MI: ACLU Sues State Officials for the Fourth Time over Unconstitutional Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act

Good God, will this Michigan Case EVER be finally, ultimately, permanently concluded?? 😩

(Yes, Lone Ranger, there is a limit even to MY patience!! 😖 )

I found this today;

78
Jan 9, 2023
INDEX of Exhibits re 77 Report (Free) by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Plaintiffs First Requests for Production & First Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B – Merged Document with Plaintiffs Excerpted Requests to Admit and Defendants Responses, # 3 Exhibit C – Defendants Responses to First Requests for Production and First Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit D – Defendants Amended Responses to First Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit E – Opinion & Order, Does II v. Whitmer, 16-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich.), ECF 121, # 6 Exhibit F – Sample of Does I Law Enforcement Sweep Information, # 7 Exhibit G – Sample of Does I Data on Registry Size, # 8 Exhibit H – MSPs Release of Information Sex Offender Registry Form (Form RI-46)) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 01/09/2023)
Main Doc

79
Jan 10, 2023
Supplemental Joint Status Report re Discovery REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – MDOC Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit B – MDOC Response to Subpoena) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 01/10/2023)
Main doc

finally making the state show their cards

Probably not the right spot to post this, but Kent county sheriff is doing compliance checks 1/14/2023 Came to my house @8:52 pm 3 officers.
My wife was extremely upset. I informed the Officer I have a GPS strapped to my leg (lifetime) so why do you too visit my house? His response we don’t have access to that. Was extremely rude so shut the door and walked away.

Well it looks to me like the Michigan state police are ordered to give up their non public information;

cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 83, PageID.2364 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 3
JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendants. __________________________/
Case No. 22-cv-10209
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
OPINION REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF NON-PUBLIC DATA
In this class action challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act, Mich. Comp. L. § 28.721 et seq. (SORA), the parties filed a joint status report identifying multiple areas of disagreement relating to discovery (Dkt. 77). The Court held a hearing on these issues on January 12, 2023. At the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to disclose non-public data contained in the sex offender registry established under SORA, and it then issued an order memorializing this ruling (Dkt. 81).1
Defendants argued that SORA explicitly prohibits them from releasing non-public registry data. SORA states that, unless otherwise provided by the statute, “a registration or report is confidential and information from that registration or report shall not be open to inspection except for law enforcement purposes.” Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1). Defendants argued that a plain
1 The non-public data includes (i) non-public information about registrants who are listed on the public sex offender registry, and (ii) information about registrants who are listed on the confidential law enforcement database but not the public sex offender registry. See Mich. Comp. L. § 28.728(1)–(2).
    
Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 83, PageID.2365 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 3
reading of this statute prohibits disclosure of non-public registry information outside of the law enforcement context, including for use in civil discovery. See Joint Status Rep. at 19–22.
SORA should not be read to prohibit the disclosure of information about registrants— “[v]irtually all” of which, submit Plaintiffs, “was provided . . . by the registrants themselves,” id. at 10—to registrants’ own counsel. The court in Does, et al. v. Snyder, et al. (Does II) considered a similar question in a class action that challenged an earlier iteration of SORA, and it found that Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1) did not bar the disclosure of non-public registry data to class counsel. See Does II, Case No. 16-cv-13137, 6/21/21 Op. & Order at 17–22 (No. 16-cv-13137, Dkt. 121). Noting that SORA criminalizes the disclosure of non-public registry data made by all individuals except registrants themselves, id. at 20 (citing Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(4)), the court found that it “should presume that reports available to an individual directly can also be provided to his counsel even when the public at large is barred from accessing such information,” id. at 21 (citing People v. Malkowski, 188 N.W.2d 559, 560 n.1 (Mich. 1971) (finding that statute prohibiting “‘public inspection’” of probation officer reports “should not be construed to deny access by either a defendant or his attorney to presentence reports”)). The court also observed that Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730 was intended to protect registrants’ privacy. Id. at 21. It concluded that Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1) did not “prevent [defendants] from disclosing to class counsel non-public registrant information for registrants who are already members of the certified class.” Id. at 22.
Similarly, Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case—who represent all individuals who are or will be subject to registration under SORA—are not barred from accessing information about their clients based on a statute designed to protect those individuals’ confidentiality. See id. Additionally, any concerns about safeguarding the registrants’ private information are alleviated by the protective order already in effect in this case (Dkt. 38).
  2

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 83, PageID.2366 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 3
Defendants attempt to distinguish Does II by observing that the court ordered the disclosure of registry information at the post-judgment stage of litigation; in contrast, the present action is in discovery. See Joint Status Rep. at 19–22. The Court sees no significance in this distinction for purposes of interpreting Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730. Does II drew no such line, and it cited an opinion that ordered the release of information relevant to ongoing discovery despite defendants’ argument that a statute criminalized disclosure of that information. 6/21/21 Op. & Order at 19–20 (citing Dupuie-Jarbo v. Twenty-Eighth Dist. Ct., Case No. 10-cv-10548, 2010 WL 2813343, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2010) (ordering production of criminal records and limiting access to those documents to parties’ attorneys)). The Does II court did flag that the disclosure of class list information “sometimes raise[d] unique privacy concerns, especially at the pre-certification stage,” but it stated that these “concerns are reduced after a class has already been certified.” Id. at 21 n.6. Like in Does II, the class in this case has been certified. See 5/18/22 Order (Dkt. 35).
The rationale underlying the decision in Does II applies with equal force here. Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1) is no bar to the disclosure of non-public data about Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs’ own counsel.
   SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2023 Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge.

another good day!

Another step forward;

85
Jan 30, 2023
Main Doc
Appear*

so far I haven’t seen any steps backwards.

Well, its been one year and one day, since Does lol was filed and we are making very slow progress. I just wish the judge would make a decision on a injunction or make a final ruling in general and order the state to finally remove pre-sorna people once and for all and put unend to all this unconstitutional nonsense.

Today’s update;

88
Mar 1, 2023
Main Doc
Protective order,

slow, but forward,,,,

on a personal note, just made the last extortion payment …$550.00 total I think,,,,
30 days misdemeanor became 30yrs this coming May …

only plus to this is knowing I’m not the only one.

Hope This works;

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 90, PageID.2400 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 1
JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendants. __________________________/
Case No. 22-cv-10209
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE ON RECORD
On March 15, 2023, the Court held a status conference on the record regarding the parties’ disagreement on the appropriateness of Defendants’ asking certain questions relating to example offenses registrable on Michigan’s sex offender registry during one of Plaintiffs’ depositions.
Until further order of the Court, Defendants are prohibited from asking deponents about examples of offenses registrable on Michigan’s sex offender registry, other than deponents’ own offenses. The Court directs each party to file on the record a memorandum on this issue, not to exceed five pages, by 12:00 p.m. on March 17, 2023.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 15, 2023 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

I think this is a good day,,,

todays update;
91 Mar 16, 2023 Main Doc Stipulation and Order
one step at a time….