The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to a recent state court ruling that determined part of Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration law was unconstitutional. Full Article
I’m still confused how this ruling really works as a whole.
__________
“In July, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the 2012 update, which expanded the offenses covered under the law and changed how often and for how long some people must register, was punishment.
Anyone whose offense was committed after 2012 would still be subject to the expanded registration law.”
__________
Those two statements seem at odds to me. How can something that has been ruled as non punitive then be considered punitive but not so punitive as to only apply to some people.
The fact that the people where “aware” of the law when committing their crime shouldn’t make it any less or more punitive. Saying its punitive for some but not others strictly based on a timeline is very confusing.
Them not ruling the registry being punitive as a whole, doesn’t really seem to help us that much. I understand it will help those with convictions prior to 2012, but I don’t see how it helps overall if they can keep doing what they were doing.
G4Change
Guest
January 22, 2018 4:00 pm
I’m thinking this is good, right??? I pray this is a good thing.
Who Removes from list
Guest
January 22, 2018 4:19 pm
ITS AFFIRMS THE PA SUPREME COURT DECISION JULY 19 2017.
ANYONE CONVICTED WILL HAVE TO COME OFF SORNA.
AND DUE TO THE HOUSE BILL 1952 PASSING SOON MY HUSBAND AND ALL OTHERS WILL BE BACK ON HOUSE BILL 1952 UNLESS YOU WERE NEVER REQUIRED TO REGISTER OR YOUR 10 YEARS IS COMPLETED. BUT IF YOU ARE LIFETIME UNDER OLD MEGANS LAW 3, HOUSE BILL 1952 WILL KEEP YOU AS LIFETIME, ONE TIME A YEAR, HOME, JOB, SCHOOL, CAR. THATS IT FOLKS.
ALL OF YOU WHO WERE CONVICTED NEED TO FILE A WRIT A MANDAMUS OR HABEAS CORPUS OR MOTION TO ENFORCE PLEA TO LOWER COURT. DO NOT NAME PSP. AND USE MUNIZ DECISION AS YOUR REASON TO BE REMOVED FROM SORNA.
BUT DONT ENJOY THE FREEDOM TO LONG, AS SOON AS HOUSE BILL 1952 PASSED. IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER ANY OLD MEGANS LAWS YOU WILL BE BACK ON WITH LESS RESTRAINTS!
American Detained in America
Guest
January 22, 2018 4:33 pm
I don’t think this is good…we need a decision once and for all by SCOTUS saying the registry is punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Anything less will keep this thing going.
Brian
Guest
January 22, 2018 4:46 pm
AlexO and G4 Change
The Supreme Court of the United States denied cert, pa Supreme Court struck SORNA down but it was challenged by DA F so it ended up going all the way to SCOTUS for a cert, but SCOTUS denied to hear DA F which means that SORNA will no longer be in Pennsylvania, it was challenged on punitive and ex post facto of the pa constitution, ex post facto meaning SORNA was applied illegally to pre SORNA registrants, so correct me if I’m wrong but everyone will be let of the registry whome was not life time registration pre or current SORNA, but when and if HB 1952 takes effect people who were sentenced pre SORNA who would have not been done till 2019 and on who’s not a lifer will have to register under 1952 until their registration is complete, I know very confusing, I was completely lost in the beginning of this mess. So HB 1952 hasn’t been passed yet but if it does it’s suposed to go into effect right away. So with that said we all have to continue to register until Muniz is remand back to Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court directs AG and the Pennsylvania state police to start removing people. So keep up on your registration until you get a letter from the Pennsylvania state police.
ReadyToFight
Guest
January 22, 2018 6:27 pm
Didn’t Janice mention she’d be willing to lead something similar here in Cali?
Side note: it’s tax season, let’s all smash that DONATE button, hard and often as possible.
Chris
Guest
January 22, 2018 6:35 pm
So with cert being denied will the PSP be forced to remove all pre sorna offenders or will we have to do it another way. Any thoughts on the whole cert being denied or what steps are next would he greatly appreciated.
