Civil rights organization says it’s unconstitutional to label people for life without individual review
DETROIT – Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU), on behalf of 10 people who all previously won federal court rulings that Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) is unconstitutional, filed a federal class action lawsuit against state officials over the latest version of the law. It is the fourth federal lawsuit the civil rights organization has filed challenging SORA in the past decade. The federal courts and the Michigan Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled that the earlier iteration of SORA was unconstitutional.
Today’s lawsuit, Does v. Whitmer, or Does III, filed in U.S. District Court, argues that the new SORA statute, which went into effect in 2021, is also unconstitutional. Specifically, SORA fails to provide for individual review or an opportunity for removal, forcing tens of thousands of people, including people who didn’t even commit a sex offense, to be branded as sex offenders and subjected to extensive, and in most cases life-long restrictions, without any consideration of their individual circumstances, which is a violation of their due process and equal protection rights. The 193-page complaint also argues that SORA imposes unconstitutional retroactive punishment, including by retroactively extending the registration terms of thousands of people to life.
Michigan has one of the largest registries in the country; there are approximately 45,000 Michigan registrants, and almost 10,000 more who live out of state.
“For nearly a decade, we have been fighting to put an end to an ineffective, bloated and unconstitutional registry that not only fails to protect survivors, but in fact makes families and communities less safe,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney. “The latest version of SORA is more of the same, and still puts tens of thousands of people on this list automatically without any consideration of their individual circumstances. What we’re asking for is very simple: consider the facts in each case before someone is tarred as a sex offender for life. Dying shouldn’t be the only way a person can get off the registry.”
Read your jury instructions that are online if you were convicted after a sting op where they unlawfully used a computer/ internet to defraud you. You were tricked if you did a plea to any in-person ONLY crime listed in mcl750.145d1a.
Those crimes cannot be committed on the internet or for showing up for a meeting with a fake underage persona . The laws and court rules are further bolstered by the jury instructions clearing you and demonstrating their multiple felonies against 100’s or probably 1000’s.
Examples: csaa…child sexually abusive activity mcl750.145c2 — they butcher it and keep you from the real full law and jury instructions. Your ” defense” attorneys play along as do the judges.
” mcl 722.675 Disseminating sexually explicit matter to minor…”
Is another hocus pocus prosecution. They are in person only crimes requiring commercial gain for the offenders. The internet is simply the platform utilized to set up the in person crime/s. All the crimes listed in mcl750.145d1a are in person only. It was a huge money maker for the AG and counties but 100% illegal ongoing criminal enterprise by the State officers involved. Commercial activity AND commercial gain with a real underage victim in-person is mandated by law.
THE LAW AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS are on your side. They are the criminals.
@anyone and everyone, just curious if anyone has heard anything new, on the case or if there is anything new on PACER?. I realize the wheels turn slowly, but you would think since when won 3 other cases, the wheels would turn just a little faster. It would be nice if there was at least an injunction put on the case until they work this out, I mean it’s not rocket science, the state lost 3 times , and changing a few words in the so called new law, doesn’t change the fact that they are going to lose again. They just need to speed it up a little bit in my opinion.
😕 I am concerned about the precedent being set by the State of Michigan (i.e., ignore the courts’ rulings, ignore the deadlines set for legislature to take action, make only minor tweaks around the edges, etc)… I am afraid this is exactly what we will see if PLF wins it’s lawsuit against USDOJ’s New SORNA Regulations. Sorry to be so pessimistic*, but the hysteric mobs and pandering politicians seem wedded for life to their beloved S.O. Registries. 😩
*Time to double-up on my meds! 😆
But, on a happy note, I am quite certain that PLF will win it’s lawsuit against new SORNA!! 👍🏻😁
@Michigan, Don’t mean to keep asking the same question over and over, but has there been anymore word on what’s going on with the lawsuit. Last time I saw anything on here , I guess the State asked to have the lawsuit dismissed or something like that, did the ACLU respond to that ridiculous request. Just trying to keep this lawsuit in the limelight. Any info on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to everyone for their time on this matter.
