UPDATE: Oral Argument – Thursday, November 15, 2018 – Courtroom III
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/oral-argument-recordings
9/2/2017: In Millard v. Rankin, an as-applied challenge, Colorado Senior District Judge Richard Matsch rejected the pretty ribbons the legislature wrapped around the Sex Offender Registry Act. Applying the “intents-effects” test to the law, the court held that it was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Full Article
“It appears that judges are finally coming to grips with its outrageous and unwarranted price, and finding it too high to pay.”
Amen.
Justice Gorsuch is similar in his mold and beliefs and comes out of the Tenth.
I want to buy this man a beer. And dinner. Even wash his car.
Sounds like 4/5 possibly 5/5 on the Punishment scale. I’d say we could come up with multiple examples of just how punitive this crap is.
Under sora the definition of non consensual sex is if for instance a 20 year old had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. That is punishment of reproductively valid behavior, it is totalitarian and it is wrong. Also under the laws of California, if the two ever exchanged nude pictures of each other what would be a violation of 311.11 and to make things worse now under SB 384 the male would be labelled a tier three sex offender further adding to the stigma. Since that is the way these laws are written, American politicians have completely abandoned the idea that sex offenders are entitled to basic human rights, and they have to be stopped.
yep. it’s a slam dunk..
How long do you think California court will say the same thing?
Simple Justice is a great site. Like Janice, et al., he doesn’t shy away because current criminal procedure might be popular.
Like it or not, the sex offender registry is unconstitutional. Believe it or not, the sex offender registry is punitive. Want it or not, the sex offender registry will Never achieve its purposes or its goals. Nothing else needs to be said. The end. It’s over.
Make sure you tailor it to either state or federal court, whichever you are going to file in..That’s great Hookscar, either way we are both going to have about the same motions in the same courts because I am preparing my state motion as we speak. Really glad to see another warrior willing to put up or shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where are you at approx?City, state, county?
Talking of using the registry for humiliation, in San Diego, for several years we had a radio talk show person who every Friday would read the names of 10 people and their addresses on the air. I guess the Supreme Court hasn’t been told about all the nut cases using the public information for abusive purposes, and in this case to promote his own sick agenda at the expense of people who are probably doing everything they can to be outstanding members of society.
Judge Matsch would have tossed (dismissed) a facial challenge of the registry being punishment if that had been argued he said during arguments in motion hearings. Any challenge like that will be tossed by any court and any class action suit won’t fly either. It will need to be suits by people continually filing and challenging it like what happened in CO. You can flood the courts, but as seen in CO, real world example(s) of what has happened to you will need to be cited with evidence, e.g. NPS being recently dismissed from work because of their status on the registry.
@mike r and HOOKSCAR – if you can do that, then your filings will be stronger.
@mike r – if you need to amend your initial filing to reflect this, you can do that still.
He already won and 7 plus people got off reg before PASC issued a stay of record. There are 2000 plus people in PA due relief right now because of this decision The only people that got off the reg so far filed a writ of mandamus I’m saying that these 2000 plus people due relief could use help low cost attorney a generic mandamus set up to lower cost the writs will all almost be the same People cant afford to pay 5k each to get relief due right now not later. Everyone wants to talk about big US SC appeals instead of getting help for people that already have the right to get off the reg from cases already decided. In addition why is it that there is no pool of money from SO’s to put the big US appeals thru the court Team up and kick but why do these Org not set up a fund to do a big case that we can all contribute to with a dream team of lawyers?
I SAY WE GET MID EVIL, BRAVE HEART, AND WILLIAM WALLACE ON THESE MF’S TEAM UP AND PUT OUR MONEY AND TIME TO WORK FOR ALL OF US
I’m still in shock (pleasantly) that at least one judge understands the difference between administrative and punitive, or at least he’s willing to go on record with such a declaration. I still find it difficult to believe that I will bear witness to the end of the Registry in my lifetime, but hope burns eternally bright in my heart as it did at the base of Pandora’s Box.
⭐⭐🌟 For the current status of Millard, you can listen to last week’s oral arguments at this website:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/oral-argument-recordings
You will need to scroll down to
“Thursday, Nov. 15th, Courtroom 3”.
Sadly, the attorney presenting to the appellate court is not well-spoken and seemingly not well-prepared. He could not answer a basic question about the lack of effectiveness of SORA.
Very disapointing oral.
At least the state just said than usual Smith v doe is precident crap so nothing important from either side. This case will be decided by briefs if they get read.
A big opportunity to challenge substantive due process. As usual, the judges wanted to have an excuse to ignore it and say that only cruel and unusual punishment needs to be looked at. The lawyer for our side just asked substantive due process not be ignored. Why can’t anyone say on the record “substantive due process is violated because multiple fundamental rights are greatly affected by inclusion on a registry for an arbitrary length of time not taylored to the individual by a judge during fair court procedures where he has a right to be heard and instead mandated by legislature with a broad brush and continueing beyond the time period of government supervision the court deemed needes to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public”
I know that sentence might use up half of his time, but it is needed more than the stuff he said.
It seemed to me that the judges who asked questions of both attorneys were only asking to support an already predetermined opinion. Maybe I’m wrong…
That said, neither lawyer was very persuasive. The case will probably hinge on the briefs, assuming both sides packed them with the usual data. I doubt any minds were changed, and imagine it’ll be another registry case to take to the USSC. They can’t keep denying cert forever – too many conflicting opinions among the circuits.