Paul
Guest
January 22, 2018 7:02 pm
This is the second such ruling, following the 6th Circuit’s decision regarding Michigan’s registry. It also sets into stone that the punishment under which you are convicted of, cannot change. If PA changes their registry again, it only applies to persons after that date. While not great, it at least provides some stability in knowing that whatever BS nonsense they dream up sometime down the road, won’t have an impact on those already registered.
JDub
Guest
January 22, 2018 7:21 pm
In light of this recent SCOTUS decision, I am now curious and wish to research my California “290” requirements. I was convicted in 1990, and want to identify the changes that have been made (Federal and California) to the Registry since my conviction. Is it possible that some of the requirements surrounding many of the registration obligations may not apply? Anyone have any sugestions?
T
Guest
January 22, 2018 7:54 pm
I wonder how can politicians rule that sex offender registry laws that are oppressive be considered constitutional and not punishment like that with full support of the people.
steve
Guest
January 22, 2018 8:02 pm
So under PA law wouldn’t IML be considered retroactive?
Dustin
Guest
January 23, 2018 12:17 am
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks SCOTUS keeps refusing to grant cert in punitive versus regulatory cases because they would have to declare the registry punitive and unconstitutional. Politics are certainly involved, but sooner or later they’re going to have to address it.
Guy Hamilton-Smith
Guest
January 23, 2018 6:18 am
Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing is a difficult question to answer. The idea obviously is to get the right case to SCOTUS at the right time. Getting the wrong case there or the right case at the wrong time could mean an adverse decision, which would be disastrous.
The Court is a political body, and so it is not immune to political pressures or the general zeitgeist of the time — the justices, after all, are only people. They are not gods. Recognize that the “mainstream” of political opinion is still very much opposed to what we all know to be true — that registration is punishment and protects absolutely no one. In order to reach that conclusion, however, the Court is going to have to sort of burn some of its political capital in order to reach that conclusion.
They’ve done it in the past. Look at the civil rights cases — Brown v Board, for example. They had to burn some political capital in order to reach the conclusion in that case as well, despite us looking back on it now as a hallmark of civil rights.
Point being, I think the denial of cert, while disappointing, is perhaps a good thing, especially when in Packingham, the conservative wing of the Court went wholly out of their way to reaffirm the central fallacies on display in Smith v Doe.
While I think the movement is making tremendous strides, the denial of cert is perhaps a signal that there is still much more work to be done, not only in the lower courts, but in terms of just grassroots, shoe leather advocacy as well.
That is, however, just my opinion.
mike r
Guest
January 23, 2018 9:48 am
My question is, Can legislative branch try to circumvent a judicial ruling? I know they can adjust their laws to conform to a ruling but can they outright try to circumvent a ruling with legislative language manipulation????
Chris F
Guest
January 23, 2018 10:02 am
OK, I’m no lawyer, but let me try to help people understand why this is important.
First, for those in PA who committed their crime after 2012, yes, the bad news is even though it is now “punishment”, you don’t qualify to be removed because the punishment was knows and in place at that time and doesn’t qualify as “ex-post Facto”.
The good news is, the fact that what those after 2012 endure under registration is “punishment”, it opens up all the other constitutional challenges that aren’t available if it was just a civil regulatory thing. You can now challenge “cruel and unusual punishment” and most importantly, “Substantive Due Process” because nobody should endure the violation of rights that having your reputation, career, housing, and travel affected without an individual hearing on that matter. These now called “punishments” can’t be dictated by the legislature without being part of the trial and sentencing under the judge’s control. It’s also a legislative violation of separation of powers as well as arbitrary government action.
