ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

National

CO: Colorado Sex-Offender Registry Takes Another Brutal Hit

Colorado’s sex-offender registry, already under legal siege, just took another hit.

On June 20, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the lifetime registration requirement for Coloradans found guilty of two or more sex offenses when they were juveniles qualifies as punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The 2-1 decision means that a lower court can now consider whether that rule is unconstitutional — and such a finding would strike another blow against a law-enforcement concept that’s become increasingly controversial. Full Article

Decision

Join the discussion

  1. Janice Bellucci

    The decision by this appellate court in Colorado is a big step in the right direction. Although the court did not grant the registrant the relief he was seeking, but instead sent the case back to the trial court, the court communicated clearly that lifetime registration for juveniles constitutes punishment. In doing so, the court acknowledged that its decision on this issue was different than decisions made by other appellate courts and did it anyway. Kudos to this court for its courage!

    • ReadyToFight

      Has anyone challenged the public registry for those who were convicted/ took a plea before it was made public here in California? If not, is it feasible to do so? I personally think we need to start pushing back instead of always being stuck in “defense” mode.

      • David

        @ ReadyToFight: Although California is not a SORNA state, the recent SCOTUS ruling on Gundy seems to okay the administrative decision(s) of making Registries retroactive.

        • CR

          @David, no, absolutely not. Gundy had nothing to do with that. The question was whether or not Congress’ delegation of authority to the AG was constitutional. The question did not have anything to do with whether or not Congress could make civil regulatory law apply retroactively. That has been settled law since 1798.

    • Tim in WI

      Janice,
      That is exactly why the best rout for many offenders is review after FTR conviction of they are in any way impacted by ex post legislation. A few of us are in from the jump( pre Wetterling) and know running to the fed courts is priced to high, and is mostly feckless. Unlike the similarly situated in ConnDPS, some of us refused to plea yet still found ourselves listed. During FTR, prosecutors are trying folks knowing damn well the judgments( notices) say something other than life concerning commitment to DOCs. All criminal defendants judgements have words upon them that clearly refutes state’s life term claim.

    • SR

      I’m always confused as to why legally someone being under 18 makes this a punishment, while someone being 18+ does not. Why doesn’t something like this apply unilaterally?

      • Tim

        @SR,
        By my way of thinking being an American must be enough.
        Why law for some but not others? This is where popularity and politics meet.
        Laws that protect children are in fact also user interface against some children.
        Acts of Congress that addresses domestic but utilize terms such as ” violence against women act” are indeed pandering. Does the battered wife need more than being American to deserve to be” equally protected from attack by law. ” in my mind no.
        But do we need the feds to determine equity in laws?

  2. AJ

    The Decision link requires signing up for or into a (free) service. For those who wish not to do so, I’ve uploaded it here: https://ufile.io/q2oh57b9

    Now I just need to read it!

  3. AJ

    Since we’re talking about CO and court cases, I decided to check in on the Millard one. I was excited to see there was finally some sort of progress on the docket. My hopes of a decision dashed. The RCs’ attorneys today filed supplemental authorities, citing the recent AK SC case and this CO CoA case. If anyone wants to see the filings (there’s not much to them), let me know and I’ll get them onto ufile.

    Though SCOTUS is winding down for summer, the 10th CCoA keeps plodding along with no decision in sight. Note: the original case was filed in 2013, the appeal in 2017. Talk about slow justice!

    • TS

      @AJ

      Can you see what has been supplied in the Tenth on Millard as supporting filings over the duration to date? IIRC, there was a large amount of amicus filings in support of Judge Matsch’s decision and a few against. I’m visualizing balancing scales of docs for and against with for being heavier initially and even more so now after two(?) supplemental filings of findings.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        I downloaded the entire docket for perusal. You will notice two things about the document: 1) only 11 pages are present, despite there being 12; and 2) it’s a bit blurry. Being a paranoid SOB, I chopped off page 12 which had my PACER log-in on the transaction receipt ($0.80 spent on you, just because bro!), and I flattened the PDF via a freebie website–which made it blurry for some reason. It should suffice for what you seek.

        https://ufile.io/bovf7e18

        • TS

          @AJ

          Thank you for that. Very much appreciated and something you did not have to do, but appreciated nonetheless. For Rankin, the one AG amici filing. For Millard, more than one amici and supplemental filing of various sorts at this point.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.