michigan adds about 2,000 people to the registry each year, or about 5 a day.
To learn more about this case, go to: www.aclumich.org/SORAinfo
===============
Breaking news: The Supreme Court also denied review in Snyder v. Doe, a challenge to Michigan’s sex-offender registry (Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.)
Related
First big SCOTUS order list has lots of big “cert denied” decisions in big sentencing cases
The following elements are extensive and it would be very difficult to severe the individual reasons that this was decided to be unconstitutional punishment…Good luck with that….
Issue: Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.
That is basically the entire registration scheme
That case didn’t even include the plethora of other issues that I have brought up in my motion….I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch, or jinks my case, but with this decision it appears to me that it will be a slam dunk…….
Who else is filing lawsuits after they announced that the court turned the haring down??
I do not see any court actions related to ML.
The more I think about it, SCOTUS’s denial of Snyder was a (at least partial) confirmation of the Packingham Parenthetical. It kind of makes me wonder if they will refuse all cases that make it to them stating punishment, and will accept (for reversal) any that arrive saying not punishment.
I think it would be useful to cite the parenthetical and Snyder together in any suit. First, SCOTUS makes the aside in Packingham, then SCOTUS lets stand a case that says MLs can rise to punishment.
Exactly AJ, as I have repeatedly emphasized in numerous posts. The Packingham parenthetical is a very powerful antidote to the registry. Numerous co- ops articles and lawyers have referenced it. Judge Matsch (Colorado case) has used it in his opinion. One Federal circuit (2nd) mentioned it in dicta. A panel from a state appellate court in Indiana (John Doe, et al. v. The Boone County Prosecutor) read it during oral argument. When combined with cert denial to the Snyder case, I think it speaks volume! That’s why I was curious as to why (even in the latest addition to his briefing) the attorney in McGuire case did not used it to empowered his arguments! I mean if THAT has being used by judge to help his decision carry more weight, it surely has to be important!
I already donate monthly and I would be more than happy to bump it up another ten dollars! I wonder how many RC’s aren’t aware of this blog and don’t even know where to even send their donations? Is there some way to contact them and get every one on ” THE LIST” to contribute, after all when we win, every one of us will benefit! Come on Guys let’s get behind Janice and kick in ten bucks each, I know we can all afford such a small of money, to take this unconstitutional shit down!!
Just did my part on a $30 donation. It’s not much, but it’s a start. Let keep the donations coming guys / gals. Let’s help Janice so she could have the resources to start the lawsuit to take down the whole registry regime.
Here’s an update (from Narsol.org) from a gentleman name Tim P (Michigan ACLU) I wanted to thank all of you for your comments. I am Tim and I am working with the ACLU on this case and Legislative changes that we will be pushing for based on the court’s ruling. We are fortunate that some Elected officials are willing to make some positive changes but were waiting for what I call cover from a court ruling so they would not look like they were “Easy on Crime” I always tell them no you should Be Smart on Crime when you write laws. Look at the real facts and studies not just what you think they are. Anyway this process will not happen overnight but we are now headed in the right direction.Please be patient with this process. Our Legal Team on this case is now reviewing what the next best steps are and we are currently looking at other issues with SOR and how and if we can accomplish wins with some of them also. However we will have a priority that if the Legislators do not act in a way that we feel the court ruled we will be back in court for court orders to make them do so. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ANYONE CURRENTLY ON THE SOR FOLLOWS THE LAWS AS THEY ARE NOW WRITTEN, we also would like people to be patient and NOT file cases based on this as that will just slow things down or could result in bad lower court rulings that could hurt or destroy your chances for removal from the SOR. Our Legal and Legislative Teams are working hard and we would ask that if you are a Michigan Resident and you have questions or concerns please contact me (Tim P) at intern@aclumich.org and I will attempt to answer them. I am always looking for people who will be willing to testify so if you are please contact me at the email above, I will respond as quickly as possible but we are being overloaded at this time.
Good Luck to all and better days are coming for all if we keep pushing back on these SOR punitive laws.
Tim P: ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan Contact
intern@aclumich.org
I will be more then happy to donate, and I am ecstatic that Janice and team are discussing and maybe considering a suit challenging the entire CA registry. Although well over due, that is music to my ears. I hope they consider supporting my case, and maybe even filing a friend of the court brief or geting envoled in some way. There is still time before march 4 to submit such a doc, and there will be plenty of more times in the very near future. Either way I am going forward, and my respect for this org. if it isn’t just talking, has grown exponentially because of the talk, and realization that a challenge to the entire scheme is ripe and winnable..If your interested in assisting me, let me know. I have started the ball rolling, even if I am an amateur and have no professional training, I nonetheless am in the game and on the field and will I’ll be coming up to bat shortly….