Everything bad that’s happened with the Sex Offender registry and judges decisions against us can be traced to one false Solicitor General amicus brief in McKune V Liles (2002) where SCOTUS did no fact checking and accepted as truth the “80% recidivism”, “Frightening and high”, and garbage about no other criminal being more likely to re-offend. They were acting under the assumption that Legislature is not bound by the constitution when there is an imminent and grave threat to the public. In those cases, they use any excuses to side with the legislature, and now it’s infected thousands of laws and court cases that cite that case as well as “Smith V Doe” and Connecticut DPS V Doe” (2003) that used the same brief to reach its conclusions.
It’s time to get something in front of SCOTUS to overturn Smith V Doe.
It’s also time to re-vamp a system of justice that can so blindly follow false information with no fact checking.
who removes from list
Guest
January 23, 2018 2:04 pm
Moving forward!
SCOTUS has denied to Cert, and now PA Pre Sorna are waiting to see if and when the HOUSE BILL 1952 will be voted on in the Senate.
My husband has been trying to locate if they voted at the Senate Level.
Has anyone seen or heard anything on House Bill 1952.
Jan 22 2018 was to be a voting day, well that did not happen.
Anyone with input please let me know so I can tell my husband.
mike r
Guest
January 23, 2018 2:10 pm
Chris is better then most of the lawyers out there…..He hit every nail on the head. It’s time the current scheme comes down and it goes back to the courts where they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element (key element=your proclivity to recidivate) that invokes your sentence (registration).
mike r
Guest
January 23, 2018 2:30 pm
What about the fact that the US AG stated and implies that CA had a Megan’s Law website in 2002 that was accessible to the public so it isn’t a Ex Post Facto issue in my case but the law authorizing and implementing Megan’s Law wasn’t enacted until 2004?
Megan’s Law sex offender database was not readily accessible for many Californians, and in 2004 California lagged behind over thirty states which had already made their states’ Megan’s Law databases available to the public on-line.
The California legislature therefore passed AB 488 on August 24, 2004, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law on September 24, 2004. Codified as California Penal Code section 290.46, the statute requires the California Department of Justice to establish and regularly update a website which makes available to the public information contained in the state’s sex offender registry.
Also what about the fact that the legislature noted and emphasized that registration is not suppose t be punitive quote “This policy of authorizing the release of necessary and relevant information about serious and high-risk sex offenders to members of the general public is a means of assuring public protection and shall not be construed as punitive … The Legislature also declares, however, that in making information available about certain sex offenders to the public, it does not intend that the information be used to inflict retribution or additional punishment on any such person convicted of a sexual offense.” (Emphasis added.)
This sure seems like a liability issue to me since they were apparently aware of what the consequences were going to be but moved forward anyways. What other statute claims and states so many times that it is not meant to be retributive? This sure seems like there is an angle here on this issue. That’s like saying we are going to lock you up and even though we are well aware that it is punitive and all the empirical evidence states it’s punitive, we don’t mean for it to be so it isn’t…I am still digesting this argument but man it sure seems as though there is some liability on the legislative branch for the foreseen harms that are occurring that they anticipated were going to happen….Making sense? Monetary liability somehow there…
By Shaffer & Engle Law Offices, LLC posted in SORNA on Thursday, January 4, 2018.
Muniz is the law of the Commonwealth. There is no stay in place. If your offense occurred prior to December 20, 2012, SORNA/Megan’s Law IV cannot be applied to you.
By Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, SORNA/Megan’s Law Attorney, Harrisburg, PA
I have fielded many, many calls from clients that are looking to get off the SORNA Tier registrant list. There is a fallacy floating around out there, likely perpetrated by the Commonwealth, PSP, DA’s Offices, Attorney General’s Office, Department of Corrections, Probation and Parole, or who knows who else, that you cannot be removed from the list because Commonwealth v. Muniz is pending possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Not so!
