MI: Legislation approved to prevent sex offenders to go to same school as their victims


The House Law and Justice Committee approved legislation on Tuesday that better protects underage students and victims of sexual-based crimes.

The legislation was introduced by Representative Lana Theis, State Rep. from Brighton.

The three-bill package was prompted by a recent Livingston County case where a 16-year-old was convicted of criminal sexual conduct against multiple victims as young as 12. Two of the underage victims joined Theis for testimony before the committee on Feb. 20.

“These bills are needed to ensure we better protect victims of criminal sexual conduct. No survivor should ever have to move schools to avoid riding the bus or attending school with their assailant,” said Theis, a member of the committee. “We had two young victims before this committee to tell us how they faced the possibility of being in the same school, classroom and even bus route with their manipulative predator. That should not even be a consideration.”

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am not saying that this is not a good idea, because it is but instead of passing new laws, the Michigan Legislatures, need to get of their ass’s, and revise the Registry like the 6th Circuit and told them to do, and with SCOTUS basically backing the 6th Circuit up n their ruling. I have written and e-mailed every senator every legislator and even the ACLU, and all they keep saying is we are working on it. Well it will be 5 months on Friday when the ruling came down and nothing has been done in my opinion. 5 months is plenty of time to revise the Michigan Registry, plenty of time.

I am all for it as long as ALL acts against a student [e.g. bullying] also require the actor to be expelled.


I see Pennsylvania is removing off there list now, after the there court ruling, not sure if that ruling was after Mi, or before?

Hello Everyone,

I was not sure if I should post this here or on another Michigan Article, but since this only has 6 comments I decided to post it here if anyone is interested or has any thoughts on what Mr. Caballero e-mailed me back.

Here is what I wrote:

  I went into register on the first, and my town still has not hired a clerk yet, they said something about Wendsday, and of course none of our lazy cops no how to register people except for one, and he claimed he was to busy to mess with it.

   So anyway he took a copy of my license, and said he would call me later, which he did, and said not to worry I was in compliance, and if my registry was not up to date by Wednesday at 2pm to come by and let them know, now here is my question.

  When I do go in do I still have to comply with the 2006 and 2011 amendments, and are the cops still allowed to enforce them since they claim they have NOT gotten anything in writing stating otherwise , they claim even though the 6th circuit ruled those amendments unconstitutional  and  the US Supreme Court pretty much backed the 6th circuits ruling by denying to hear the case, the cops in my town insist that they do not have to follow that ruling until they receive something in writing that says different, is this true?

   Also do I still have to give them the $50 that they still say I have to give them, until they receive something in writing that says different?, thank you for your time.

Here is his response back to me:


Unfortunately, the state of Michigan has come up with some creative legal arguments to justify denying the benefits of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling to all registrants with older convictions. In effect their arguments are that (1) the Sixth Circuit’s ruling was limited to only those 6 registrants included in the original litigation and (2) even if the principles of the decision apply more broadly, the state can still re-enact older versions of the statute for registrants with older convictions. We disagree with the state on both arguments and are currently preparing a class action lawsuit to contest these arguments. We are planning on filing sometime in the next few weeks.
We don’t know exactly what local police departments have been told about implementing Does. It is likely that they have begun the process of reviving the older versions of the SORA statute. In theory, this means they aren’t implementing the 2006 and 2011 amendments. You will still have to pay the $50 registration fee unfortunately.
Juan P. Caballero

In my opinion, a state should not be able to disobey a court ruling, especially from a federal court such as the 6th circuit, and then have that ruling pretty much backed by SCOTUS. Does anyone else feel the same way I do, on this situation.