More lies from Michigan prosecutors;Lansing State Journal
Judge fines Clinton County prosecutor’s office $1,200 for not giving evidence to defenseKara Berg, Lansing State Journal
Sat, July 16, 2022, 5:55 PM
I was placed in the registry in 2007 at the age of 17 (Tier 2; 17 year old senior with a 15 year old sophomore who said she had too much to drink)
I moved to Ohio in 2020 and the attorney general said according to the laws of Ohio that I would have only been required to register for 10 years and being that 13 years had past I had zero obligation to register in Ohio and I was free to live my life as long as I live here (obviously haven’t left)
my name still appears on Michigan’s SOR but with no address other than stating live in Ohio (city and address not stated)
Obviously this risk assessment talk is all up in the air/ speculation at this point but lets say Michigan adopts this.
Would my traveling back to Michigan for a successful risk assessment remove me from michigans sor along with the federal?
Michigan – just came across another recent (2022) Michigan Appeals Court case worth reading. Looks like the Appeals Court is “getting it” finally. This case, coupled with the recent Nunez case clearly state that the 2021 Michigan SORA is punishment.
People v. Lymon
Did anyone else receive this email today from Tim at the ACLU. My question is how long does it take for the Judge to make a decision usually. Here is the email if anyone is interested. Update from the Litigation Team
As we reported back in May, Judge Goldsmith certified the class in Does III and appointed the Does III litigation team as class counsel. That means that everyone who is on Michigan’s sex offender registry is automatically part of the case.
Over the summer we have been briefing two major motions.
First, we requested a preliminary injunction on several of our claims. If a preliminary injunction is granted, it will give class members temporary relief while the case is being litigated. As you know, these cases take years to litigate, and we want to protect class members as much as possible during that time. We sought a preliminary injunction on the claims where temporary relief could have the most impact and where preliminary relief before final judgment is appropriate.
The claims for which we sought preliminary relief are:
We have additional claims on which we did not seek preliminary relief, but that could provide further relief at a later point in the case.
Second, the state has moved to dismiss the entire case, including both the claims described above and our other claims. We have of course opposed that motion.
Both motions are now fully briefed, meaning that they are ready for the Court to issue a decision. The Court may or may not hold a hearing on the motions before making a decision.
If you would like to see a copy of our briefs, they are available here.
Finally, there are a number of cases challenging SORA that are going through the Michigan state courts. Anyone charged with a SORA violation should make sure that your defense counsel consults with the State Appellate Defender Office on the status of those cases when developing your defense.
Miriam Aukerman
Senior Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
Respectfully Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist
A very good article from New Jersey, known for its tough registry laws, about a guy who had a juvenile conviction and subsequently ordered onto the registry for life petitioned for removal when he wasn’t eligible to do so, and the judge ordered his removal on the grounds that his offense predated the implementation of Megan’s Law.
Hopefully the moderators will see the relevance of this and allow it to be posted, as it pertains to pushes for changes in registry laws. [Note: This article starts with a very false statement. The first word should not be “Most”, but maybe “Some”].
Reformers push for Megan’s Law changes for juvenile offenders.
Am curious as to what has been said in these phone conferences. But past experience has taught me that the ACLU will keep us in the dark on that informatino.
I sent this email to Tim. Hopefully I’ll hear something back from him.
Tim,
I’m reaching out to you because there are quite a few of us would like to know what was said during the phone conferences with Judge Goldsmith and the State. Past experience has shown us that we are usually kept in the dark where these are concerned. And well… we would like to see that practice come to an end.
We just want all of you there to understand that it’s OUR LIVES that is affected by SORA. And we are respectfully requesting to be kept in the loop with what is going on in these proceedings. Don’t get me wrong, we greatly appreciate everything that everyone at the ACLU is doing for us. We just don’t want to be kept in the dark on matters that affect us and our loved ones.
I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.
@all Michiganders, quick question, Tim from ACLU says that I still need to do this as of now, but I thought I would ask all of you first. My sister got a brand new car and she is giving me her old car, so my question is as a pre-sorna 2006 and 2011 person. Heck I’m pre-95. Anyway as a pre-sorna person, do I still need to report my car info. I get confused, exspecially with the new 2021 law that was unconstitutionally passed. Thank you in advance for your help everyone.