If the charges for which you are currently registered under Megan’s Law occurred prior to December 20, 2012 (effective date of Megan’s Law IV/SORNA), you cannot be required to register any longer. However, you must seek to have your illegal sentence- because it’s punishment- vacated by the county court in which you were initially sentenced. If you are from outside PA and made to register here, you need to do the same, just in the Commonwealth Court. The Pennsylvania State Police are not an indispensible party. Commonwealth v. McCullough, __ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 5184490, 2017 Pa. Super. 352 (November 9, 2017) (en banc). Further, there is long-established precedent in this Commonwealth that the legality of a sentence may not be waived. Commonwealth v. Joseph Dean Butler, 2017 Pa.Super. 344 (Oct. 31, 2017); Commonwealth v. Barnes, 637 Pa. 493, 151 A.3d 121 (2016); Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 636 Pa. 37, 140 A.3d 651 (2016); Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 17 A.3d 332 (2011). But, you cannot simply stop registering- you need to have the court remove you from the list.
However, don’t think that the PA Legislature is going to sit by for long and allow this window to be open. There is current legislation pending as of December 2017 to essentially overrule Muniz by enacting another Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law V, if you will.
who removes from list
Guest
January 24, 2018 7:00 pm
Here is the reason why the DA dismissed the charges of failure to register under SORNA in my husbands failure to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
Here is the exact reason from my husband criminal docket information.
Case Dismissed – Nolle Pross.
Reason: “The Defendant was required to register under SORNA due to a 2006 IDSI conviction. He is charged with failing to comply with certain registration requirements. This offense is alleged to have occurred in 2014 and 2015, after SORNA was enacted on 12/20/12. In Commonwealth v. Muniz, our
supreme court determined that SORNA violated ex post facto principles. If Muniz stands, the defendant will not be required to register as a sex offender as no other sex offender statute currently exists.”
We all know that on Jan 22 2018, SCOTUS denied Cert and now MUNIZ stands.
The best part, my husbands failure case was in Cumberland County PA. DA Freed did not want to drop the charges, he fought tooth and nail to keep this going since July 2017.
And then DA Ebert came along and it took him 3 days in office to dismiss the charges, and above is his reason why he dropped the charges against my husband.
My husband has a hearing, motion to enforce plea, and habeas corpus hearing to be removed from SORNA in early February 2018 in his sentence court of York County PA.
As of now there is no House Bill 1952, and the way it looks it will be applied retroactively and the Senate may not pass it because of it.
My husband believes that they take the loss and just keep it moving.
But in February 2018, even for a few minutes or days or couple of months the freedom from a sex offender registry will be great for my husband.
He will be removed from SORNA.
Chris
Guest
January 24, 2018 10:01 pm
So I was convicted and sentenced in 2003 for an indecent assult. I had a 10 yr. Registering requirement. But when sorna became law in 2012 I was on probation and required to register for life due to being on probation. WILL I still be removed from the registry even if I was still on probation.
Wants off
Guest
January 25, 2018 6:50 am
I am a PA resident but was convicted out of state in federal court in 2003 and placed on the registry for 10 years, which should have ended in 2015. When SORNA took effect I was extended to 15. Do I have to do anything or should my name just be removed from the registry?
Chris
Guest
January 25, 2018 9:29 am
PAUL 2:… I was sentenced to a 1 to 2 year on a failure to register in 2008. Did that time. Had a corruption of minors charge also in 2008 which wasn’t a registerable offense in 2008. Received 3 years probation for that which ran consecutive to my 1 to 2. I got off probation on jan. 15th 2013. But my offense on megans law is IA.
JohnDoeNC
Guest
January 26, 2018 12:30 pm
@who removes from list
Quote – “However, don’t think that the PA Legislature is going to sit by for long and allow this window to be open. There is current legislation pending as of December 2017 to essentially overrule Muniz by enacting another Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law V, if you will.”
That is exactly what happened in North Carolina. There was a successful suit against the premise restrictions, Doe V Cooper. Almost immediately the NC legislature passed a new premise law even while the ruling was being appealed. It was almost as if the 4th circuit handed them the exact language to use to bypass any constitutional challenge.
Well, now we have another suit moving forward to challenge the new law enacted to replace the original law.
