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

I’m actually in the Detroit metro area. I have no clue but between here and feb,,, if I find out that the hearing is open to the public,,, I may attempt to attend. PH isn’t that far away. Speculating only I thought maybe the judge will allow oral arguments, but the issue has been briefed to death. Myself,,, I’m worried about severing,,, it’s a possibility they could sever the unconstitutional parts of the law and apply some of the parts that are more arbitrary. That’s what happened in the Pennsylvania case where the guy was awarded $25k for each year in damages. He still has to register but only what was required at the time of his offense. Not all the extra amendments….. I’m also worried that we won’t all just end up registered under Wyatts’s law months after finally being able to breathe again. To begin the battle all over…. Realistically,,, the judge gave the state plenty of time to change the laws if they wanted to insist on keeping us on any sort of “constitutional” registry that might apply. They haven’t budged. He’s already made the decision. EX POST FACTO must cease. I read something in the Betts case saying it would be argued the same time as snyder. That makes me think some sort of larger argument….. maybe oral arguments on both in feb? I know AG Nessle seems to be on our side ish, or at least she seemed to be in her brief submitted in the bets arguments. In any case,,, I hope to hear some groundbreaking ruling in Feb,,,, but I’m not going to hold my breath. This could easily end up spending more years kicked around the courts. I’ll be optimistic tho and hope to go see some sort of groundbreaking ruling. It would sure be nice.

@Bill, Thanks for posting this, it sounds like those of us that are 50 or older are going to end up dying still on the registry, because nothing is going to get done. The ACLU, has done a great job, but there is no pressure on the state in my opinion. The State needs to be charged $1,000 a day for every registrant that is eligible due to the 2006 and 2011 amendments being found punishment and unconstitutional. Nessel has already admitted the registry was punishment and unconstitutional, so she and Whitmer need to get together shut down the registry until the Legislature gets off their lazy asses and removes ALL pre-2006 and 2011 registrants from the registry. It’s time to stop playing games with these clowns. This entire thing should of been done and over with 3 years ago. Start charging the state monetary damages and paying the registrants $1,000 a day, for being on a registry that was deemed unconstitutional and punitive.

