ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – ONLINE October 10-11
More Info and Sign-Up

National

MI: ACLU Michigan Attorney Advocates End of Registry; Provides Update on 6th Circuit Decision

In a recent NPR interview, ACLU Michigan attorney Miriam Aukerman stated she believes that sex offender registries should be abolished.  In support of that belief, Aukerman stated that registries are ineffective and make society less safe.

Aukerman criticized both legislators and law enforcement for the current challenges now facing registrants.  Legislators have passed and keep passing new laws because they believe doing so will help them to get re-elected.  Law enforcement spends time and money monitoring people convicted of a sex offense when they should be monitoring those who actually pose a danger to society.  If registries cannot be abolished, they should be reduced by removing all children and by shortening the amount of time individuals should be required to register, according to the ACLU attorney.

Aukerman also discussed the current status of Michigan sex offender laws which were declared unconstitutional by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016.  Despite that ruling, the state of Michigan has failed to modify its sex offender laws.

According to the ACLU attorney, she and others are negotiating with the Michigan state legislature about changes to the state’s sex offender laws.  Because the Court has retained jurisdiction of the case, it could issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the state’s sex offender laws if the legislature does not act quickly.

In the closing of the radio interview, Aukerman posed an important question for the public to consider: do you want to be mad (that someone has already been sexually assaulted) or do you want to be safe (from a future sexual assault)? She then added, “if you want to be safe, you don’t want a registry.”

Interview

Join the discussion

  1. Guy

    Well. They have a bill drawn up

    Anyone care to give the simple details of what it looks like.

    https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2019-2020/billintroduced/House/pdf/2020-HIB-5679.pdf

    • blake

      This is straight garbage.

      • Will Allen

        It is garbage. 48 pages of pure, idiotic, out-of-control, nanny big government. Who are the “people” that fantasize this will protect anyone? Who are the “people” who think this is acceptable in America?

        Is there anyone who thinks literal war should not be waged on these criminal regimes and the scum that support them?

        I promise I will continue to ensure:

        1. Registries are worthless.

        2. Registries are much worse than just worthless.

        3. Registries cause as much harm and damage as possible.

        4. Registry Supporter/Terrorists suffer consequences.

        5. Registries never exist in peace.

        I’m doing it today.

    • Austin

      It mostly nothing changed from my read.

      The biggest thing is for pre 2011 people page 41
      (4) The public internet website described in subsection (2) must not include the following individuals:
      ….(d) A listed offender who was not required to be included on the public website before July 1, 2011.

      Also some sane additions to allow registrants to participate with children in events on page 47.

      • blake

        So we still have residentail restristions. most people will still have to report 4 times a year we still have people being on it for life juveniles are still on the registry for some reason. I hope the aclu is not going to ok this or the judge. This is straight dumpster fire if anything seems it made it worse not better and changed some wording around.

      • David

        So “page 41
        (4) The public internet website described in subsection (2) must not include the following individuals:
        ….(d) A listed offender who was not required to be included on the public website before July 1, 2011.”

        Well, that’s a bit backwards. That is saying that all of those individuals whose first-time conviction was AFTER July 1 2011 (and thus, not required to be included in the public website before 2011 [because it was BEFORE their conviction]) would not be required to be listed. 🤔. (Yes, I understand the lawmakers’ intent, but if that is the way they have chosen to write it, they have written it poorly.)

    • Mark

      Am I missing something or did they just fix grammar and add things to this? 1000 feet away from school or property line to your work or home? How does that change anything. A school just purchased a building for administration just down from my buisness I own now I have to shut down and move because of them…. I am loosing my business because of this it’s insane. As a tier 1 I would hope things change on this paper but I am not holding my breath.

      • blake

        We still have to report work and they show it on there. This is insane, This is not what the judge ordered. Anyone pre 2006 should not have the the where you can live restrictions let alone the whole list. I also thought they were on agreement that juveniles should be off? Well literally nothing changed for better. Good job everyone we still have all the restrictions we had before im sure like maybe 30 people will get off.

        • Nick

          Wow…and they needed an extention to come yp with this? It reminds me of a kid who spends minutesw, before class writing a book report on a book that he didn’t read. Worthless, useless garbage and an insult to the ACLU, The Oliver Law Group and University of Michigan Law and all of the time they’be put into trying to make things right. I hope and pray that all this does is piss off Judge Clelend.

