Summary from FAC: A Pennsylvania Appeals Court has found that the dissemination of persons who have been convicted of sexual offenses’ information on the internet (Megan’s Law) violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution for individuals whose offenses pre-date the ordinance.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court had a prior landmark decision (Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa.2017)) finding similarly, so this new opinion will not likely be groundbreaking, but it will show that the prior findings are being upheld and people in Pennsylvania DO have relief from the public online dissemination of all their information.
So for us less of “Legal Eagles” out here, in a nutshell what does this ruling (decision) amount to. I would assume it is another “Win” for registrants in PA. Will this affect all registrants in PA or only those named?
Thanks
Somehow, somewhere along the line, the courts have lost the age old requirements to apply the law that existed on the date of offense that a person is being charged for… I NEVER hear anyone raise this issue anymore. It’s as if no one cares that is the way the sentencing works! Now everyone argues that the law that existed from the date of conviction should apply… WTH people? This needs to be fixed and fast, because they are making changes in their “practice” right there in plain sight, and everyone just tucks tail and rolls with it… Where are the honest lawyers? (That was a joke)
The key thing here is that in upholding the prior decision, this reaffirms the position that the registry IS punishment, as that is a key element in whether a law violates ex post facto.
Please petition SCOTUS, please petition SCOTUS, please petition SCOTUS…
Though this is essentially Muniz revisited and re-applied to Act 10, it still is a wonderful bit of news. The court even said it was simply striking the portion of Act 10 that failed to meet the criteria of Muniz, and also said the other elements do. However, once again a court has found an avenue that manages to put Smith in question, which is *exactly* what we need.
Something I feel gets missed in all this is that once a court finds a law to ex post facto, it also means the court found the act to be punitive. This matters because it then becomes punishment by legislative act, not the judiciary. This is also known as a Bill of Attainder. The more these things get called ex post facto, the better, even for those convicted after the law’s enactment.
Yet another good ruling from a Pennsylvania court. Seems like the Liberty Bell rings loudest in its home state!
This was challenged for re-argument on November 6, 2019.
We will have to see if a re-challenge is allowed.
It is very possible since looking at the docket it appears that this was NEVER supposed to be a oral argument and that the state claims they were unprepared.
We will have to see.
Opinion is here:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=1566+WDA+2018&dnh=EDlAnEOFyY68hOd9KICxIQ%3d%3d
Does anyone know whatever happened with this case?