So, I want to ask the obvious. At what point does this become obvious persecution. Not the laws, but the legislatures obvious intent to continuously draft legislation to circumvent the constitution.
If it’s ruled unconstitutional once, then twice, regardless of the wording in the statute then the idea itself has to come under scrutiny as unconstitutional. And that my fellow registered citizens is what we need. At some point public opinion HAS to shift and see what is going on here.
I’m still confused how this ruling really works as a whole.
__________
“In July, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the 2012 update, which expanded the offenses covered under the law and changed how often and for how long some people must register, was punishment.
Anyone whose offense was committed after 2012 would still be subject to the expanded registration law.”
__________
Those two statements seem at odds to me. How can something that has been ruled as non punitive then be considered punitive but not so punitive as to only apply to some people.
The fact that the people where “aware” of the law when committing their crime shouldn’t make it any less or more punitive. Saying its punitive for some but not others strictly based on a timeline is very confusing.
Them not ruling the registry being punitive as a whole, doesn’t really seem to help us that much. I understand it will help those with convictions prior to 2012, but I don’t see how it helps overall if they can keep doing what they were doing.
I’m thinking this is good, right??? I pray this is a good thing.
ITS AFFIRMS THE PA SUPREME COURT DECISION JULY 19 2017.
ANYONE CONVICTED WILL HAVE TO COME OFF SORNA.
AND DUE TO THE HOUSE BILL 1952 PASSING SOON MY HUSBAND AND ALL OTHERS WILL BE BACK ON HOUSE BILL 1952 UNLESS YOU WERE NEVER REQUIRED TO REGISTER OR YOUR 10 YEARS IS COMPLETED. BUT IF YOU ARE LIFETIME UNDER OLD MEGANS LAW 3, HOUSE BILL 1952 WILL KEEP YOU AS LIFETIME, ONE TIME A YEAR, HOME, JOB, SCHOOL, CAR. THATS IT FOLKS.
ALL OF YOU WHO WERE CONVICTED NEED TO FILE A WRIT A MANDAMUS OR HABEAS CORPUS OR MOTION TO ENFORCE PLEA TO LOWER COURT. DO NOT NAME PSP. AND USE MUNIZ DECISION AS YOUR REASON TO BE REMOVED FROM SORNA.
BUT DONT ENJOY THE FREEDOM TO LONG, AS SOON AS HOUSE BILL 1952 PASSED. IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER ANY OLD MEGANS LAWS YOU WILL BE BACK ON WITH LESS RESTRAINTS!
I don’t think this is good…we need a decision once and for all by SCOTUS saying the registry is punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Anything less will keep this thing going.
AlexO and G4 Change
The Supreme Court of the United States denied cert, pa Supreme Court struck SORNA down but it was challenged by DA F so it ended up going all the way to SCOTUS for a cert, but SCOTUS denied to hear DA F which means that SORNA will no longer be in Pennsylvania, it was challenged on punitive and ex post facto of the pa constitution, ex post facto meaning SORNA was applied illegally to pre SORNA registrants, so correct me if I’m wrong but everyone will be let of the registry whome was not life time registration pre or current SORNA, but when and if HB 1952 takes effect people who were sentenced pre SORNA who would have not been done till 2019 and on who’s not a lifer will have to register under 1952 until their registration is complete, I know very confusing, I was completely lost in the beginning of this mess. So HB 1952 hasn’t been passed yet but if it does it’s suposed to go into effect right away. So with that said we all have to continue to register until Muniz is remand back to Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court directs AG and the Pennsylvania state police to start removing people. So keep up on your registration until you get a letter from the Pennsylvania state police.
Didn’t Janice mention she’d be willing to lead something similar here in Cali?
Side note: it’s tax season, let’s all smash that DONATE button, hard and often as possible.
So with cert being denied will the PSP be forced to remove all pre sorna offenders or will we have to do it another way. Any thoughts on the whole cert being denied or what steps are next would he greatly appreciated.
