A bill introduced this week in Harrisburg attempts to fix flaws in the state’s sex-offender registration system identified in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in July and could affect more than 10,000 registrants. Full Article
Related posts
-
PA: Testimony on House Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law Residence Restrictions
Source: aclupa.org 9/12/23 Session: 2023-2024 Hearing: House Judiciary Committee | Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law residence restrictions... -
PA: Efficacy of sex offender residency rules questioned in Pa. House hearing
Source: pennlive.com 9/12/23 A bill that would restrict where certain sex offenders could live in Pennsylvania... -
PA: Megan’s Law hearing canceled
Source: altoonamirror.com 5/12/23 HOLLIDAYSBURG — Blair County Senior Judge Timothy M. Sullivan won’t be hearing arguments...
We need more information to know what they are changing.
It’s a shame they don’t use this opportunity to examine data and expert opinion and come up with a real solution instead of just trying to cut back enough to pass a judge’s scrutiny.
Here is what my husband said will happen: they are changing, anyone convicted or sentenced after 2006 and BEFORE DEC 20 2012, SORNA Enactment date, who registration requirements are not done under old ML 2 and ML 3 will be placed back onto the same exact wording of the ML 2 and 3 with the HOUSE BILL 1952 Name. With some changes for notification, but notification is public safety purposes and always has been. If you have to register for 10 years under ML2 or ML3 you will be off the registry at 10 years, and have to register at one time per year. If you were on for lifetime prior to SORNA, you will be lifetime one time per year for the rest of your life, with the option for 25 years petition for GOOD BEHAVIOR and only if a Judge Agrees. Also, you will only have to register the requirements from ML 2 or ML3, residence, employment, school, cars, any and all of them. NO MORE INTERNET IDENTIFIERS for anyone prior to SORNA Enactment.
This is the legal fix for the Muniz Decision, SORNA was only deemed punishment when applied retroactive to PRE SORNA. So they honored the Muniz Decision by placing you on the PAST MEGANS LAW requirements prior to SORNA.
It sucks, but it is smart!
Paul 2
December 6, 2017
I had the pleasure to speak with Aaron Marcus about the current situations He was nice enough to say that he believes the Two or more 10yr offenses is the same language as in ML3 and that the A.S. ruling would apply so anyone that had more then one 10yr offense should go back to 10yr not life unless you were convicted had time to reform and convicted again then they would combine to make life. He said PSP most likely will take people off the reg with more then one 10yr.
He also said he hasn’t had time too comb over the proposed bill yet but has already seen there may be a problem how they are classifying people as SVPs going forward.
He also said he still believes that Freed’s SCOTUS cert will be denied and may be sometime in Jan He also said that it looks like they are trying to get this bill pushed threw fast and the senate may not even take any testimony and it could get passed before we hear anything about the Muniz cert.
I told him we appreciate what he is doing and hope he has time for another phone conference on these matters.
READ UNDER STATEWIDE – HOUSE judiciary PASSED MEGANS LAW FIX!!!
http://www.politicspa.com/12-6-politicspa-playbook/85649/
Located this for my husband. Article from Capitalwire.com.
Capitolwire: House Judiciary panel passes Megan’s Law fix.
By Robert Swift
Staff Writer
Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (Dec. 5) – The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a legislative fix to Megan’s Law for sexual assault offenders in response to a recent state Supreme Court ruling.
This legislation, House Bill 1952, sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, is a response to the court’s ruling last July that dealt with Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry.
The court said a 2012 law – the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act – that expanded and toughened reporting rules under Megan’s Law can’t be applied retroactively to sexual offenders who committed crimes before that date. The court ruled in favor of Jose Muniz, convicted of two counts of indecent assault of a 12-year-old girl.
The 2012 law extended the time period that offenders had to register and report from 10 years to life in some cases.
Marsico said his bill aims to make sure sex offenders still have to register. It would require sex offenders who haven’t finished their period of registration to stay registered with the Pennsylvania State Police under the version of Megan’s Law in place when they were convicted.
The committee also unanimously approved legislation to set new timetables for submitting and testing evidence in rape kits, a subject of recent audits by state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale.
House Bill 1821 sponsored by Rep. Brandon Neuman, D-Washington, would set deadlines for health care facilities and law enforcement agencies to handle evidence in sexual assault cases.
It would require a health care facility to contact local law enforcement within twelve hours after collecting evidence. If law enforcement doesn’t take possession within 72 hours, the facility would be required to notify the state Health Department using a special phone number.
Enacting the law will help apprehend serial rapists, said Neuman.
The bill’s provisions include recommendations from DePasquale’s audits to reduce a backlog of untested rape kits.
