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.”
It seems that MSP should be sending out a letter. I believe Lansing won’t actually do anything with SORA unless the federal judge issues another warning.
@WONDER WOMAN. Exactly. How do we get paperwork from Lansing that this is in effect. However, we all understand how Michigan drags it’s heels. Right down to local government. I got 60 days for my charge. I wrote the judge and got a time cut. The jail did not release me. My wife got the paperwork in the mail and went down and demanded my release. They sent her home. I was released the next day. Called her from the jail and started jogging home the 8 miles. She found me in route. No one, at any level of government, wants to do anything on our favor. So what the h*ll are we suppose to do?
Court listener update;
May 17, 2024
Text-Only Order
kind of caught me off guard,
Here’s the pace monitor update;
Docket last updated: 10 hours agoFriday, May 17, 2024order Text-Only Order Fri 05/17 10:17 AM
TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs, on or before May 28, 2024, on the applicability of Doe v. Lee, No. 23-5248 2024 WL 2179378 (6th Cir. May 15, 2024) to the pending motions for summary judgment. The briefs may not exceed five pages, exclusive of attachments. SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith.
Today’s filings;
145
May 24, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental Brief
Here is pace monitor’s version;
May 24, 2024145 pacermonitor 14 day trial respm Supplemental Brief Fri 05/24 9:37 AM
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re129 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Text-Only Order, Defendants Supplemental Brief Addressing The Sixth Circuits Decision In Lee filed by Joseph Gasper, Gretchen Whitmer. (Jamison, Eric)
Here’s the plaintiffs brief;
146
May 28, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental
I have not read it, I hope someone can post.
Another filing;
147
May 30, 2024
Main Doc
Substitute Party
A closer look ;
147 pacermonitor pricing motion Substitute Party Thu 05/30 11:30 AM
MOTION to Substitute Party by Joseph Gasper, Gretchen Whitmer. (Jamison, Eric)
I was just doing my FTR,
and was told a person came from Mass. and was heading right back because Michigan was to harsh,,,
I’m a Tier 2 pre 2011, and the question on my mind is if Michigan is forced to give us a individualized assessment which would give us a path off the registry, would I then be able to get my one and only felony expunged? Yes, finally getting off the registry would be awesome, but having a fully clean slate would be even better. I’m not holding my breath with how things went last time, but considering that has been my only F up in my entire life, I just want to not have anything hanging over my head anymore. Fingers crossed we all get some good news when the judge finally makes a ruling.
Today’s posting;
Date Filed
Description
148
Jun 7, 2024
Main Doc
Order on Motion to Substitute Party.
Pacer monitor site ;
Docket last updated: 9 hours agoThursday, June 06, 2024148 1 pgs orderOrder on Motion to Substitute Party Fri 06/07 8:31 AM
ORDER granting147 Motion to Substitute Party. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (TTho
@ Bobby S.
The court acknowledges the substitution the state is asking for.
I think that’s what it means?
Wow we expected to hear some news by now,this should have been a slam dunk
Did anyone else see House Bill 5869? Lots of changes related to under 18 convection. My question is how would a freshly passed amended law affect the current case?
This morning’s update;
Filed
Description
149
Jul 12, 2024
Main Doc
Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File
@ Bobby S,
Sorry I don’t know?
Here is pacer monitor version;
2024149
1 pgs orderOrder on Motion for Leave to File Fri 07/12 4:21 PM
ORDER Granting Motions for Leave to File Amicus Briefs (Dkts.136 ,138 ,139 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (MNee)
that’s all I have.
This morning’s movement;
150
Jul 16, 2024
Main Doc
Order AND ~Util – Set Deadlines/Hearings
this might be worth investigating?
This is pacer monitor version;
150 ORDER for Status Conference: ( Zoom Status Conference set for 7/22/2024 at 02:00 PM before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith ). Zoom instructions will be separately emailed to counsel. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (MNee)
ole’ Well, ,,,,,,, how many dents can a can take being kicked down the road,
Fine print on the bottom of the can;
151
Jul 18, 2024
Main Doc
Appear*
Dr.
pacermonitor put this up;
agoThursday, July 18, 2024151 notice Appear* Thu 07/18 9:08 AM
NOTICE TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE: Telephone Status Conference set for 7/18/2024 at 12:30 PM before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith . Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the call, and then include the Court by calling (313) 234-5240 when all parties are on the line. Zoom Status Conference set for 7/22/2024 at 02:00 PM before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith is CANCELLED. (MNee)
With a little effort and research;
JOHN DOES et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
v. Case No. 22-cv-10209
GRETCHEN WHITMER et al.,
Defendants. _________________________________/
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
ORDER FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
The Court will convene a status conference by Zoom on July 22, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss whether the Fourth Amendment claim asserted in John Does, et al. v. Michigan State Police, et al., 21-cv-12843, should now be addressed, given that a summary judgment record and briefing have been filed in John Does, et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer, et al., 22-cv-10209. Zoom instructions will be separately emailed to counsel.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2024 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
Here’s today’s update;
152
Jul 25, 2024
Main Doc
Response
Here’s the pacer monitor version;
152 respm Response to Motion Thu 07/25 9:46 AM
RESPONSE to138 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief ,139 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Exceed Page Limit ,136 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Defendants’ Brief in Response to the Amicus Briefs Filed by the Scholars of Criminal Justice, Professors Araiza, Janus, and Mayson, and Professors Berman, Edmonds, Simon, Starr, Yung and Logan filed by James Grady, Gretchen Whitmer. (Damich, Scott)
@ Bobby S,
even though we see the can get kicked down the road, on occasion, the road is a dead end for the state, because most of this lawsuit has already been decided on in the Betts case…
this is a class action lawsuit so everyone can have the same rights as Betts.
Heres a question. It may be a dumb one but im not positive about it. Is just simple possession and computer commit a crime considered a sex offense if no victim was involved? Because I have been reading around about some leway for those who did not commit a sexual offense. Im just guessing here but since I had no other person involved (so no victim) its not really a sexual offense. Should just be considered a cybercrime. Thats just my guess.