Clements v Florida at SCOTUS
After seeking a waiver from having to respond, being prompted by the Court to file a response, and then needing an extension, Florida’s long overdue defense to this case was filed.
Clements filed suit claiming that Florida’s lifetime sex offense registration requirement put the individual in “custody” and subject to habeas corpus. Their petition stressed that a person is ““in custody” when subject to restrictions that “significantly restrain petitioner’s liberty to do those things which in this country free men are entitled to do.””
Florida’s defense rests on 3 arguments:
1) that the lifetime registration is a collateral consequence to being convicted of certain crimes and not part of a sentence.
2) that the proper time to file this suit had long passed.
3) that 7 out of 8 district courts ruled that being on a registry is not being in custody. The one ruling that being on a registry was being in “custody”, that state (Pennsylvania) had much stricter registration laws than Florida.
The defense punted on the topic of residency restrictions as something not to be addressed by this review.
The arguments made by the State downplay the hardships of life on the registry. The full range of requirements and frequency to go in person to a registration office are sidestepped. This is clearest with travel. The State argues they don’t approve or deny travel, but no mention is made of the need for in-person registration at the local sheriff for each trip. The State also fails to acknowledge that the burden of the registry grows every few years as new requirements keep being added.
If SCOTUS chooses to rule on Clements, defining ‘freedom of movement’ will weigh heavily on the outcome. Are people on the registry free to move about and live similarly to those not on the registry? That would be quite a debate.
With the death of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner the Clements case has been pushed back to the 8th https://certpool.com/dockets/23-107
Supreme Court denied the petition today.
@Kyle
Well, back to the drawing board?
This encounter with the supreme court should tell everyone in the U.S.A that their is no true justice in America. Sure courts can do what they want..”Because we can” even pervert justice as
in this Clements vs Florida ordeal.
Actually this article is a good study of how the Supreme Court is laying aside truth and values with their own rules that pervert and creating conflict today for many. In many ways its a mockery of Justice.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to compare this to the civil rights movement in the late 60’s. So whats different the perversion of it all by man’s justice to control others actions and yes actions can be good or bad. This whole registry conning is more of a type of conspiracy one may say.
There never has been true justice in this country because it is subjective. It is a legal system, not a justice system. Justice means something different to everyone.
“1) that the lifetime registration is a collateral consequence to being convicted of certain crimes and not part of a sentence.”
“Collateral consequence” sounds like a sneaky and flippant way to minimize the punitive aspects of the registry – which is exactly cruel and unusual punishment.
@Facts
I want the judges and law makers to look into the faces of their relatives who were on the registry and killed in a targeted manner that this is not punishment. Please, please come spend a month with us and see what we go through and then tell us it is not punishment.
Here is Clements reply https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-107/288970/20231106175430055_23-107.Clements.reply.pdf
So did SCOTUS agree to hear the case?
No, not yet
First it has to go to conference
Then if 4 justices agree that this case is worth hearing then it will be a supreme court case.
@TearfulEagle
I believe the process of deciding whether or not to hear the case is call “granting certiorari” or “denying certiorari”.
Here is a link to the SCOTUS docket for Clements:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-107.html
@Just
Thanks for that link
Looks like it going to conference on 12/1 according to the docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-107.html so usually they release the decisions that Monday unless one of the justices ask for a stay to drum up more support from other justices who may be undecided and needs more time to think about it.
So I guess come Monday the 4th of December we will learn the outcome. Now we just have to prey that our plea will be heard.
And if we win I still am unsure how this will effect us at the end of the day since they’re not asking for the dismantling of the registry but to challenge the lifetime of being burden by it.
The good news is, every state in the U.S citizens on the registry are going to keep flooding the courts with law suits if it take 100 years to get someone to listen.
The facts are, no other people not on paper/sanctions are required to comply to 100s of sanctions/laws/rules/ordinances and more. And they not only affect us, but our families, including our children and grandchildren who are not allowed to play with neighbor kids because they get beat up because someone in their household is a registered sex offender. The courts and law makers have that blood on their hands.
Just read it. Very good Petitioner’s arguments. Praying SCOTUS grants cert. 🙏🏻
(And Wow! “McDermott Will & Emery” – a real powerhouse law firm! No joke! 😳)
Yes it seems to be a great law firm. Really loved this part on page 8:
“Once a federal claim is properly presented,” as is petitioner’s claim that he is in custody, a party before this Court is “not limited to the precise arguments [he] made below.” Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140, 149 (2022) (quoting Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534 (1992)). Rather, the “traditional rule” is that parties may expand upon and refine their arguments, so long as they are fairly subsumed by the question presented and raised “to support what has been [a] consistent claim” before the lower courts. Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 379 (1995). See also Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 330 (2010) (applying this rule). There is thus no barrier to the Court considering this point.“ and since his initial argument of “At every level of review, petitioner has argued that he is “in custody” within the meaning of Section 2254, not just because he must appear regularly at the sheriff’s office, but also because of “all the other restrictions that come with being a registered sex of- fender”
So there is still a way to take a look at residency restrictions even tho the 11th said no. So this makes our custody case a lot stronger. Since exclusion zone render you from going to nearby areas. They use the figure 1,000 as the standard state example saying it bars you from 72 acres but in reality very few areas seem to be 1,000 feet any more. It’s more like 450 acres (a square mile is 640) if going by the 2,500 foot line I wish they would have used a more extensive area.
So 7/10th of a square mile is off limits in some jurisdictions, not only should the registry qualify as custody it should be argued that it qualifies as banishment as well.
And it all comes down to are we allowed liberty to do those things which in this country free men are entitled to do” (Jones, 371 U.S. at 243)
and we all know the answer to that question.