On Oct. 2, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in Snyder v Doe, a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said that Michigan’s sex offender registration law violated the Ex Post Facto Clause’s ban on retroactive punishment. The law restricted where former sex offenders could live.
The 6th Circuit is at odds with many other opinions that have rejected constitutional challenges to sex offender laws, but that didn’t convince the Supreme Court to take the case. The court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief, but he declined, saying the case was correctly decided.
Some observers say that Snyder could persuade other courts to take a hard look at sex offender restrictions, particularly since the court expressly recognized scientific studies showing that sex offenders as a group do not pose a significant recidivism risk.
____ ____, now a resident of West St. Paul, is asking the Minnesota District Court to do that very thing. He is suing the city of West St. Paul over its ordinance that prevents him from living within 1,200 feet of a school, child care facility or group home. He secured an ex parte temporary restraining order preventing him from being evicted on Oct. 1 and his request for a preliminary injunction is pending before Judge John Tunheim. Full Article
Yet another court that basically stated, “We don’t care what the facts are. These laws feel right so they get to stay.”
I hope the 8th Circuit agrees to hear this case and rules for the plaintiff! I know it would be overturning its own precedent, but enough is enough! It’s time!
Yeah we are prosecuted,with very little to no evidence because we weren’t privy to a well trained, expensive legal team as citizens, and persecuted for the rest of our lives, while illegal immigrants who kill someone in Frisco gets the top nktch legal services and goes free except for felony possession of a firearm and will most likely be deported for the eighth time just to return over the border and once again rkam the streets unsupervised with no notifications or restrictions. SAD!!!!!
This is interesting.
======
8th Circuit precedent. Defendants [8th Circuit] assert that in two decisions, Doe v. Miller and Weems v. Little Rock Police Department, the 8th Circuit has conclusively decided that a residency restriction against a convicted sex offender does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Relying on Smith v. Doe, “The Eighth Circuit concluded that in light of the high risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders, the legislature reasonably could conclude that a residency restriction would protect society by minimizing the risk of repeated sex offenses against minors,” defendants said.
======
Note: The 8th is relying on 2003 Smith v Doe information.
++++
The 6th Circuit is at odds with many other opinions that have rejected constitutional challenges to sex offender laws, but that didn’t convince the Supreme Court to take the case. The court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief, but he declined, saying the case was correctly decided.
Some observers say that Snyder could persuade other courts to take a hard look at sex offender restrictions, particularly since the court expressly recognized scientific studies showing that sex offenders as a group do not pose a significant recidivism risk.
++++
Snyder passed in 2017. So, either Snyder is wrong or 2003 Smith v Doe is wrong with stating the reason for public safety is due to high recidivism rates of registrants. The US agreed with Snyder in 2017. Maybe this case will prompted the SCOTUS to look at it this time around since states are not believing in the Snyder case.
In both cases, the 8th Circuit found that residency restrictions were intended to create a civil, nonpunitive regulatory scheme, defendants assert. “This Court has no reason to conclude otherwise, and it must give deference to the ordinance’s stated intent,” defendants said.
—–
Another attempt at sleight-of-hand by the State. Everyone agrees the purported *intent* of the laws…but what about the effects? That is glossed over in this statement.
=====
Not only is he unlikely to succeed on the merits, but the cost and inconvenience of moving do not constitute irreparable injuries, defendants argue.
—–
Similar costs associated with having to sell and buy homes was considered a Takings violation in case(s) in GA.
=====
I really like the commentary from the professor/expert at the end of the article. Hamline is a good law school, and well-respected in that part of the country. He makes rational, valid points…points that may score points.
This will be an interesting case. As I’ve repeatedly said, it–like all others–will get appealed all the way, as neither side is willing to give an inch on their positions: the State claims it’s a required public-safety regulation; the citizen says it’s a violation of his/her rights.
For the State to rely on Smith, despite Snyder and Packingham’s parenthetical, is weak and hopefully a losing proposition. Given how civil commitment went in MN, I can easily foresee the District Court agreeing with the RC, 8th reversing…and then sometime in the 2018-19 October Term, SCOTUS fixes the 8th’s mistake. That’s my general opinion anymore: SCOTUS will deny cases like Snyder (and probably Muniz) that put a greater burden on a citizen than Smith allowed. I think they will try to dodge as many as possible, but will accept and overturn a case at some point. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next month, but at some point one of these cases will be incorrectly upheld by a COA, and SCOTUS will feel obligated to act. I really see this as a win-win for us: 8th rules for RC, we win; 8th rules against RC, SCOTUS reverses and we win “even more bigly.”