This is the second such ruling, following the 6th Circuit’s decision regarding Michigan’s registry. It also sets into stone that the punishment under which you are convicted of, cannot change. If PA changes their registry again, it only applies to persons after that date. While not great, it at least provides some stability in knowing that whatever BS nonsense they dream up sometime down the road, won’t have an impact on those already registered.
In light of this recent SCOTUS decision, I am now curious and wish to research my California “290” requirements. I was convicted in 1990, and want to identify the changes that have been made (Federal and California) to the Registry since my conviction. Is it possible that some of the requirements surrounding many of the registration obligations may not apply? Anyone have any sugestions?
I wonder how can politicians rule that sex offender registry laws that are oppressive be considered constitutional and not punishment like that with full support of the people.
So under PA law wouldn’t IML be considered retroactive?
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks SCOTUS keeps refusing to grant cert in punitive versus regulatory cases because they would have to declare the registry punitive and unconstitutional. Politics are certainly involved, but sooner or later they’re going to have to address it.
Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing is a difficult question to answer. The idea obviously is to get the right case to SCOTUS at the right time. Getting the wrong case there or the right case at the wrong time could mean an adverse decision, which would be disastrous.
The Court is a political body, and so it is not immune to political pressures or the general zeitgeist of the time — the justices, after all, are only people. They are not gods. Recognize that the “mainstream” of political opinion is still very much opposed to what we all know to be true — that registration is punishment and protects absolutely no one. In order to reach that conclusion, however, the Court is going to have to sort of burn some of its political capital in order to reach that conclusion.
They’ve done it in the past. Look at the civil rights cases — Brown v Board, for example. They had to burn some political capital in order to reach the conclusion in that case as well, despite us looking back on it now as a hallmark of civil rights.
Point being, I think the denial of cert, while disappointing, is perhaps a good thing, especially when in Packingham, the conservative wing of the Court went wholly out of their way to reaffirm the central fallacies on display in Smith v Doe.
While I think the movement is making tremendous strides, the denial of cert is perhaps a signal that there is still much more work to be done, not only in the lower courts, but in terms of just grassroots, shoe leather advocacy as well.
That is, however, just my opinion.
My question is, Can legislative branch try to circumvent a judicial ruling? I know they can adjust their laws to conform to a ruling but can they outright try to circumvent a ruling with legislative language manipulation????
OK, I’m no lawyer, but let me try to help people understand why this is important.
First, for those in PA who committed their crime after 2012, yes, the bad news is even though it is now “punishment”, you don’t qualify to be removed because the punishment was knows and in place at that time and doesn’t qualify as “ex-post Facto”.
The good news is, the fact that what those after 2012 endure under registration is “punishment”, it opens up all the other constitutional challenges that aren’t available if it was just a civil regulatory thing. You can now challenge “cruel and unusual punishment” and most importantly, “Substantive Due Process” because nobody should endure the violation of rights that having your reputation, career, housing, and travel affected without an individual hearing on that matter. These now called “punishments” can’t be dictated by the legislature without being part of the trial and sentencing under the judge’s control. It’s also a legislative violation of separation of powers as well as arbitrary government action.
Everything bad that’s happened with the Sex Offender registry and judges decisions against us can be traced to one false Solicitor General amicus brief in McKune V Liles (2002) where SCOTUS did no fact checking and accepted as truth the “80% recidivism”, “Frightening and high”, and garbage about no other criminal being more likely to re-offend. They were acting under the assumption that Legislature is not bound by the constitution when there is an imminent and grave threat to the public. In those cases, they use any excuses to side with the legislature, and now it’s infected thousands of laws and court cases that cite that case as well as “Smith V Doe” and Connecticut DPS V Doe” (2003) that used the same brief to reach its conclusions.
It’s time to get something in front of SCOTUS to overturn Smith V Doe.
It’s also time to re-vamp a system of justice that can so blindly follow false information with no fact checking.
Moving forward!
