PA: State Supreme Court remanding cases after Muniz


Sex offender cases in Pennsylvania are being remanded in the wake of Commonwealth v. Muniz, the PA case which found their registry unconstitutional under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

In Commonwealth v. Polzer, the appellant introduced the issue of whether, “SORNA’S irrebuttable presumption that all sexual offenders pose a high risk of reoffending violates procedural and substantive due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution.” and the due process clause of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

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

Good. Let’s hope it keeps snowballing this way. I’d love for them to start doing stuff like this automatically the way many cities in California started doing this with marijuana charges. (It’s really how our new tiered registry should be handled instead of the petitioning thing it has now)

First the author on this is incorrect. It was not remanded, the lower court was overturned and the PA supreme court HELD.
That means their decision was final and would not go back to lower court.

Correction….misread..didn’t see it is other cases.

For those in PA who watch the Supreme Court there and their action related to RC cases, this could be interesting possibly to watch and wonder on its make up if successful (which I hope not):

Pennsylvania GOP Moves To Impeach Supreme Court Democrats For Gerrymandering Ruling

Don’t they all have to fallow the law though no matter what as far as the constitution goes ?

I just found something looking in Civil Law that could help Lawyers in cases against ML.

42.5108.b b) Statutory restriction.–Except in an action for fines and penalties, or as punishment for contempt, or to prevent departure from the Commonwealth, a defendant may not be arrested in any civil matter.

So they claim ML is civil and had arrested many on failure to register etc. so it is truly punitive and thus violates the constitution….as if we all didn’t know since it was in criminal code it was anyway. They have been operating under the guise of civil all along only to get the $$$$

I’m looking for statute of limitations on filing suit and it looks good 🙂 Even for you Brian if you choose to go that route. It sates “cause of action accrued” that means the statute of limitations starts as soon as you discover you were in fact injured…note injury does not just mean physically.

One area that covers government states 6 months, so we all may only have 6 months to file any kind of suits on the civil end.

Just looked at act 10 to see if it has charges for non compliance and it still does…F3 for non compliance.
So any that read this and are arrested for this take it all the way as unconstitunal and punitive not civil based on the code i put above.
It still I think is in direct violation of the Muniz V PA ruling which is also a good defense.

I dint know you didn’t have to show up in a court room, doesn’t make sense but is what it is, also I didn’t know I could use DOE instead of my name. Well that’s something to think about for sure then. Thanks Robin

It’s actually good though if you look at my case, because CO is already in the same fight and winning that I was charged in CO, that just ads more to my fight in Pa because they can’t go back and say well you have to register in Co but Co is now unconstitutional also.

“… SORNA’S irrebuttable presumption that all sexual offenders pose a high risk of reoffending violates procedural and substantive due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and as such, SORNA’s Internet notification provision and quarterly verification requirements constitute an ex post facto law under the Pennsylvania Constitution …”

I had been coming off like a broken record after Muniz because I felt the irrebuttable presumption doctrine that was raised in Muniz was going to be important, and less than a year later it was used again in Commonwealth v. Polzer.

The legislature can not presume that every person convicted of a certain enumerated offense is a high risk. If a certain fact is proved, then the court must draw a certain conclusion from the proved fact and such conclusions are conclusive, unquestionable and incontrovertible. There has been no case in PA, and none that I can think of in federal court that proves this presumption empirically.

If the state can not presume all offenders are a high risk, and therefore can not impose strict registration requirements like SORNA retroactively, then how can it apply any registration requirement at all without first determining if that person poses a risk?

I am not legal scholar but, it seems like a no-brainer.


