Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed amicus briefs in the Michigan Supreme Court today in Michigan v Snyder (Case number 153696) and People v Betts (Case number 148981), arguing that Michigan’s sex offender registration and notification requirements are punishment because they are so burdensome and fail to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who are not a threat to the community. Full Announcement
Related
Attorney General: Michigan Sex Offender Registry too broad, lost effectiveness
Wow, the AG filed this? Isn’t the AG the one that’s usually on the defending side of the registry as a matter of principle, if nothing else?
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw was the Attorney General writing that. Completely unexpected.
The intent of SORNA may be regulatory in nature but the effect of the regime output
That renders it punitive lies in the regime’s paradigm shift in man’s relation to machine. whereby under SORNA registrants experience state’s machines need outweighs their human needs.
HN>MN = null is congruent with a nation of free men.
meanwhile it’s inverse is not
MN>HN= null will never be congruent with free men.
I think I’m in love.
Well, that is certainly unexpected from a state Attorney General. For the sake of all the folks in Michigan, I hope this is an indication of positive changes to come.
This is encouraging. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and this is a step in the right direction. Common sense and compassion are yet alive and well. Let’s keep a close eye.
Did I go to sleep and wake up in an alternate universe?
When does A Law Enforcement official argue logic!
It would have been more impressive if it had been a conservative, but I think a statement from a state attorney general be very encouraging. Hopefully their supreme court will agree. One of the best statements was this: “A number of state supreme courts have struck down their state registry laws on similar grounds.” That is sooooooo significant, and the more that keep doing it the closer many of us are to relief. It’s been 25 years for me. This lifetime registration stuff has really caused a lot of harm for me and my family over the years, and is continuing to hinder me as I just try to get on with my life.
I hope this will encourage backbone growth.
The best part of all that Nessel has said is that it is ALL TRUE!!!!!!!!
Whats very interesting was that she even quoted the US Solicitor General’s comment regarding the US Supreme court denial of cert, who even said in so many words that Michigan’s registry is way beyond punishment.
Josh, I told you she was going to do this. She was a prosecutor for many years, besides being a defense attorney. She knows the law makes NO SENSE. Meanwhile every other democratic AG (including New York) is all for a harsh registry. One good thing I can say about New York though is that they are based on INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS, and have always been.
I was sentenced under the Holmes Youthful Training act. Therefore my records are sealed, I have no conviction, but still have to register and be listed on the public registry. My name will not come up on a background check. Employers, etc would have to search the registry to get that information (which they do). It makes no sense! Ive had employers ask me, “how do you not show up on a background check, but you’re listed on the registry? Fortunately, after explaining to them about my sealed record, and giving them my court documentation which specifically states that, they are always BAFFLED. As a result, I’m hired.
These are some of the issues among many others, that the ACLU is working with the legislature to have those in this situation removed.
With Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed amicus briefs in the Michigan Supreme Court in Michigan v Snyder (Case number 153696) and People v Betts (Case number 148981), arguing that Michigan’s sex offender registration and notification requirements are punishment because they are so burdensome and fail to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who are not a threat to the community. And there is Whether the federal Sex Offender Registration, and Notification Act’s delegation of authority, to the attorney general to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 violates the nondelegation doctrine. Look for this in June 2019 Decision and then there is also 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.This is some of the bigger things going on now unless I missed something I know of some State supreme court challenges that are still in limbo with what is going on now I can see this mountain of B.S starting to crumble!
The first sentence in the introduction of the amicus brief filed by the attorney general states: “The tides are changing” 😀
Blessed !!!!
I thought this was the mother of all typos. Now I realize that this is real. Praise God that the truth is now prevailing!
The briefs refer to “individuals with sex offense convictions” and “registrants” and not “sex offenders.
Finally an AG and Solicitor General standing up and doing their jobs that they were created to do. Protect citizen rights. Amazing day. I guess she did not think the last suit went far enough, which it did not.
I was basically going to ask the same question that Josh as brought up. So now that Ms Nessel, has written two briefs how will that effect Betts and Snyder that are scheduled to be heard on on either March 6th or 7th, according to the schedule, also I realize no one really knows but now the Michigan’s AG has spoken and in our favor surprisingly, any idea on how much longer it should take to finally be over at least here in Michigan. Then we can start working on the rest of the states as well.
I saw this and wonder now if Dana Nessel still has the support of democratic ags https://democraticags.org/the-democratic-attorneys-general-association-supports-dana-nessel-for-michigan-attorney-general/ Would it help to start a email campaign to other Dem. AGs asking for there continued for support for Dana Nessel and there support on ridding these unconstitutional public safety measures. aka additional punishment!
Someone please get these to SCOTUS to read by each justice!!
At the same time, I hope those cases that have not been opined on yet and published, which registrants are waiting for, have these two briefings provided to be read by the justices. That probably is not the system but one can always hope.
This is resoundingly good news! There seem to be cracks developing in the story line the States have been using for years. It only takes bold, honest people like AG Nessel (and the SC legislator with his registry reduction Bill) to step forward and get the ball rolling. I truly believe this can be the start of a trend where the judicial and executive branches start pushing back on the legislative branch–I certainly hope so!
One thing that makes me scratch my head is if the AG, the Solicitor General and the Assistant SG for the State are on the side of ACLU and the POTRs, who the heck is arguing for the People/State? That’s usually a task for one of the three above-named parties. Is it being handled by an Asst. AG? Some County/District DAs? Regardless, it seems to set up an interesting tangle within the executive branch and DoJ in MI!
Yeah what the hell? Who is the people’s attorney? The AG’s department I thought was the people’s attorney. How the hell is that working. LMAO. This is sooo cool. Love it. It cannot hardly get any better than that. An AG challenging her own state law. Hmmm. Of course this is going directly into my brief.
“Plaintiff wishes to include key statements by Attorney General Dana Nessel, Solicitor General Fadwa A. Hammoud, and Assistant Solicitor General Ann M. Sherman, from the State of Michigan challenging Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry. With all due respect, Defendant should admire Attorney General Nessel’s courage to admit the truth, and to attempt to do something about it. Although there are not residency restrictions embedded in the challenged statute at issue in Plaintiff’s case the same reasoning applies in his case:”
Once again, LOOOOOVE IT……
Does anyone know if the SORAs have been challenged using the 1974 Privacy Act? If so can you please cite if possible?
Here is an idea, if we all donate some $ even as little as 5.00 into her re-election fund it would send a message to other elected that we are uniting and strong
@BM:
The only docs I’ve seen are the AG’s amici (URLs posted in the header for this section) and the ACLU’s amicus (not sure where I saw it…maybe on MI SC’s site). I have not seen any filings by the parties themselves beyond some historical ones at the CoA level and lower. Not being a Michigander nor a Michiganian, I haven’t dug into how, where or even if State court filings are posted online.
If I find a usable link and source, I’ll pass it along.