I will not give in without a real fight, I can tell you that..I will fight tooth and nail when they try to dismiss or deny me my right to judicial redress. I am sure they will do everything possible to do just that, but I have a fundamental, ingrained in the constitution, constitutional right to access the courts, and a right to a fair and just judicial process. Like I said before, as long as I am acting in good faith they have to take me seriously. Just as my motion was reviewed, and considered cognizable, and was determined that it isn’t frivolous or with malice intent, they had to taje it seriously. I’ve already gave the US Marshall all the paperwork to serve the AG’s, and am sure they will be preparing a response shortly.
Hello Everyone
If anyone is interested I came across this recording today
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/must-listen-michigans-sex-offender-registry-needs-reform-u-s-supreme-court-decides/
IMO –
Right now and quick should be the time court cases get filed as the recent decision to let MI case stand and it’s a hot issue right now
BUT
Gun Rights Supporters are the whipping child right now with Orlando and now Vegas
We all know that a tragedy sets off dozens of feel-good laws
http://cases.justia.com/pennsylvania/superior-court/2017-2191-eda-2016-0.pdf?ts=1507140749
OVER IN PENNSYLVANIA MY HUSBAND WANTS TO MAKE YOU ALL AWARE THE MUNIZ DECISION IS NOT STAYED BY ALL MEANS.
WILLIAMS WHO WAS CONVICTED OF FAILURE TO REGISTER UNDER SORNA WHEN HE WAS NOT TO UNDER SORNA JUST HAD HIS CONVICTION OVERTURNED TODAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT USING MUNIZ AS THE REASON WHY….
http://cases.justia.com/pennsylvania/superior-court/2017-2191-eda-2016-0.pdf?ts=1507140749
Scotus, I will post in general comments when I get the response….
Hello
To Bill and anyone else interested in Michigan v Boban Temelkoski ,
here is a link, to the cases being heard/oral arguments, on the 11th of Oct.
http://courts.mi.gov/News-Events/press_releases/Documents/Oral%20Argument%20Media%20Advisory%20October%20-%202.pdf
Man there is so much fodder for what needs to be “our offensive tactics” in every case out there now it’s ridiculous….It’s only a matter of time now, which will be soon, before we get a decisive decision on whether this draconian registry is either deemed unconstitutional or can stand…We’ll see, but it is coming…..This is really a decision on what type of America we will become. It is a major turning point in the history of this country, no matter which way it goes….Hopefully the protections and visions of our founding fathers, and all our family and friends’ blood and treasure that has been shed to protect, will be intact after this is all over, if not the country will just keep declining into chaos and deeper inequalities, and will be falling into civil revolution in the very near future….Just think of all the falling heroes that will have died in vain….As Trump says “SAD”!!!!!
Also that civil commitment case has to be re-argued in the near future….Those people need to show that in order for the government to commit them it has to be proven in a trial with a jury of our peers, not by some appointed entity that has a vested fiduciary, or monetary conflict of interest, that they pose a risk to themselves or others that is sufficient enough to deprive them of their constitutional protections, that standard can be no lower then beyond a reasonable doubt……..Anything less is repugnant to the values of the US constitution….If argued correctly it would prevail…..
HI Group,
I got off the registry and changed my name and I just got back from Mexico.. SO nothing happen no 21 day stupid notice and nothing happen went right through customs… I also have an enhanced DL that 4 states have for border crossing without having a passport. This gets you in Canada and also México by driving or walking across the border. so it worked for me….
To let everyone know that a lawsuit will be filed in Texas this month. The lawsuit will cite Colorado, Michigan and Penn.. everyone keep a lookout IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION…. I will post additional information in the general comments after it is filed. In addition, will attach the federal lawsuit as well.
Thank you
I’d expect any review of the PA Supreme Courts recent decision will be mute as well.
Great news for Michigan, hopefully the rest of the country will follow suit. I have just a quick question. I was incarcerated for 10 yrs. I have been out for 20 now. I originally had a registration date that was for 25 years, now it is a lifetime registration due to the new tier system. My s/o page states that my registration beginning date was May 1987, when I was convicted. Will I be affected by the new rules and if so, how…
Thanks for any input.
I was reading that 10,000 cases are sent to the Supreme Court and on average they only hear about 80 of them..
hello everyone,
I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, I know that they found the 2006 and 2011 previsions to be unconstitutional , but is that also going to include the extortion fee they passed in 2013 were they are stealing $50 dollars a year from us for NO REASON, They claim it’s to help maintain the registry, but they get plenty from the government to pay for it. Michigan has already stolen $250 dollars from me so far, so I am hopeful that this annual fee is also found to be punishment, like the 2006 and 2011 previsions..
Does anyone know if there is any time frame that Michigan has to comply with the orders?
Interesting,
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2015/2015012doe.pdf