Just came across this site. Of course im not a sex offender but, just out of curiosity and know someone who might not be getting off the registry. I told her that the Pennsylvania sex offender registry is done their reviews and if not they are just probably now sorting people into tier levels. She hoped out of fear that they might be still reviewing to be off the registery. I had told her that even though her 10 years been up since 2015 she might still have to go under Act 10. She was a tier 2 out of state. Her out of state only gave her the 10 years only. She has no prior offences except for 2 misdemeanors of failure to register back in 2008. Spent 0 time in jail for those two. It did not add more time on the registery. So, if Pennsylvania has now the Act 10, why would people like her and many others had not gotten off the registry? When they took a lot of people off the registery. Act 10 had stated pre-sorna if 10 years been up and or time served then Act 10 does not apply? Meaning that due to being off the registery. But, yet no out of state offenders has not come off the registery and the no wording of active is gone. Does not make much since. I had went threw a handful of people on the registery. 1 person i saw registerd a 4 days ago under Act 10 and still had no tier and the word of active is still not there. So that cant be just awaiting for tier cause they would of giving him a tier level already. Nothing makes since much. I went on ro read o. Narsol and everyone seems abit confused and lost and many diffrent stories on this Act 10 deal on how Pennsylvania sex offender registry is going about things and how they are working it out. My guess is that they are going or were going in the order of the SID numbers. Can anyone provide any factual ideas or clise to all these questions?
Thank you,

I was convicted in 1988 during a jury trial, having a VERY INEFFECTIVE ATTORNEY, of an offense that I had no part of, which was to have involved 5 person’s total and was sentenced to 4-30 year’s. I never had the money to fight the conviction due to having a family which included 2 very young children at that time.The other 4 person’s charged were all aquited of all charges prior to the commencement of my trial. None of whom ever mentioned my name during their own separate trial’s.
I did 4 year’s in prison and walked off the remaining 26 on parole.
When I was sentenced in 1988 there was no such thing as Megans Law. But when Megans Law was introduced in 1996 in Pennsylvania, I was put on it and was forced to be listed online as a sex offender for 10 year’s and was then removed from the registry.
In December of 2012 I was put back on to the Megans Law online registry due to the introduction of SORNA in Pa and was kept on it until mid February of 2018. At which time I had been removed from it again due to recent Pa court case decision’s ruling my being on it unconstitutional in both federal and state jurisdiction’s.
Last Thursday, March 29th I received a letter in the mail from the Pa State Police informing me that I have been identified as a sex offender. And that there have been changes in the Pa Megans Law which may affect me. And that I have to report to a State Police location by May 22, 2018 to have my picture taken and register.
I have no clue what the hell is going on with this crap and was hoping someone here may be able to shed some light on what may be going on, based on the new court decision’s regarding Pa.’s ex post facto law.
Thanks in advance for any info!

Alright everyone is receiving these letters to comply with ACT 10. Has anyone been down to the PSP to comply with this New Retroactive Unconstitutional Law that is applied to PRE-ACT 10 Offenders?

What are they asking you to provide because I have court order stating to comply with Megans Law 2 requirements from 2006. Which relieved me from SORNA requirements when my motion to enforce plea agreement from 2006 for an IDSI conviction.

The question I have is this,

“If the court order to comply with Megan’s Law 2 Requirements, per plea agreement and sentence in 2006, like Hainsworth and Nace should I only be giving Megans Law 2 requirements only?”

If forced under Act 10 to provide any thing more that what the court order states, Only Megans Law 2 requirements only, would that be illegal per my court order?

Also at no time was internet identifiers required before SORNA, are these being required under ACT 10?

If any has any insight on this matter.

My court order clearly reads, must comply with Megans Law 2 Requirements and remove him from all SORNA requirements per Muniz.

This court order was obtained prior to receiving Act 10 letter in the mail.

In my thinking, the court order should relieve me from Act 10, because it says to only comply with Megans Law 2 requirements. Whether I am lifetime or not, Megans Law 2 doesnt exist, but does not state to register under ACT 10, only Megans Law 2.

All cases of sexual assaults due to custody battles should be redressed due to the corruption of women/men who want to destroy their ex-partner, Police, prosecutors, and Judges. There are a lot of these cases that required no evidence during a trial. all that was needed to convict them was a coerced child and a police statement that was written by the police and not signed by the defendant. Prosecutors and judges in small rural areas such as( Bensalem pa )corruption is abounding. Most of the time its prosecutors trying to further their careers to move up the ladder to better their own finances. I feel that the laws created by PSP should never have been passed into law without the separation of powers overlooking them. legislators need to do their job and stop passing the buck to the executive branch. If we allow the government to continue passing the buck we will have more laws created by the police and watch our rights taken away little by little. if they served their time leave them alone what ever happened to the three strikes law.