Certiorari DENIED in Snyder and Karsjens – SCOTUS and Florida Sex Offenders
News from SCOTUS on Sexual Offender Laws
It’s now official – Certiorari has been denied in Snyder and Karsjens
What’s next for Florida Sexual Offenders?
Our position on Snyder from last week stands. That was; if the SCOTUS felt there were no reviewable issues in the 6th Circuit Decision finding the registration requirements constituted ex post facto PUNISHMENT, this is not a bad outcome.
We now must move forward with our own challenge.
Go for it while the ‘iron is hot!’
This is Awesome !!!. Better than what could of happened !!. I’m regaining a little faith !!!. Now let’s file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT against Florida !!!. This starts the Ball “Rolling” Just hope it’s not Uphill !!!. .
I’m in!
It’s Florida. Flat as it is, any progress in this state is uphill.
Yes, but let’s not forget McGuire in the 11th Circuit is still pending. The 11th Circuit has already referenced Snyder when denying the Miami Dade dismissal.
Snyder is also referred to in the latest documents:
http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf
(credit given to G.W. on September 29, 2017 at 12:05 pm for the above link in the Supreme Court Update article)
Thanks for the shout out Mike. Now let’s ROCK and ROLL the judicial system people !!!!!!!!
I had a very strong feeling Snyder would be denied. There was no reason to touch it unless to overturn. The 6th circuit got it right and the SG agreed. I’m glad they left it ” as is “. Now we can move forward with this for pending cases and like I mentioned in a previous post, Snyder is now amplified( a lot stronger ) by the backing approval of both SCOTUS and the SG. Indeed wonderful news.
Of course, the other states will try to say what the SG said and claimed that there laws are different. They only problem with that is that some of the laws are WORSE than in Michigan. Alabama may be a good example. Same with Florida because by action or inaction, they permitted/condoned the ex post facto application of draconian residency requirements, etc. well in excess of the state restrictions by counties and municipalities.
Yes!!! This is awesome for Snyder. It is only going to get interesting from now on and time is on our side as well.
I only wished they accepted Karsjens with civil commitment. Those poor people being held indefinitely in MN.
Terrible for the karsgens. If they feel its not ex post facto or unconstitutional to hold people beyond their sentencing….. there really hope to any end to this? Will there be a next step here in florida?
Agreed – the decision not to pick up the civil commitment challenge was a bad one! It effectively rubber stamped the indefinite confinement of people for what they “might” do. Tragic
I agree, go for it now. Also, look into FCCC this is clearly “ex- post factory. ” Let FL. be the State to defeat this.
Actually Michigan was the state that paved the way… then the 6th Circuit… then Colorado. So, FL won’t be breaking any new ground, just hopefully jumping on the bandwagon.
Am I correct in thinking that one of the successful challenges to to the “enhanced” Georgia laws was heard by the Us District Court in Atlanta? I remember that the Georgia Supreme Court really lowered the boom on the state, but I seem to recall that one matter, maybe the retroactive application of residency restrictions that threw people out of homes they already occupied might have gone before the Federal court.
Still wondering if this has any benefit to folks moving to a 6th District State whose offense pre-dates the registry? Any advise greatly appreciated.
The prior decision from the 6th CIRCUIT stands. If you are moving to a state within the 6th CIRCUIT (or already live there), you are benefited.
If one is being considered for the class action suit against floriduh for ex-post facto challenge and moves to a state under the purview of the 6th district, is one still allowed to be included in the class action suit if their case is deemed worthy of challenge by the FAC lawyers?
Unlikely – plaintiffs would need to be present for hearings and depos
What if plaintiff were available to travel at own expense to said hearings and depositions.
I would still like to be a part of getting the state of floriduh to adhere to its own and the US’s Constitutions. Inasmuch, were my case accepted as one worthy of inclusion, I would make any and all necessary appearances at my own expense. For as I understand it, even death does not remove one from the floriduh registry.
Again, my case involves single act in 1991; adjudicated in 1992. The registry is an affront to not only me, but to far too many similarly situated.
Fill out a case consideration form
Even if you are out of state, you are still on the Florida registry forever.
You are correct Joe, as I understand it, if you manage to take the old eternal dirt-nap, floriduh keeps you on the registry.
Thanks for the information though. Hate being on the registry here, there or anywhere. Was just hopeful that all the other accouterments floriduh has added over the years would go away.
I’m not going anywhere. Just waiting to hear.
We understand that this only is valid in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, and only for those persons who had to enter the registry and all it’s onerous requirements AFTER their sentences were handed down before these issues were made into law, however, SCOTUS returned the denial without comment so how long do you think it will take these states to comply as the court seemed to leave it open
According to news reports they will be making changes to their registry.
Seek counsel as to which requirements you should follow and which would not be enforceable against you.
This whole thing effects me greatly, my only question is since it is now law and being my conviction was in 1992 before Michigan had a registry and that I was not ordered by a Judge to register ,therefore violating my right to due process, and then being forced to register in 1995 simply because I was still on parole until 1996, wouldn’t I be one of the one, who should be removed from the registry completely, since I should of never been on it to begin with in the first place.
Bobby, FAC cannot answer that question. We are a Florida based group. You will need to have a Michigan attorney answer that for you.
I wound’t get you hopes up too high as the BASE level registry is still considered to be valid by the SCOTUS
I would like to be part of the suit for Florida.
Fill out a Case Consideration Form
Where can I get the consideration form?
There’s a tab on the homepage that says “case consideration”
or you can click this link: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/case-consideration/
I’m in.
When is there going to be light @ the end of the tunnel……much needed a good vacation after being registered for 26 years/(SOR) without being worried if it exceeds more than 5 days or adding that vacation to my list of temporary address…..Is that the ex-post Facto?
That’s one component of it.
A point of interest: Karsjens v. Piper was denied cert BUT the amicus brief from ATSA was granted. SCOTUS now has a document that was prepared by professional therapists in their grasps to review. Snyder was a win but this acceptance of an amicus brief supporting the “truth” about sex offenders is ALSO a win.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100217zor_o7jp.pdf
Was wondering, the attorney in the McGuire case did not cited the troubling statement in the Packingham case. The Packingham parenthetical is a very powerful antidote to the registry. Numerous opd-Ed articles and lawyers have referenced it. Judge Matsch (Colorado case) has used it in his opinion. One Federal circuit (2nd) mentioned it in dicta (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1870134.html) panel from a state appellate court in Indiana (John Doe, et al. v. The Boone County Prosecutor) read it during oral argument. When combined with cert denial to the Snyder case, I think it speaks volume! That’s why I was curious as to why (even in the latest addition to his briefing) the attorney in McGuire case did not used it to empowered his arguments! I mean if THAT has being used by judge to help his decision carry more weight, it surely has to be important!
you’ve asked this question on the california blog too. Why don’t you write the attorney’s office and ask them.