The Dobbs Wire: WIN – Pennsylvania Supreme Court says it’s punishment!
A win! The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just handed down an important ruling concerning the state’s sex offense registry law—yes, it is “punishment” and no, it cannot be applied retroactively. Pennsylvania’s registration statute was already harsh but lawmakers enacted an even harsher version in 2012 and made the new law apply even to those who had been sentenced under the old law. The court took a close look and declared what just about anybody familiar with these 21st century scarlet letter schemes knows – it’s punishment. That’s a key finding as so many courts have refused to reckon with the devastating impacts of registration by claiming those life-wrecking Megan’s Law websites with name, address, photos, and more are just an administrative tracking system. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court went on to hold that piling more punishment on *after* sentencing is unconstitutional. More than 20,000 individuals are required to sign the Pennsylvania registry and an estimated 4,500 are impacted by this decision; one district attorney predicts lots of lawsuits, “numerous numerous numerous challenges.” Congratulations to the man at the center of this case, Jose M. Muniz, and kudos to the many legal eagles involved including Michael Halkias, Timothy Clawges, Linda Hollinger, and Joshua Yohe of the Cumberland County Public Defender’s Office, and all the groups that supported this challenge with friend-of-the-court briefs, especially Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Defenders Association of Philadelphia. Here are reports from the popular press and links to the decision. Aaron J. Marcus, who was deeply involved in this case, writes for Collateral Consequences Resource Center with legal details and analysis, as well as intriguing thoughts about how this decision might impact the Pennsylvania registry law as it is used in the future. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
Associated Press via Philly.com | July 19, 2017
Court: tougher sex offender reporting can’t be retroactive
By Mark Scolforo
Excerpts: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that changes enacted five years ago to toughen reporting requirements under Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration law cannot be applied retroactively.
The high court said Jose M. Muniz, convicted in Cumberland County of indecent assault of a 12-year-old girl, will not have to register for life. At the time Muniz was convicted, his offense called for a 10-year registration period. The 2012 changes to the state law turned that into a lifetime requirement, and required registration for additional crimes. In the lead opinion, Justice Kevin Dougherty said “both the state and offender have an interest in the finality of sentencing that is undermined by the enactment of ever more severe registration laws.”
Cumberland County District Attorney Dave Freed, who lost the decision, said it could produce a large number of appeals by Megan’s Law registrants, arguing the decision also applies to them. Freed predicted the decision “is going to generate numerous, numerous, numerous challenges,” some seeking post-conviction appeals in county court, others in state-level Commonwealth Court, involving state police. MORE:
The Daily Caller | July 19, 2017
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling Could Cut Thousands From Sex Offender Registry
By Anders Hagstrom
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that adding someone to the state’s sex offender registry is a punishment, and therefore cannot be done retroactively.
The case, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, pertained to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which went into effect in Pennsylvania in 2012. Previous sex offense law required certain offenders to register for the list for only 10 years after their conviction. SORNA, however, required many of those same offenders to register for life. As a result, thousands of offenders that had served their 10-year registration requirements were retroactively required to register again. Pennsylvania’s 2017 sex offender registry lists 21,295 people, more than 11,000 of which are Tier III offenders required to register for life.
Pennsylvania argued that being added to the sex offender registry was not a punitive measure and therefore had no conflict with in the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions prohibiting retroactive punishments. The court disagreed. “SORNA’s registration and online publication provisions place a unique burden on the right to reputation, which is particularly protected in Pennsylvania,” the court opinion read.
The court also narrowed the application of SORNA with its 2016 decision in A.S. v Pennsylvania State Police, requiring Pennsylvania to lower more than 1,000Tier III offenders to Tier 1 or 2, which don’t require life registration. Retroactive laws similar to SORNA have been struck down in Ohio, Indiana and Maryland. MORE:
Collateral Consequences Resource Center | July 20, 2017
Big win for sex offenders in PA as registration held punishment
By Aaron J. Marcus
Excerpts: Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held what for a long time has been obvious to many: that sex offender registration is punishment. Five Justices declared that Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s (SORNA) “registration provisions constitute punishment under Article 1, Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution — Pennsylvania’s Ex Post Facto Clause. This is a radical shift from prior Pennsylvania and federal law. The decision directly affects roughly 4500 people in addition to Mr. Muniz. This is a big win for registrants and those opposed to the misguided approaches Legislatures have taken to sexual crimes in recent years.