A third bill approved unanimously by the committee would make it an offense to allow minors under age 18 access to cough syrups and other cold medicine containing the ingredient dextromethorphan (DXM). This is an ingredient sold in many cough medicines over the counter.
“We will be protecting children from accessing dextromethorphan to get high,” said Rep. Tarah Toohil, R-Luzerne, the sponsor of House Bill 1951.
Toohil’s bill would require merchants to check the ID of someone who appears under age 25 and is attempting to purchase a product containing DXM. It would create a summary offense if someone knowingly sells a DXM product to a minor or if someone misrepresents their age to obtain DXM.
Sales related to a valid prescription would be exempt.
Abusing DXM can leave one feeling confused, dizzy, having feelings of euphoria, slurred speech and a rapid heartbeat, added Toohil.
Does anyone know once this is passed, how it will affect someone convicted of a misdemeanor in California back in 1999 who moves to PA say in 2018?
Specifically, does the original ML 10 year requirement start at the date of conviction? Or does the 10 years start when you move to PA even though the offense happened nearly 20 years ago? (I hope this makes sense)
what about people moving into the state that was convicted 15, 20 years ago?
like in my state when first convicted it was maybe 5 years then 10 then 20 then 25 …..
would they say do your time under your state law or do your time according to what it was when first convicted? or?
I just got out of a meeting with my local State rep to discuss House Bill 1952. We have several mutual friends and I do believe that I was getting the an unedited evaluation of the future of HB 1952.
He made it very clear that this bill is being “fast tracked” and that the general directive from the ranking members of the House are to “not f*&k with it”. He believes that it will be “pick up off the table” first thing Monday for a vote that will be unanimous. It will then require two more votes which will take place on December 12 and 13. After that it will make a pitstop in the Senate and will be on Wolf’s desk.
The PA Congress enters recess next week (or have NV or “No Vote” days). SO, Look for the Senate to pass HB 1952 on January 2nd and it to hit Wolf’s desk shortly after.
If all this works outs and is true, I think it best for Muniz to file for another 30 day extension (Defense is allowed 2 30 day extensions). So don’t be despondent if you see that next week, I think it would be a good thing.
I am pushing for the passing of this Bill and I hope that all of the PA contributors to the PA Strings will also find relief?
I just thought that I would post the PA Megan’s law numbers from the last 2 years. The Commonwealth is required to post a new report by the end of the year. I am suspecting that the number of Tier 3s should go down and the Tier 1s should go up based on a couple of cases from last year.
Found it strange the the registry increased by ~1000 citizens on one year and the number of SVPs almost doubled. With the new law on the horizons and the State’s inability to play games with the 2 offenses = tier 3 or lifetime, and have a tier 2 that was a lots of the old 10 year……I think the SOAB will be recommending A LOT of SVPs and if you don’t have the cash to get a private eval or a qualified lawyer, the State will supplement the statutory requirements of Ml with a BS SVP determination.
12/20/2016
SVPs—-1,067
Tier 1 —-3,635
Tier 2 —-2,898
Tier 3 —-12,034
Total —— 20,488
____________________
8/28/2017
SVPs—— 2,056
Tier 1 —–4,207
Tier 2 —–3,575
Tier 3 —–11,577
Total ——21,472
In Muniz, he argued this, “if I was sentenced in 2007 I would of been on Megans Law 3.”
Due to Pre-Sorna Megan’s Law Rules and Requirements being a civil regulatory requirement and House Bill 1952 matching the old requirements, even though it adds a few details, in time credit, and notification, it still isnt as Punishing as SORNA is.
This House Bill 1952 will pass.
My husband, even though a lifetime offender based off his charge, was deemed a non violent offender by SOAB in 2006 is okay with this new House Bill 1952.
One time per year for rest of his life, sounds alot better that 4 times a year, teir 3 for the rest of his life.
He knows he will only have to go one time per year and could possibly call in by phone. Doesnt sound to bad compared to the more Strict requirement of Good Ol’ SORNA.
And 25 years, option for petition off, is perfect, but we all know by then there will be another civil non intended SORNA 2 on its way through the books. So, lifetime it is.
And no more internet identifiers for Pre-Sorna.
So, as my husband says, he wishes they get rid of the registry forever, but at least we are winning small cases and the word punitive has been stated in the courts.
Be patient and trust in God!
When they wrote HOUSE BILL 1952 the Commonwealth literally agreed with Muniz and fixed the problem. SCOTUS will wait and wait and wait till this law passes by Wolf and denie cert because they fixed the issue of Muniz.
What happens if the House Bill 1952 is passed and Pre Sorna have 90 days to register under the new law. And my husband or anyone goes down to the PSP to register under it on Day One.