SCOTUS has denied to Cert, and now PA Pre Sorna are waiting to see if and when the HOUSE BILL 1952 will be voted on in the Senate.
My husband has been trying to locate if they voted at the Senate Level.
Has anyone seen or heard anything on House Bill 1952.
Jan 22 2018 was to be a voting day, well that did not happen.
Anyone with input please let me know so I can tell my husband.
Chris is better then most of the lawyers out there…..He hit every nail on the head. It’s time the current scheme comes down and it goes back to the courts where they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element (key element=your proclivity to recidivate) that invokes your sentence (registration).
What about the fact that the US AG stated and implies that CA had a Megan’s Law website in 2002 that was accessible to the public so it isn’t a Ex Post Facto issue in my case but the law authorizing and implementing Megan’s Law wasn’t enacted until 2004?
Megan’s Law sex offender database was not readily accessible for many Californians, and in 2004 California lagged behind over thirty states which had already made their states’ Megan’s Law databases available to the public on-line.
The California legislature therefore passed AB 488 on August 24, 2004, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law on September 24, 2004. Codified as California Penal Code section 290.46, the statute requires the California Department of Justice to establish and regularly update a website which makes available to the public information contained in the state’s sex offender registry.
Also what about the fact that the legislature noted and emphasized that registration is not suppose t be punitive quote “This policy of authorizing the release of necessary and relevant information about serious and high-risk sex offenders to members of the general public is a means of assuring public protection and shall not be construed as punitive … The Legislature also declares, however, that in making information available about certain sex offenders to the public, it does not intend that the information be used to inflict retribution or additional punishment on any such person convicted of a sexual offense.” (Emphasis added.)
This sure seems like a liability issue to me since they were apparently aware of what the consequences were going to be but moved forward anyways. What other statute claims and states so many times that it is not meant to be retributive? This sure seems like there is an angle here on this issue. That’s like saying we are going to lock you up and even though we are well aware that it is punitive and all the empirical evidence states it’s punitive, we don’t mean for it to be so it isn’t…I am still digesting this argument but man it sure seems as though there is some liability on the legislative branch for the foreseen harms that are occurring that they anticipated were going to happen….Making sense? Monetary liability somehow there…
HUGE VICTORY –
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/memorandum%20%20affirmedvacatedremanded%20%2010340043132057033.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
His crime was committed on December 17 2011 before SORNA.
He was convicted after SORNA was enacted.
Courts agree Muniz Applies and he not required to register under SORNA.
He doesnt need to register at all!!
With rape and idsa, lifetime register offences before SORNA.
Again my husband hearing to be removed from SORNA is in early February. I will keep you posted.
SORNA – YOU CAN GET OFF THE LIST!
Under PA LAW – The Muniz Decision is LAW, click the link and look at one the top Megan’s Law Attorneys in PA.
He will direct you to what you need to do.
https://www.shafferengle.com/blog/2018/01/sorna–you-can-get-off-the-list.shtml
By Shaffer & Engle Law Offices, LLC posted in SORNA on Thursday, January 4, 2018.
Muniz is the law of the Commonwealth. There is no stay in place. If your offense occurred prior to December 20, 2012, SORNA/Megan’s Law IV cannot be applied to you.
By Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, SORNA/Megan’s Law Attorney, Harrisburg, PA
I have fielded many, many calls from clients that are looking to get off the SORNA Tier registrant list. There is a fallacy floating around out there, likely perpetrated by the Commonwealth, PSP, DA’s Offices, Attorney General’s Office, Department of Corrections, Probation and Parole, or who knows who else, that you cannot be removed from the list because Commonwealth v. Muniz is pending possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Not so!