      • TS

        @Mark et al in Michigan

        While I do not like residential restrictions based upon distances, if they are insistent upon getting them in the language, then have them provide the definition of a educational facility where pre-K-12 enrollees are being instructed today to avoid having the administration buildings be used as a boundary. STAND ALONE administration buildings should be an exception to, not part of the rule.

        ACLU can get that to the Judge as well as those impacted in MI.

        • David

          Additionally, how is that 1,000 ft distance measured?? Is it edge of one property line to nearest edge of the other property line? Is it edge/corner of residence building to nearest edge/corner of nearest school building (even if it is an unstaffed tool shed)? Or is it 1,000 feet walking distance via sidewalk? Or closest driving distance on public surface streets?
          Haven’t these distance regulations frequently been deemed unconstitutional due to “vagueness”? 🤔

      • blake

        And i also thought they couldnt do the retro application of any of the 2006 amendments on pre 2006? What kind of joke is this? is this an early april fools joke or something?

      • Josh

        @All in Michigan….I’m going to caution not to get all worked up….I think this was extremely premature given that judge Cleland’s judgement hasn’t even been entered yet…this could be a grandstanding politician trying to look good….I don’t see how changing the wording like this makes it acceptable unless this matches the federal SORNA? Even IF this is legit it has to go through several committees, votes, AND be signed into law by the governor. I know it doesn’t look or feel good but I don’t think we need to panic just yet!

        • Warpath

          I might be wrong but I think this is the bill that has been in the works since last fall. As Josh pointed out Judge Cleland’s order hasn’t even been entered as yet. Why this bill was even submitted with Judge Cleland’s order pending is anyone’s guess. Probably some shit head politician’s intent to be on the record before a new bill is drafted. Patients family. I sm sure we will hear something official soon

        • Dave

          Dang it really kept everything that they just got told to get rid of.

          It actually does just add more things.

    • blake

      I read through this a couple times. I see nothing addressing the ex post facto of 2006. Still have to register 4 times a year like we were on a tier 3 and seems like they are wanting to have people with tiers and no tiers on a the same website. What kinda mess is this? They changed nothing at all. re wording this bill like this took 4 years? What a complete joke.

    • ConfusedMan

      This bill was sponsored by State Rep. James Lower, a rural Republican 30 year old who last year sponsored the bill that made ballot initiatives in Michigan much harder to successfully enact (by requiring geographical diversity in signatures). It was roundly condemned as unconstitutional, even by conservative organizations such as Right to Life.

      As it stands, this bill just makes my life harder. As a level 2, I currently verify twice a year. This makes it 4 times a year. There is no other benefit at all.

      If this becomes law, I will be livid with the ACLU and any associated organizations. There is one solution—end the registry as CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment. If we can’t do that, don’t bother with nonsense legalese on my behalf, please.

    • G4Change

      So, I’m thinking, since we seem to have a national shortage of toilet paper, maybe they can print several thousand copies of this bill and then, well, problem solved!

  2. blake

    People whose offenses occurred before April 12, 2011, cannot be subjected to the 2011 amendments, which retroactively extended many individuals’ registration terms to life, classified registrants by tiers, and imposed extensive reporting requirements.

    o People whose offenses occurred before January 1, 2006, also cannot be subjected to the 2006 amendments, which imposed restrictions on where people can live, work and “loiter,” and which enabled the public to subscribe to updates about registrants on the internet.

    I literally see no changes to this.

  3. blake

    uhm what happened to this
    People whose offenses occurred before January 1, 2006, also cannot be subjected to the 2006 amendments, which imposed restrictions on where people can live, work and “loiter,” and which enabled the public to subscribe to updates about registrants on the internet.

    seems we are still being forced ex post facto

    • Josh

      @Blake….it seems to me like this was a lame ass attempt to clear up the “vagueness” in the original law….I’m 98% percent sure this crap won’t fly….

  4. Warpath

    I am no expert here but this bill as read does NOT address Judge Cleland’s order pertaining to ex post facto. In other words, it isn’t the relief order we arr all holding our breath for. I think this is just another example of the political stupid shit politicians pull. We are still in a holding pattern waiting for the state to address Judge Cleland’s order

  5. Josh

    @Michigan….the bill was introduced and submitted to the judiciary committee. If the people on this committee have any constitutional awareness or knowledge of the current events then this bill will never see the light of day again as currently written.