Then a couple months go by and SCOTUS GRANTS CERT. Then they over turn Muniz, in someway?
The House Bill 1952 was designed to fix Muniz and my husband or others would be on it already.
Can they force him to register under SORNA again?
Or does the state constitutional ruling still stand of Muniz?
And what about shaming? I’m not seeing that addressed. The part about it being public on the internet. That part can still be fought.
From what I read is people who were close to being done with the old law will be done like in my case I was to be off in 2013, but my understanding is people that have any major time past 12-20-2012 will have to complete the rest of their registration, once Muniz is 100%law people will have to file mandamus and being the writing says case by case meaning they have to file suite meaning each individual person on ml/SORNA because they know SO’s don’t have money to get lawyers they will be stuck unless they come into money somehow, their not letting people go voluntarily from what I hear you have to file suite once Muniz is final if SB 1952 and Muniz are playing out together. If HB 1952 doesn’t make it off the floor which I have heard a couple thoughts on the matter, they think it won’t make it off the floor and some think it will, but if it does it will be challenged most likely and will loose under constitutionality.
My friend said this.
On the surface HB 1952 looks bad but when you read through it – I have to give a hand to the writer of this bill. It is a Muniz fix bill that says that, but it is a trick bill that doesn’t give Muniz protections to all like the Muniz decision does. I would stick with Muniz and wait for the Muniz decision to remand.
HB 1952 only helps a few get off the registry when Muniz opens the door for all to get off. It is a bill that is a good collage try to act like the law makers of Pa. are trying to look out for public safety. But HB 1952 will not pass a constitution muster if challenged in commonwealth courts. . . . . The court levels are Common pleas court, Commonwealth court, Superior court – then the PASC. Any low level court will use Muniz to defeat HB 1952 if it becomes law and someone challenges it. It will be found unconstitutional on Pa. Constitution Article 1 Sections 1, 9, 11, 17, and 26. and the cases in precedence that would knock the law out would be Muniz – Neiman, Reed, and Woodruff and the law is done. . . . I can see the concern that the politicians have if this law fails and Muniz takes the precedence position AND FROM THE LOOKS OF IT -Muniz will – It is a gamble law to fix muniz if RSO’s don’t challenge HB 1952 when it becomes law.
HB 1952 make it seem like one has to file to get something that should come automatic. Results of Muniz should be applied to all Pre-SORNA RSO’s before date 20 December 2012
HB 1952 says at the end of the bill that it is targeting people with the dates of offenses after April 1996 but before 19 Dec 2012 That is a pre- Sorna attack. Muniz fought hard to help all pre-SORNA people to get off as soon as Muniz is remand back to PASC from SCOTUS on Freed denial of Cert.
HB 1952 seems to the PSP to be a saving law. It is the re-write of ML -2 which Commomwealth v. Nieman shut down in its entirety. . . PA though the AWA was so strong because courts were turning their eye to the Ex Post Facto elements of the Law. The PASC woke up to the game and changed the rules. . . . . . . when the PASC gives a vote of 5 to one no vote which MUNIZ was – they intend to see that all get the benifit of their decision in the Commonwealth by court order – and not no Muniz fix that helps only some.
Muniz by itself will make the PSP remove 18,500 RSO’s off the registry. They don’t like that. So they done the HB 1952 as damage control to slow the exodus of the registry. They say it clearly in the bill – if anyone is willing to get a judicial determination or a court’s order – they will be off the registry with no questions that is people like you and I. not Pre-SORNA people that tens passed and now HB 1952 will give them guys only a freedom card off. that is about 4500, what about all the MUNIZ decisions the PSP MUST let OFF? They now got to file a judicial determination? What the What Da? Does that sound like a fire fix? Hell no. . . . . .
Under Muniz there is no ML 1 2 3 od SORNA to hold you to – – – – This New law gets in the way by putting a new law it the way . . . to have to get judicial determination to get off what the PASC in Muniz says all should get with or only one court order from the PASC through the AG to the PSP to let all 18,500 RSO’s in this Commonwealth go free under Muniz the law of the commonwealth Now. . . . . without any judicial determination of a case by case filing and paying money to lawyers for Mandamus. . . . . THIS IS CRAZY… i HOPE WHO EVER READS THIS WOULD UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE TODAY
So what would this do to me? I have a conviction date of 2010 and pre sorna I was a non svp with 10 years reporting with only 1 x in person reporting. Now I am a non svp tier 2 with 25 years and 2 x a year reporting. With post Sorna i had to add in email addresses and such with my reporting, and since my conviction date was before dec 2012 i could do mail updates for my non in person updates. I get it that Muniz would give me the best win and I could technically be taken off because all prior Megan’s Law registries have all been expired… but would HB 1952 put me back to pre sorna? If it puts me back to pre sorna would I also need a court order to remove me at the end of my 10 years or would I just receive a letter saying I’m done? I’m just trying to figure out if this would help me some, make it worse for me or would it not do anything for me at all…
If at a dismissal hearing for failure to register charges, the DA requests 30 days to file a brief from the day of hearing and asks the Judge for 30 days to file a brief to prove that Muniz does not apply to defendant .Then the Judge grants the DA the 30 days to try and prove that Muniz doesn’t apply to the defendant. So the failure to register charges should not be dismissed.