So did anyone here in Oakland County hear on the news about the Oakland County Sheriff’s Deputy, that was just charged for texting a person who he believed was a 15 years old girl? He sent the person sexual explicit pictures and even sent pictures of him in his uniform. He even tried to setup a meeting with the alleged victim. He was even texting this person while on duty at the jail. So how does SORA protect people when law enforcement is even doing it, AND he was doing it on the job? I got 5 to 20 years for my offense, for soliciting over the internet to a minor back in 2002 in Oakland County. First offense ever. Let’s see what they give him… I bet just a slap on the wrist
I was convinced of csc4th in 2001 at age 17 for giving girl titty twister in class who was 14 . I was. Placed on registry for 15yrs pre 2011. I served time 12 yrs in prison for separate offense (home invasion) from 19 to 31. Got out and found out sora changed and none. Of my time incarcerated. Counted towards registry and I now am under this new law where. I must serve as tier two offender. For 25 yrs. Even though I have never recommited any type of csc offense since that first one when I was a kid trying to flirt in the wrong way. I feel being placed on registry for a second time for same offense and for even longer than original conviction term is doubled Jeopardy and it has presented difficult hardships in furthering my education and employment . I have had to work in unhealthy foundries cause I am not accepted at employment of.my.choosing.
@everyone, I got this email from Tim @the ACLU today. Update from Does III Legal Team
We have received some questions about the recent status conferences with Judge Goldsmith, and so we wanted to let class members know what has been happening at those. Among other things, status conferences are used as a way for the judge to talk to the attorneys about case management issues, meaning the mechanics of how the case will go forward. Judges usually hold status conferences off the record with the attorneys, as Judge Goldsmith did here.
In the last two status conferences Judge Goldsmith wanted to explore different possible procedural mechanisms for moving the case forward. Currently the judge has two fully briefed motions to consider. The first is our motion for a preliminary injunction, the goal of which is to get interim, relatively quick (by legal standards) relief while the case is being litigated (which can take many years). The second is the state’s motion to dismiss, which argues that we do not have valid claims and that the case should end for that reason. The judge wanted to see if there would be other motions that could be filed instead of those motions, because he would like the case to move forward to a final resolution. Moving to final resolution, however, would likely delay the issuance of any relief because the state has the right to put forward evidence to oppose the evidence we have presented. We are waiting to hear whether the judge will rule on the motions before him, or whether he will order us to do something different.
We are hopeful that we will get some kind of ruling from the judge relatively soon (perhaps in the next couple months), although we cannot know when that will be. We will continue to keep you updated on developments in the case.
Miriam Aukerman
Senior Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
Respectfully Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist
@everyone on Michigan, did anyone else receive the two emails from Tim@ ACLU?, So I understand no injunction will be granted , so according to Tim, this should speed up the case supposedly. Does anyone understand what the rest of it means, I read it but court lingo is confusing, could someone please explain it in layman terms. I would very much appreciated it. Hopefully this entire thing will becoming to an end soon.
Why do I feel optimistic
Hello everyone in Michigan, I was just wondering if anyone else got an email today, from Tim@ the Michigan ACLU.
67
Nov 17, 2022
Main Doc
Stipulation and order
Ive been following this a long time. as ive been on the list since y2k my senior year in high school. any update on whats going on?
68
Nov 29, 2022
Main Doc
Stipulation and Order
69
Nov 29, 2022
Main Doc
Protective Order
71
Dec 13, 2022
Main Doc
Stipulation and Order
72 Dec 15, 2022 Main Doc Appearance
73 Dec 16, 2022 Main Doc Appear*
Now here is a thought I have not read here.
My instant offense was 1987. Yes, 35 years ago.
Judge Cleland ruled that the 2006 and 2011 registry are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Therefore, has no effect of law since 2011 and I/we would not even be on the registry when the new law march, 2021, took effect.
That means, the new law has no effect on those retro actively as I/we were not on the registry at the time of it be inacted.
Rather or not the new law is Constitutional really isn’t the issue for us. Although helps. Retroactive law that goes back 10 years to recapture those no longer on the registry is.
I hope I made sense here. Is that being argued?