This was filed today… Just keeping you posted.. this is getting very interesting!!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________________________________________________
JOHN DOES #1-6, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
File No. 2:16-cv-13137
Plaintiffs,
v. Hon. Robert H. Cleland
GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the Mag. J. David R. Grand
State of Michigan, and COL. JOSEPH
GASPAR, Director of the Michigan State
Police, in their official capacities,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
The plaintiffs in this case (“Does II”), and the plaintiffs in Does v. Curran, et
al., File No. 3:18-cv-11935 (“Curran”), a case recently transferred to this Court by
Judge Lawson, request a joint status conference, stating as follows:
Overview of the Two Cases
1. Does II v. Whitmer is a class action. The plaintiffs are six registrants, who
represent a primary class of approximately 44,000 Michigan registrants, and two
subclasses of registrants whose offenses predate the 2006 and 2011 SORA amendments. The defendants are Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan State Police
Director Joseph Gaspar, in their official capacities. There are four claims in the
case: ex post facto, vagueness, strict liability, and First Amendment. The plaintiffs
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1101 Page 1 of 10
2
seek declaratory and injunctive relief, but not damages.
2. Does v. Curran is a Section 1983 action brought by two individual
registrants. The defendants are Brendan Curran, Otsego County Prosecuting
Attorney; Mathew Nowicki, Otsego County Sheriff; Ron Puzon, former Otsego
County Deputy; and Kevin Schriner, a Michigan Department of Corrections
Probation Officer, in their individual and official capacities; and Governor
Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan State Police Director Joseph Gaspar, in their
official capacities. The plaintiffs there allege that parts of SORA are void for
vagueness, are impossible to comply with, or wrongly impose strict liability. The
Curran plaintiffs seek damages, in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief.
Curran, Complaint, R. 1.
3. Doe #1 in the Curran case is on the registry for a 2008 juvenile offense, and
Doe #2 is on the registry for a 2010 conviction. Curran, Complaint, R. 1. Both
Curran plaintiffs are members of the Does II primary class and of the 2006-2011
ex post facto subclass. Does II, Class Certification Order, R. 46.
Potential Impact of the Does II Ex Post Facto/Severability Ruling on Curran
4. In Does II, the Court has already decided liability on the ex post facto claim,
entering a stipulated declaratory judgment. R. 55. However, the plaintiffs initially
held off on pursuing injunctive relief in order to give the legislature time to amend
the statute. Because the legislature failed to act, plaintiffs resumed briefing
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1102 Page 2 of 10
3
regarding entry of injunctive relief and related severability issues. Those issues
have been fully briefed, and a hearing is scheduled for February 5, 2020.
5. This Court’s decision on the Does II ex post facto and severability issues
could affect the Curran plaintiffs and will narrow the issues in that case, since both
Curran plaintiffs are members of the 2006-2011 ex post facto subclass. Specifically, if this Court finds that the 2011 amendments are not severable and the statute
cannot be applied, then the portions of SORA challenged by the Curran plaintiffs
cannot be enforced against them. In other words, if this Court were to enjoin
operation of SORA as against the ex post facto subclasses, such an order would
eliminate the need for the ongoing preliminary injunction entered by Judge
Lawson, and at that time could result in the dismissal of the duplicative claims in
Curran.
6. It is also likely that a decision by this Court holding that the 2011 amendments are not severable and voiding the statute for pre-2011 registrants, would
trigger legislative action at long last. Such legislation might well affect the Curran
plaintiffs’ other claims as well.
7. Accordingly, the Court may wish to decide the ex post facto/severability
issues in Does II before it turns to Curran.
Timing and Relationship of the Vagueness and Strict Liability Issues in
Does II and Curran
8. As to the non-ex post facto claims, the Curran plaintiffs seek similar relief
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1103 Page 3 of 10
4
to that sought by the Does II plaintiffs, namely injunctive relief on the vagueness
and strict liability claims against the Governor and Director of the Michigan State
Police. The Curran plaintiffs, however, also brought claims not brought in the
Does II class action – including claims for damages and injunctive relief against
prosecutors, a local law enforcement officer, and a probation officer. Those claims
go beyond the scope of the claims raised in Does II (which limited its claims only
to what had already been decided by this Court and by the Sixth Circuit in Does I,
and which claims were brought only against the two state defendants, namely the
Governor and the Director of the Michigan State Police).
9. The Does II plaintiffs intend to file a motion for partial summary judgment
soon on their vagueness, strict liability, and First Amendment claims. The plaintiffs will be seeking declaratory and injunctive relief consistent with this Court’s
holdings in Does I. As the situation of the Curran plaintiffs demonstrates, class
members continue to face prosecution, despite this Court’s prior decision that
portions of SORA are unconstitutionally vague, cannot impose strict liability, and
violate the First Amendment.
10. Two of the claims that will be addressed in the forthcoming motion for
partial summary judgment—vagueness and strict liability—are also at issue in
Curran. Because the claims in the two cases are similar (though they are not
identical), and because the Curran plaintiffs have filed motions that are fully
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1104 Page 4 of 10