After the Judge grants the 30 days, the DA does not file the brief because Muniz does apply to the defendant. And they knew that at the dismissal hearing, but only used that request to slow things down and delay the process and the dismissal.
What happens if the DA failed to file the brief and used this as a delay tactic, does the defendants charges get dropped without a hearing because they failed to file the brief?
Or does a hearing need to be requested and rescheduled?
What should the defendant do in this case?
Also the defendant, knows Muniz applies because he was convicted and sentenced back years before SORNA and he will be placed on House Bill 1952 if passed.
Anyone, AJ, Paul 2?
Paul
Sorry about the whole misunderstanding, sense the law will take you back to 10 years it all depends on when your time was up, my time was up in 2013 but due to SORNA I went to 25 years, if HB 1952 passes I would be off the list, you are right with the some that were ten years then went to life, they will be off as long as their time doesn’t go past 2017, if your time does to say 2020 then your on till 2020, pre SORNA doesn’t automatically say you get off the registry unfortunately, I got that writing from a friend and I just thought it would shed some light for you but it did not have that effect, sorry Paul my mistake. So yes if your ten years is up then once and if they pass SB 1952 you and I and many others will get relief as long as your time was is up you should be good to go.
Hey everyone,
I feel pretty clear on this, but I would love any confirmation that anyone is able to give me.
I was sentenced in 2011 but was not required to register until 12/20/12, as my offense was not a registerable offense until SORNA. So my understanding is that if HB 1952 is passed as is I would then come off the list.
Am I thinking about this correctly? Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
As today at 1045am my husband failure to register under SORNA, internet indentifier, in Cumberland County have been dismissed.
The DA, did not file her brief on why Muniz did not apply to my husband because the DA knew Muniz did apply, she has 30 days and time ran out yesterday!
He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced in 2006 and had to register under Megans Law 3.
My husband Motion to Enforce plea and habeas have been filed with the lower court also on Nov 13 2017.
Right now, the fact that they dropped my husband’s failure to register charges PER MUNIZ proved to me and him that he is due relief from the lower court as well!
There is no stay, if they dismissed his charges!
My husband has read the House Bill 1952. He has also read the arguements of Muniz.
Here is his thoughts,
In Muniz it was argued that SORNA wasnt in place when he was would of been sentenced.
In Muniz it was argued that if he was sentenced in 2007 he would of been under Megans Law 3.
That means Muniz argued he agrees with his sentence.
Under the PA Supreme Court ruling it says SORNA cant be applied to Muniz and to all other PRE SORNA.
HOUSE BILL 1952, wasnt in place when Muniz was sentenced in 2007.
Neither was it in place for all other PRE SORNA individuals and that means my husband would not of been sentenced to it.
My husband says that this will be argued, how can you pass legislation to in response to a judgement of Muniz?
Is this constitutional, SORNA is punishment applied to PRE SORNA, expost facto, adding punishment after sentencing.
House Bill 1952 is adding punishment, correct?
Ok so regarding house bill 1952. I was sentenced back in 2003 and started registering in 2004 originally a 10 yr. Registration. Then on Dec. 2012 it was changed to lifetime. With house bill 1952 does it make me eligible to be taken off registry all together. This crap is out of control. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank You.
@Paul
From yesterday:
Who Removes from list
December 12, 2017
As today at 1045am (Dec 12 2017) my husband failure to register under SORNA, internet indentifier, in Cumberland County have been dismissed.
The DA, did not file her brief on why Muniz did not apply to my husband because the DA knew Muniz did apply, she has 30 days and time ran out yesterday. (Dec 11 2017)
He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced in 2006 and had to register under Megans Law 3.
MUNIZ Decision was the reason why his charges were dropped.
Did House Bill 1952, just pass? Or get third vote?
So what I am understanding is that even though my 10 years was up years ago I have to register anyway now? So everyone was wrong about the way HB 1952 is playing out for pre SORNA people?