Source: ACSOL
The Michigan Supreme Court today issued a decision declaring that the state’s sex offender law adopted in 2011 cannot retroactively be applied to a registrant convicted two years earlier. The Court based its decision upon the ex post facto clauses of both the Michigan and the U.S. Constitutions.
“Today’s decision is a significant victory not only for the registrant involved in this case, but also for all Michigan registrants convicted prior to 2011,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “This decision can and should be used as a precedent in every state and federal court.”
In its decision, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the “aggregate punitive effects” of the state law “negated the state’s intention to deem it a civil regulation.” In addition, the Court found that the state law “bore resemblance to the traditional punishments of banishment, shaming and parole because of its limitations on residency and employment, publication of information and encouragement of social ostracism…” Further, the Court found that the law “appeared retributive” and “appeared excessive.”
At issue in the case were provisions of the 2011 law that created a tiered classification system as well as duties and requirements of each registrant based upon the registrant’s tier classification. One of those requirements was the publication of personal information on the state’s Megan’s Law website.
“The Michigan Supreme Court is to be commended for speaking the truth today in its decision,” stated Bellucci. “The court did not accept the government’s stated intention that its registration laws were civil regulations and instead examined closely the effect of those laws leading to the conclusion that the laws punished registrants.”
Download a PDF of the decision:
People v. Betts – Ex Post Facto – July 2021
Great decision! But I’m still confused as to why the conviction date matters if the general matter is deemed punitive? Wouldn’t imposing the same restrictions on someone convicted today be just as bad as imposing them on someone convicted in 2010? I don’t see any rational in saying two people convicted of the same thing 15 years apart is more burdensome on the older conviction. Regardless, excellent move and a step in the right direction!
A moment of clarity and moral strength, at long last. Congratulations and thanks to all those who fought this good fight. I pray that the California Sup. Court will soon follow suit. And maybe, just maybe, someday, the U.S. Supremes too.
Congrats!
And Boom! There goes a huge salvo stating today’s iteration of the registry is punitive! This is huge when Janice goes up to SCOTUS.
Great Job!!!
wow so many of us have be dealing with this since day one,unbelievable
Good. The inconveniences the people have to deal with impedes a quality of life for the person with regards to housing, jobs, education, going to church, school, just about everything. Get rid of the moniters, the extreme restructions and treat the registrants like any other parolee.
You know if you know , this is huge in every way . Wowww!
Great news!
So we’ve learned just how easy it is to convince the people chuck limits on congressional power into file 13. I cannot say precisely ” who it was” in MI that created the bill utilizing ex-post language applied to those already convicted. You can bet your backsides I know precisely ” who it was” in WI. He quite literally hand fed the bill to WI’s legislative branch. I found the record of it in our reference bureau and it came with bipartisan support. All of this on the heals of the MN kidnapping of Jacob W, and morbid Jeffery Dahlmer case here on the homefront. It was easy then, and they were willing to try anything, because doing nothing was not an option. I think this court found itself in the same situation – forced to do something. According to the author at issue was the tiers scheme that flipped the opinion with respect to civil intent of congressional aim behind the registration regime. This is so because under smith v doe, state presumably pinned ” necessity ” on conviction itself and not dangerousness. Using a tier system disproves the reliance on conviction as justification and drops it in the lap of dangerousness. In the end game states all still got to violate the constitution first and apologize later. Essentially in effect this means no constitution really exists for individuals in real time.
The people have yet to acknowledge they’ve decided to reinstate human indenture and slavery to machine upkeep. That is the ultimate question, and it be not one of the rights of citizenship, but of the morality in human right itself.
Is this ruling based on date of conviction or date of the crime?
Many registrants have experienced delayed prosecutions. If you committed a crime before 2010, but weren’t convicted of that crime until 2012, you do not benefit from this ruling, correct?
