DETROIT (AP) — Michigan’s policy of putting people on a sex-offender registry even if their crime was nonsexual is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court said Monday.
In a 5-2 decision, the court said a portion of a 2021 law is “cruel or unusual punishment” barred by the Michigan Constitution.
A Wayne County man in 2015 was convicted of holding his wife and two children at gunpoint for hours. After his release from prison, he would face 15 years on the sex-offender registry because his unlawful-imprisonment conviction involved minors.
“Although defendant’s offense was undoubtedly severe, that offense contained no sexual element and no indication that defendant poses a risk of committing sexual crimes in the future,” Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said.
“Defendant is not personally or morally responsible for having committed a sex offense, and yet SORA treats him as if he is,” she said, using an acronym for the registry.
Supreme Court of Michigan ruled yesterday in People v Lymon that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to list someone on the Michigan registry when no sexual intent was involved. I posted the 100 page court decision on the Florida Action Committee general comments section website. I think we will get a glimpse of what the court will view the 2021 Michigan Sorna case with some of the court logic in this case. The dissenting justices still are trying so hard to say it’s not punishment.
Lymon vs the state of Michigan. Man wins case being placed on Sorna for kidnapping charge.
PEOPLE v LYMON
this could be a look at how the Judges rule on the 2021 Sorna talks a lot about Smith Betts. Worth the read.
I just read the summary, and it appears that the dissent still clings to Smith v. Doe. It’s completely idiotic reasoning, in that no registry, federal and Michigan included, bears any resemblance to the Alaska registry deemed civil in 2003 beyond its title. Every single jurisdiction in the US had legislated out every single characteristic of the 2003 Alaska registry that led to the civil conclusion.
To say “…countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety” is somewhat correct – no one ever counted how many actually do and if they did, it probably wouldn’t be very many. The same, tired claims of people being unable to know if someone they had hired as a teacher or sitter or coach is belied by normal, routine criminal background checking (unless Michigan doesn’t include sex crimes in its criminal records).
Further, the dissent’s claim that the registry offers any kind of protection at all is simply absurd, shown by arrest records every year. 95% + of sex offenses are by first timers. And of the very few and far between recidivist registrants, the new sex charge is never accompanied by a registry violation (showing that the obligations and restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the commission of sex crime by registrants).
Recently (the Chevron standard, maybe?), some federal court held that the government must demonstrate that a law purporting to serve a state interest must actually do so. That needs to make its way into more registry-challenging cases (along with another holding I’ve read and can’t remember that a law or rule isn’t automatically constitutional simply because a legislature intended it to be). It’s getting pretty tiresome for court after court to say efficacy is irrelevant to constitutional analysis in registry cases only.
And finally, the day the day the registry provides anything substantial – i.e., something that couldn’t be found anywhere else through normal investigative procedure – to any criminal investigation (apart from registry violations) is the day I eat my house.
Another drop in the bucket is nowhere near good enough. This is just another attempt to keep a blatantly unconstitutional scheme in place.
“The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. … Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,” said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano. Well that’s why someone can run a background check on a potential babysitter you moron.
If it’s cruel and unusual for people who were not convicted of a sex crime, then its cruel and unusual for everyone else on the registry.
You can’t have it just one way.
But wait, I’m sure the MI Legislature will reach out to James Lower and have him come back and re-write the law so that these people will be forced to continue to register. Then another lawsuit can be filed and then rinse and repeat 10 years later. Sound familiar????
When we lose we lose, and when we “win” we lose! I’m sick of all of this!!!!
So, the guy terrifies his children by holding a gun to their heads for two hours yet it has been decided that the poor dear shouldn’t be stigmatized — for a mere 15 years — with placement on the Registry. That would be “cruel and unusual.”
Yet in CA, my 288.2 violation from 1997, (a non-violent, no lewdness, no false imprisonment, no intimidation, no touching act which involved allowing a 16yo to see a Penthouse) landed me in Tier 3, where I rub elbows with the likes of the Zodiac Killer and Hillside Strangler. For life.
Yeah, I’m bitter.
Soon most of the US will be registered im pretty sure that’s the point it’s easier to keep up with a population if most of the people are on some kind of registry criminal or not
The Michigan Supreme Court just ruled the registry is punishment in their argument.
You can’t get any clearer than that.
When a Judge hands out a sentence, it’s either punishment or it isn’t.
There cannot be ambiguity for one type of offense versus another concerning punishment.
IIRC, didn’t PA rule the same a number of years ago and were removing those who had to register despite their conviction not being sexually related? I am not finding it online, but only where the state legislature was going to address it with a bill.
“The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. … Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,” said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.”
I’m assuming these judges would advocate and call for anyone that raised their hand to a child to be on a public registry as well? I’m sure parents would be interested to know if the babysitter has a history of assaulting children. It’s not like non-sexual physical and mental abuse is the number one form of child abuse or anything.
It’s punishment for people not forced to register then it’s classified as punishment for people on the list. You can’t have it both ways. This is why I think the Judges are going to have a hard time doing legal gymnastics as to why explain the 2013 Michigan was illegal but not the amended 2021 version. Remember the key expert said for the state the 2021 is virtually identical to the Federal Sorna. So if this it was determined it’s classified as punishment to be on the list here then Federal Sorna should be classified as punishment as well since it’s virtually identical to Michigan law. Even more so the 2021 version of Michigan Sorna if all they did was get rid of geographical restrictions zones nothing changed which should make the law void. Hopefully ACLU for 4th on going lawsuit took notes.
Yaaawwwnn!!! Another Michigan ruling? Let’s see how long this won’t stick