The effect of the decision is to immediately alter the registration terms of thousands of registrants across Pennsylvania who saw their periods of registration increase dramatically on the date SORNA took effect. For those individuals, their periods of registration will likely revert back to the periods they were originally given at the time of their convictions. This means that hundreds if not thousands of people could suddenly find that they have completed their original registration terms and will now be removed from Pennsylvania’s registry altogether.
Finally, the Court says nothing about whether the decision has an effect on SORNA prospectively. However, if the law now says that SORNA is punishment, registrants, attorneys, and the courts will have to take a long hard look at the current statutory scheme and decide whether it can continue to be enforced in its current form, or whether certain protections typically attached to criminal sentences must now apply. Only time will tell how broad this ruling actually is. MORE:
Pennsylvania v. Muniz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Case No. 47 MAP 2016
Majority Opinion filed July 19, 2017
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016oajc%20-%2010317692521317667.pdf?cb=1
Concurring opinion filed July 19, 2017
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016co%20-%2010317692521317673.pdf?cb=1
Dissenting opinion filed July 19, 2017
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016do%20-%2010317692521317662.pdf?cb=1
So, if I was convicted of C.P. in florida in 2003, and move to PENN in 2018, and am not on probation, Would I have to register?
I gather this does not help those who committed a crime in 2015 and sentenced in 2016. Isn’t it continued punishment to not be able to get a job, live in certain areas, not live at home with family and family and offender to be ridiculed and threatened because they are on a registrar. What are we doing for those people? How are we going to help them?
If you committed the crime when the punishment was in effect, you are subject to it.
How will this effect florida? They say it’s not a punishment, but if you forget to register you can bet your life they will put you in jail and add a felony to your record,but it’s not a punishment!
And their registry that supposedly protects the citizens, has done nothing but abuse the children they claim to protect.
It has no bearing on Florida, other than persuasive precedent.
Not sure how registration is incorporated in a trial but if you take a plea its only brought up at sentencing Nevertheless I don’t think this will change things for people convicted after SORNA because it was on the books. But don’t see how they can get buy still applying it to people convicted before. If the PSP drags their feet they will be subject to civil suits I would say this is pretty much cut and dry.. They will have to go back to ML 2 completely. ML 3 was thrown out multi subject rule.
I have been arguing ex post facto laws since I was convicted in 1987 but it fell on deaf ears. I would not have agreed to my sentence if I knew Registration Laws were coming years later. People looking at these websites have no information concerning the case involved and what lead to their plea.
You know what confuses me about this case and decision? First, what exactly did the court say was punishment? Was it just the public hit list or everything that goes along with it (living restrictions, proximity, etc. etc.)?
Well, in a way it does not really matter to ask my question…If the public registry (and all its parts) is punishment then wouldn’t it have to be officially part of a person’s adjudication? In other words, when a judge rules that a person gets so and so years and then probation etc. which is your punishment wouldn’t it have to include the registry as part of it? So, if it is punishment and was NOT officially in a person’s adjudication then wouldn’t it technically be ex post facto for everyone? Does that make sense? Lol If the registry was not part of a person’s sentence and it IS punishment then isn’t it kind of like imposing punishment (technically says this judge) on only a select group of people without the input of a judge? It is akin to vigilante justice…. sanctioned by the state, town, or city.
I know this is in PA and not FL but it makes me think of my son’s case. When he was sentenced it included X,Y,Z punishment but the registry WAS NOT included in the sentence. As a matter of fact, the judge tried to get the prosecutor office to waive the RSO probation rules and they would not but the prosecutor office could not even tell the judge the difference between RSO probation and regular probation.
I hope this makes sense – as you can tell I was thinking of it every time I woke up last night! Lol So I guess the moral of this rant is this – if the registry IS punishment (and we all know it is) then it has to be adjudicated by a judge or a jury or it becomes inherently unconstitutional?