5
briefed (and pending) that overlap with the plaintiffs’ soon-to-be-filed motion for
partial summary judgment as to the primary class (regarding vagueness, strict
liability, and the First Amendment), there may be good reason either to consolidate
Curran with Does II, or otherwise to join the cases, or to place them on parallel
tracks, for purposes of the pending or upcoming motions.
11. Moreover, as noted above, this Court’s decision in Does II may impact
whether a decision on the other claims – either in Does II or in Curran – is
necessary. For example, the legislature could respond to an ex post facto/
severability decision with a new statute. It might therefore make sense for the
Court to proceed with the scheduled hearing on the ex post facto/severability issue,
before addressing the other claims in Does II and before deciding Curran.
12. If this Court’s decision on the ex post facto issue does not trigger legislative
action, this Court will then likely need to decide the forthcoming partial summary
judgment motion in Does II, as well as the motions in Curran.
13. A decision in Does II on vagueness and strict liability will also affect the
Curran plaintiffs. Although this Court’s ruling in Does II will not address all of
the Curran plaintiffs’ claims for relief as to all of the defendants in that case, a
Does II decision regarding injunctive relief on vagueness and strict liability will
narrow the issues in Curran. Therefore, this Court may wish to decide those issues
in the Does II case either before or at the same time as the Curran case.
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1105 Page 5 of 10
6
Maintaining the Preliminary Injunction in Curran Pending a
Decision in Does II
14. During the pendency of briefing on the non-ex-post-facto claims in Does II,
this Court should leave in place the preliminary injunction entered in Curran by
Judge Lawson. While the Curran defendants have argued that the case should be
dismissed because the Curran plaintiffs are members of the Does II class action, it
would be inequitable to do so until the Court can decide on the forthcoming motion
in Does II for injunctive relief on the vagueness and strict liability claims.
15. Absent the preliminary injunction entered by Judge Lawson, the Curran
plaintiffs are at imminent risk of being prosecuted and/or losing their homes, even
though both ought to be covered by this Court’s decision that the school exclusion
zones are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. Both of the
Curran plaintiffs were threatened with prosecution if they did not move from a
residence that the defendants said was within 1,000 feet of a school, but the
plaintiffs believed was not. One plaintiff bought a home – allegedly after first
clearing the purchase with local law enforcement – before being told he had to
move or face prosecution. As to this plaintiff, the prosecutor has explicitly refused
to recognize the authority of this Court’s decision in Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 101 F.
Supp. 3d 672 (2015), and has continued to threaten prosecution of the plaintiff for
the alleged SORA violation. The prosecutor has been clear that he intends to move
forward with prosecution as soon as the injunction is lifted. The other plaintiff uses
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1106 Page 6 of 10
7
Veteran Affairs (VA) benefits to pay his rent, and the VA approved the rental unit.
When he moved into the home, he was able to register it without issue with the
Michigan State Police, but was later told by a probation officer that his home was
within an exclusion zone. Because he is no longer on probation, the threat of
prosecution to this plaintiff may not be as imminent. He has, however, been given
no promises that he would not be prosecuted if the injunction was lifted and
therefore remains in jeopardy.
16. It will take some time until this Court has the opportunity to decide on
class-wide injunctive relief for the vagueness and strict liability claims in Does II.
The Curran plaintiffs should not lose their protection against imminent prosecution
because class counsel in Does II initially relied on the state’s representations that
legislative reforms would address not only those aspects of SORA held unconstitutional by the Sixth Circuit, but also by this Court, and therefore deferred seeking
injunctive relief as to the prospective claims. Without the safety of an ongoing
preliminary injunction, the Curran plaintiffs would be in dire jeopardy of prosecution, contrary to the decisions in Does I.
17. While this Court had dismissed a number of SORA challenges filed independently by class members, those cases were very different from Curran. In
some of those cases, the claims of the “independent” plaintiffs were close enough
to the claims of the primary class and the ex post facto subclasses here that the
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1107 Page 7 of 10
8
Court dismissed the lawsuits as redundant, because those independent plaintiffs
could get effectively the same relief that they were seeking via the class action.
That is not true for the Curran plaintiffs, who not only face imminent prosecution,
but also seek relief against additional defendants not named in Does II, and seek
damages, which are not at issue in Does II. Whether or not this Court ultimately
decides that certain of the Curran plaintiffs’ claims are subsumed in Does II, it
should wait to make that decision until it can adjudicate those claims in Does II.
Request for a Status Conference
18. Accordingly, the plaintiffs in both cases request a status conference to help
the parties and the Court decide how best to proceed.
19. The plaintiffs in both cases are prepared to appear by phone or in person, as
the Court deems appropriate. The Court has scheduled a status conference in
Curran for December 17. Counsel in Does II are prepared to participate at that
time if that is most convenient for the Court. (Lead counsel in Curran is unavailable on December 17, but substitute counsel would be available.)

Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1108 Page 8 of 10
9
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Alyson L. Oliver (P55020)
Oliver Law Group P.C.
363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200
Troy, MI 48226
(248) 327-6556
notifications@oliverlg.com
s/ Paul D. Reingold (P27594)
Michigan Clinical Law Program
363 Legal Research Building
801 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
(734) 763-4319
pdr@umich.edu
Dated: December 12, 2019
s/ Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165)
American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan
1514 Wealthy SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
(616) 301-0930
maukerman@aclumich.org
s/ Daniel Korobkin (P72842)
American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan
2966 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201
(313) 578-6824
dkorobkin@aclumich.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1109 Page 9 of 10
10
Certificate of Service
On December 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed the above motion and brief for
partial summary judgment using the Court’s ECF system, which will send sameday email service to all counsel of record.
s/ Miriam J. Aukerman
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 73 filed 12/12/19 PageID.1110 Page 10 of 1

These registries are a very dark place to be, Couldn’t have said it any better Josh & Dave , Very seldom a lot of hope and belief for us million people on this unconstitutional registry, but this site does a great job of exposing the truth and helping those of us who struggle because of lack of funds and resources , Thanks Janice !! and everyone who supports constitutional reform to a cruel laws and corrupt systems. Michigan does need a good team like they have to support those of us who have no where to turn. It is the holiday season and its so hard to be joyful but hope and faith is all a lot of us have left to hang onto . Happy Holidays too all for what its worth . Hang in there everyone and lets hope for change in 2020 !

Well, it appears that the status conference was held yesterday but there is no report, just a minute update on pacer. Not sure why there is not a report. All the info i can give is the last view-able document was the last one i posted on here. I will check it daily to see if a report appears.

This was filed today

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 18-11935
BRENDAN P. CURRAN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER SETTING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDER
On December 17, 2019, the court held a joint status conference for the cases of
Does v. Snyder, No.16-13137 (“Does II”) and Does v. Curran, No. 18-1935 (“Curran”),
which was attended by counsel for all named parties in both cases. The Curran case
was recently transferred to this court as a companion to Does II.
At the conference, the parties discussed the overlapping legal claims in Curran
and Does II. The parties agreed that the equitable claims in Curran are subsumed by
the equitable claims currently being litigated by the Does II certified class. Based on the
agreement of the parties, and to increase docket efficiency and clarity, the court
explained that it will dismiss the equitable claims of the Curran Plaintiffs. However, the
court also explained that it would not dissolve the preliminary injunction currently in
place in Curran while Does II is pending, and the parties agreed to submit a proposed
stipulated order to that effect. Upon receipt of the parties’ anticipated stipulated order to
extend the preliminary injunction, the court will dismiss the equitable claims in Curran.
The court expects the parties to promptly begin work on formulating such a proposed
order. Accordingly,
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 88 filed 12/18/19 PageID.1196 Page 1 of 2
2
IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit a proposed stipulated order addressing
the continuation of the preliminary injunction by January 3, 2020.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 18, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 18, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810) 292-6522

Not to mention the fact is the 1995 amendment they forced on MANY OF US, states.. they can not share any of the info with no one but law enforcement or they could be held responsible ……….??? Now how could they not be liable for 30 years of smearing and pain and suffering when they got only away with it by claiming it not punitive ??? Everyone know damn well its the most punitive thing a person could be subjected too. Now how and the hell can they not be held accountable ??? There are thousands of us who lost our constitutional rights away years and years ago, who have been living like this only because they can retroactively apply punishment. Last I knew was you had the right to due process if anyone trys to apply punishment in America you had a right to a trial with a judge or a jury . So crazy how they got away with this in the first place and for so long is just crazy .