MI: ACLU suit seeks changes to Michigan sex offender registry

Civil rights advocates say ___ is an example of how thousands of people have been unfairly penalized by the Michigan Sex Offender Registry more than two years after the Sixth Circuit Court ruled the state’s changes retroactively putting people on the list for life were unconstitutional. Full Article



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
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

And it drags on and on and on and…

Yeah that class action should be monetary suit against all the officials knowingly violating everyone of these individual’s constitutional rights under color of law and holding them criminally liable. Plain and simple.

So, if I move to Michigan and don’t register, what happens?

Hello Folks.

Here is another article that was posted by the Detroit News about 13 hours ago concerning Michigan’s Registry, https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2019/01/25/sex-offender-registry/2666197002/

Some ACLU quotes for you:

“The ACLU argues that sex offender registries are an ineffective approach to protecting the public, and that they divert police attention and resources from monitoring the most serious offenders.

In many cases, those who land on the list for life were convicted decades ago, and remain branded as a sex offender regardless of whether they are an actual threat. Others were teens who were convicted of consensual sex with younger teens.

Michigan’s offender registry is open to the public, and that kind of widespread shaming hampers these individuals from getting jobs and rebuilding their lives. Aukerman says it’s a form of lifetime parole, because those on the registry are required to alert police even when they get a new email address or phone number.”

I may have asked this before but does anyone have any idea if WAR ever filed their suit, one was supposed to be on behalf of registrants and the other separate suit for family members?

Yeah, what a joke. I did not think so. BS, being saying that for years now why their site and profits keep expanding and rolling in. No one is going to do anything unless it is a pro se or some one with a lot of cash and even then the professionals will be half-ass. I wonder how many people have donated to that site and how many are even questioning what is going on. It figures as it would be totally counter to their interest to fix the registries or eliminate them. Hate to say it but it is just reality. Maybe they are waiting for more wins or ???, but that does no one any good now and they should not have been claiming and telling people “oh it will be this month or next year or blah blah blah.

And this crap about the ACLU working with the enemy to get a legislative fix is COMPLETELY BS. THEY WON, get rid of the frigging registry to those that won and file file file again for those that the suit does not cover.

Look even when they win what do they do? agree to work with the enemy and create some kind of work around BS legislation. Absolutely crazy talk. Since when does a winning party like this ACLU Michigan case work with the other party to resolve some issue that they already won on. I will tell you, NEVER that I know of. You win, you celebrate and brag about winning and rub it in the opposing parties fact.And you demand action according to the court’s ruling. Now if they want to sit down after all that then I might sit down to hear what they have to say, but I would and no attorney would in any other case capitulate to the other side and say “well lets keep the status quo and lets negotiate a deal.” How insane is that????Be like “hey we won 5 million dollars, but do not worry about it right now. Lets sit down and see how much you are willing to pay.” Um, that is a BIG FAT NO. Give me my court ordered money or else……….. I hate it when someone says “or else” it is like or else what are you going to do? but in this type of situation, it is completely appropriate. The or else is give me what the court ordered or go to jail for contempt and for violation of rights under color of law. Bottom line.

That is exactly right. Knowingly violating a persons’s constitutional right for one day, one hour, or one second creates liability. The court stated it was unconstitutional, it went thru the entire due process so any continuance is criminally punishable for violation of rights under color of law and makes every individual involved subject to liability. Any and everyone that is entitled to relief needs to file for that relief immediately using this precedent for immediate and emergency preliminary or permanent injunctions regardless what the ACLU BS is doing. It would be absolutely idiot and insane to wait and see what comes out of those negotiations. No where in that decision did the court state go debate and come up with a solution. It did state in no ambiguous terms, “it must cease.” Anyone outside or not included in that case cannot sue anyone until that happens as the court stated specifically that its decision was as applied to those plaintiffs.

I am curious, does anyone know if the individuals in that case have been removed from the registry? I bet the judge that issued that decision would be pretty pissed off if they were not as like I stated, the court stated in a very aggressive way that it must cease as applied to those plaintiffs.

@Bobby. Thanks, you are absolutely right. I have not re-read Snyder in a long time and I simply did not take in what it was stating. The question then becomes: why did they only challenge ex post facto? was it because they were ignorant? incompetent? purposefully omitting them? did they not think they could prevail on the other issues?

My next question is: what are the other issues that were far from frivolous???? The original complaint only challenged ex post facto. https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/CJ-MI-0004-0001.pdf

I would like to see if those other issues are the ones that I brought forth in my case.

The retroactive application of SORA’s
2006 and 2011 amendments to Plaintiffs is unconstitutional, and it must therefore cease.

As we have explained, this case involves far more than an Ex Post Facto challenge. And
as the district court’s detailed opinions make evident, Plaintiffs’ arguments on these other issues
are far from frivolous and involve matters of great public importance. These questions, however,
will have to wait for another day because none of the contested provisions may now be applied
to the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and anything we would say on those other matters would be dicta.