If the charges for which you are currently registered under Megan’s Law occurred prior to December 20, 2012 (effective date of Megan’s Law IV/SORNA), you cannot be required to register any longer. However, you must seek to have your illegal sentence- because it’s punishment- vacated by the county court in which you were initially sentenced. If you are from outside PA and made to register here, you need to do the same, just in the Commonwealth Court. The Pennsylvania State Police are not an indispensible party. Commonwealth v. McCullough, __ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 5184490, 2017 Pa. Super. 352 (November 9, 2017) (en banc). Further, there is long-established precedent in this Commonwealth that the legality of a sentence may not be waived. Commonwealth v. Joseph Dean Butler, 2017 Pa.Super. 344 (Oct. 31, 2017); Commonwealth v. Barnes, 637 Pa. 493, 151 A.3d 121 (2016); Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 636 Pa. 37, 140 A.3d 651 (2016); Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 17 A.3d 332 (2011). But, you cannot simply stop registering- you need to have the court remove you from the list.
However, don’t think that the PA Legislature is going to sit by for long and allow this window to be open. There is current legislation pending as of December 2017 to essentially overrule Muniz by enacting another Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law V, if you will.
Here is the reason why the DA dismissed the charges of failure to register under SORNA in my husbands failure to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
Here is the exact reason from my husband criminal docket information.
Case Dismissed – Nolle Pross.
Reason: “The Defendant was required to register under SORNA due to a 2006 IDSI conviction. He is charged with failing to comply with certain registration requirements. This offense is alleged to have occurred in 2014 and 2015, after SORNA was enacted on 12/20/12. In Commonwealth v. Muniz, our
supreme court determined that SORNA violated ex post facto principles. If Muniz stands, the defendant will not be required to register as a sex offender as no other sex offender statute currently exists.”
We all know that on Jan 22 2018, SCOTUS denied Cert and now MUNIZ stands.
The best part, my husbands failure case was in Cumberland County PA. DA Freed did not want to drop the charges, he fought tooth and nail to keep this going since July 2017.
And then DA Ebert came along and it took him 3 days in office to dismiss the charges, and above is his reason why he dropped the charges against my husband.
My husband has a hearing, motion to enforce plea, and habeas corpus hearing to be removed from SORNA in early February 2018 in his sentence court of York County PA.
As of now there is no House Bill 1952, and the way it looks it will be applied retroactively and the Senate may not pass it because of it.
My husband believes that they take the loss and just keep it moving.
But in February 2018, even for a few minutes or days or couple of months the freedom from a sex offender registry will be great for my husband.
He will be removed from SORNA.
So I was convicted and sentenced in 2003 for an indecent assult. I had a 10 yr. Registering requirement. But when sorna became law in 2012 I was on probation and required to register for life due to being on probation. WILL I still be removed from the registry even if I was still on probation.
I am a PA resident but was convicted out of state in federal court in 2003 and placed on the registry for 10 years, which should have ended in 2015. When SORNA took effect I was extended to 15. Do I have to do anything or should my name just be removed from the registry?
PAUL 2:… I was sentenced to a 1 to 2 year on a failure to register in 2008. Did that time. Had a corruption of minors charge also in 2008 which wasn’t a registerable offense in 2008. Received 3 years probation for that which ran consecutive to my 1 to 2. I got off probation on jan. 15th 2013. But my offense on megans law is IA.
@who removes from list
Quote – “However, don’t think that the PA Legislature is going to sit by for long and allow this window to be open. There is current legislation pending as of December 2017 to essentially overrule Muniz by enacting another Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law V, if you will.”
That is exactly what happened in North Carolina. There was a successful suit against the premise restrictions, Doe V Cooper. Almost immediately the NC legislature passed a new premise law even while the ruling was being appealed. It was almost as if the 4th circuit handed them the exact language to use to bypass any constitutional challenge.
Well, now we have another suit moving forward to challenge the new law enacted to replace the original law.
So, I want to ask the obvious. At what point does this become obvious persecution. Not the laws, but the legislatures obvious intent to continuously draft legislation to circumvent the constitution.
If it’s ruled unconstitutional once, then twice, regardless of the wording in the statute then the idea itself has to come under scrutiny as unconstitutional. And that my fellow registered citizens is what we need. At some point public opinion HAS to shift and see what is going on here.