Just when the restrictive nature of the registry is about to make you pass out and your vision begins to tunnel into darkness…there’s a slight release to the tension and pressure. And for a moment, just a moment, you can breathe again. And you think to yourself, “Maybe this won’t last forever.” You dare to let yourself smile and hope.
Yet another state supreme court flips the middle finger at the United States Supreme Court. Hey, Chief Justice Roberts, sit and spin!!!
AH HAAAAA. The stars have aligned. The forks are on the left the knives are on the right. The table has been set and the monstrosity that is the registry is falling apart before my very eyes.
It would be nice if Texas laws was changed and they honored the plea agreements
Especially awesome because this opinion automatically destroys the new Michigan Sex Offender law that did NOT address the in person reporting and the lifetime registration. Here comes the boom!
California I hope is next Janice. Dynamic risk assessments or nothing. Can’t classify me as tier 3 without risk assessments. I will wait a little longer before I file my suit to see if anything is going to happen here in CA.
I received this email from Paul Reigngold today. It explains a little more about today’s decision. We are NOT cleared for removal quite yet. Sorry for the delayed response but I was off the grid for 8 days.
As a result of the status conference the parties have now submitted a proposed judgment with just a couple of small areas of disagreement. We expect the court to review it and to enter a final judgment fairly soon.
In addition, today the Mich Supreme Court decided People v Betts. The Court held that the old SORA was unconstitutional under the state constitution for the same reasons that the federal courts held it to be unconstitutional under the federal constitution. So yet another court is lining up on our side.
Until the new 2021 SORA is held to be unconstitutional, nearly everyone will remain on the registry, but the decision in Betts gives us some reason for hope. In the meantime we are working hard to move the new class action lawsuit (challenging SORA 2021) forward.
P. for removal quite yet.
The 2011 SORA was imposed on people for the sole fact of their prior offenses and made no individualized determination of the dangerousness of each registrant, indicating that SORA’s restrictions were retribution for past offenses rather than regulations to prevent future offenses.
If this were to apply to all other states (lets say California) does this mean that an expungement/dismissal through PC 1203.4 would be enough to get off the registry?
As of right now a dismissal does not get you off the registry because it is not considered punitive but if it were considered to be punitive through ex post facto then that means it would be double jeopardy for having to register even after a dismissal. Not sure if this is correct or maybe wishful thinking but would this be a good argument?
It sounds like a great victory to me, but I have the same question as SR. If it is deemed punitive pre 2011, it should be deemed punitive regardless. No additional restrictions should be applied retroactively period. Still, congratulations on this accomplishment!!
And just because CA does not have residency restrictions does not mean that everything else does not apply
Thanks so much*, U.S.News & World Report, for underplaying the importance of the EX POST FACTO & UNCONSTITUTIONAL aspects of the Decision!!😠😡🤬:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2021-07-27/court-erases-conviction-of-man-in-sex-offender-registry-case
Asshats! 😡 *Sarcasm intended!
(So I can’t use my Price Club membership in Michigan? 😲)
What’s the ruling for Baltimore Maryland people who were convicted in 1999 to serve only 10 years on the register and then change to life isn’t that an unfair conviction to be convicted twice
Good coverage here:
https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2021/07/michigan-supreme-court-says-sex-offender-registry-punishes-cant-be-applied-retroactively.html
I feel like the Megan’s law rules to register. It makes the family of the offender, that are also innocent get judged, wrongly discriminated, bullied and harassed and treated unfairly just walking outside their own door. When they have a clean record and also lose every place they go because of being judged and harassed by all the neighbors. Even our poor innocent children get judged and it is wrong. To have the information publically actually makes the women and children victims and targets of the family of the offender to others and the public in general. So it makes so every one harassed not only the offender but their entire family. It makes it so their kids have no friends in the neighborhood to play with and the mother of the child even hides inside 24/7 because of the harassment and bullying from all the neighbors and constantly being judged. So it does not do any good to the recovered offenders who have families now at all. It is just making things worse for the family who recovered and their children and makes them feel unsafe in their home. They even get break ins and theft because our address is public.