    • David

      MI Judiciary Committee: “any constitutional awareness or knowledge of the current (legal) events”. LOL I would hope that, as the “Judiciary Committee”, they have some vague understanding of the Constitution and some minimal awareness of Judge Cleland’s findings. (Alas, I am very likely wrong and give them too much benefit of the doubt!!)

  6. Bri

    Can someone please explain about the conviction before 2011 in Michigan?

  7. Dr.

    I’m in mid Michigan, back in 93 I did 30 days for 4th degree, been tier 3 the entire time of this registry,,,,,,, 5-31-2020 at 11:40 a Sargent Wilson meadows called the house phone (his number is 989-301-1867) wanting to talk to me,he said he was calling about the sor.
    I had the answering service (family members) do the interaction,
    I believe that, this was a scam in progress,
    Has anyone else had this happen in Michigan?

    • Lou

      Definitely looks like a scam, I looked up the number you listed. It comes up as a local Hemlock, that number is not the local state police number, which at this point is the only law enforcement agency that would possibly be attempting to contact you. The latest directive is that everything is on hold till the executive order expires. At that point the state police have 60 days to notify everyone via US postal service of how they plan on conducting future registration. At no point other than the state police, via US postal service, should be contacting you about SOR

      • Dr.

        Thanks Lou,
        That was my thought.
        I decided to put it out there in case someone else gets the call,

        • Fuzzy

          I got a similar call on Friday. The guy said he was with the sheriff’s office and said I missed some day to report and give a 2nd DNA sample. Of course I had no idea wtf he was talking about. I was also at work at the time, so I went outside and did some googling while I was on the phone. Number didn’t match the county sheriff’s office, so I decided to waste as much of his time as possible. I asked a bunch of questions which started to annoy him. He kept saying I had a warrant and needed to come take care of it, but had to stop at Wal Mart for some secure payment method before stopping at the office to take care of the warrant. Originally he wanted $2500, but talked him down to $500 lol. He also had a southern accent, which it somewhat suspicious in Michigan. Another thing is that he would say 10-4 a lot, which would indicate to me he has military experience or police academy dropout. After almost an hour of making him think I was driving to Wal Mart, he was asking every few minutes for an ETA, I got bored and called him out. He stuck with his story, but told him I was going to call the State Police, and then hung up. I did call the State Police post and informed the Sgt what happened. He said that was the second call he got that week. He verified I was good to go, and he asked for the number that called me so he could call it. I also looked up the provider and it’s some bandwidth.com. I reported the number to them also. The most f’d up thing is 1, he has my phone number, and 2, he has all my information. I suppose he could double down and fuck with me, but he has way more to lose as he’s scamming people and I’m just doing my thing and living my life. So I wasted as much of his time as I could so maybe I saved one other person from being scammed.

  8. Dr.

    So,
    If this is going to drag on for who knows how many more years can the sor website be taken down until the Michigan state police have a policy that is constitutional, I think judge Cleland might be receptive to this….

  9. Dr.

    Can anyone clear this up?
    Tim P , of the Michigan ACLU posted this on another website,,,April 6th 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within SEVEN days of the entry of this order:
    a) The MSP and Plaintiffs’ counsel shall POST notice of this order, and a copy of it or link to it, on their websites
    2. and/or such other locations as will with reasonable assurance allow it to be seen widely by class members;
    If my math is correct,6 plus 7 is the thirteen of April,
    I looked, couldn’t find it on the “MICHIGAN STATE POLICE “ SOR.
    So who is in charge of the “Michigan state police” ?
    So I can ask that person.
    Why haven’t the “MSP “ followed the honorable judge Cleland’s ruling ?
    Has the ACLU addressed this non confirming act by the “Michigan state police “ ?

    Three questions I hope I can get answers to and thanks for the forum.

  10. Dr.

    Thanks lop,
    I was having no luck finding it, now that I read it, it leaves more questions, who wrote this? A cop? A lawyer ? a legislator ?
    That looks like a summary of the order by someone instead of the actual order judge Cleland said to post.
    Funny how that post was dated the next day
    Nothing about this case has moved that fast.

Leave a Reply to Bobby S. Cancel 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 *

.