Michigan must rewrite sex offender registry law
News from SCOTUS on Sexual Offender Laws
DETROIT (AP) — Michigan’s sex offender registry law must be rewritten after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a decision that found the state was treating people as “moral lepers” by saddling them with excessive restrictions.
The Supreme Court turned down an appeal from the state, 13 months after a federal appeals court struck down many retroactive rules as unconstitutional.
In 2006, Michigan lawmakers changed the law to prohibit registrants from living, working or even loitering within 1,000 feet of a school. Five years later, the Legislature said registrants should be divided into three tiers solely on the type of conviction, not based on any individual assessment. The rules were made retroactive.
The law “resembles, in some respects at least, the ancient punishment of banishment,” appeals court Judge Alice Batchelder wrote for the 3-0 majority.
The court said Michigan presented no evidence that residential restrictions were having positive effects. One plaintiff in the lawsuit is on the registry because of a non-sexual kidnapping.
The court said a requirement that registrants check in frequently in-person with police has “no relationship to public safety at all.”
“The Legislature is going to have to go back and address these issues,” said Miriam Aukerman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit with University of Michigan law school. “This requires the Legislature to adopt laws that keep us safe and are grounded in research and fact.”
Sen. Rick Jones, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he’ll invite the ACLU, state police and prosecutors to discuss the next steps.
I look forward to the day when Florida must admit that the Constitution applies to it and I hope those who have fought such an admission will be held accountable. I know on judgment day they will definitely be held accountable.
So 1998 plea on 1 cnt transmission. Not poss nor production no special circumstances (age) would that help in any case? I was fine in ny no level no time just letters and two appearances .
Until they forced the levels then only a level one no appearance on the web. then came to florida and we all know what happened.
No re-write is necessary, just put them back the way they were. Damn it…you don’t trust politicians…..PERIOD.
Don’t let them get a chance to screw up again!!!
Thinks its just a matter of removing the retroactive clauses. Those statements which pre date the penalty off of the date of its passing. That statement this applies to those whose convictions were post 2017 etc. If that was the date of acceptance. Did the judgement actually address anything else? Are the actual penalties and not just the application dates affected?
I contacted a young lady at the Michigan ACLU and inquired as to whether or not one’s conviction-date was addressed in the ruling as regards if it was pre-sorna, or Meghan’s Law.
It was not according to her. I was asking in the hope (of a dope) that the words ex-post facto used in the ruling would apply to conviction dates for all offenders. Not so. Were I to move to Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky or Tennessee, the registry would apply to me.
On the bright side, she did say I had a good ex-post facto case and should contact an attorney. Just gotta win the ol’ lottery so I can pay Justicia’s pimps (legislators/district attorneys et, al); or, hope FAC lawyers gets this constitutional blight overturned. So far, gotta go with the latter.
Ain’t floriduh grand.
I thought there was a specific Constitutional protection against legislative bodies being allowed to “wordsmith” laws that have been found un-Constitutional in order to be fixed so that they may be re-applied to those who were granted relief?
Love to hear from any legal experts out there.
Vested rights doctrine
“It is not within the power of a legislature to take away rights which have been once vested by a judgment. Legislation may act on subsequent proceedings, may abate actions pending, but when those actions have passed into judgment the power of the legislature to disturb the rights created thereby ceases. ”McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898)
Florida will never amit any admission. because if they did they would have to change the state name to something better.
I would think that the re-write would not be able to include anything added since a particular date?
So lets think abut what the Snyder denial of cert could mean for us poor schlubs here in the Sunshine State. It is not controlling in the 11th, but it is persuasive authority that courts may take judicial notice of. One other thing is that we have state case law and maybe Federal IIRC in Georgia that struck down their draconian residency and employment laws and forced the state to come up with their current convoluted set of laws based on 4 different effective dates. That would have some impact on the examination of the current Florida laws, I would think, at least as far as residency restrictions being applied to anyone convicted before 2005.
The second level argument most obvious to me is how the counties like Miami-Dade “grandfathered people in based ion when they moved into a residence (2005) and no on when they were convicted or when the current law was passed. which was 2010 as best as I can tell. I don’t see how they can say that it was a “continuation” of existing municipal laws as they voided all of those.
Now here is your crazy third level argument. Clearly, the State of Florida is gong to be permitted to apply the 1000 foot rule to person convicted after 2004. The state has all but admitted that they can’t apply that new “lifetime” residency restrictions to people convicted before that date. But here is the problem. The 1000 foot rules is difficult to comply with, but not impossible, even in Miami where every Cuban grandma has her won day care operation. I would argue that what the Legislature has done is to improperly allow the administrative/legislative organs of the counties and municipalities to unconstitutionally enhance CRIMINAL penalties in many cases exceeded the constitutional authority of the STATE to do so. Being forged to call such restrictions punishment sure changes the game, does it? We need to eat that elephant one bite at a time, boys and girls. 😉
Really. No re-write is necessary. I have a copy of the law as it was just before 2006. As far as I am concerned that is all that applies to me. If the state wants a copy I would be glad to send them one.
When I pled nolo in 1998, 1997 laws were in effect. Statute 943.0435, the only one that applies to my case, was so very small in 1997 compared to today. The 1997 statute doesn’t indicate that one must register if one pled nolo (like the 1998 version does) – it just says that it doesn’t matter whether adjudication was withheld. Also, it doesn’t state that registration is for life, like the 1998 statute does. Under the 1997 statute, I would only need to appear at the sheriff’s office after my initial ‘conviction’ and then each time, if ever, my address changed. It’s such a SMALL statute.
Also, does anyone know how long Michigan may take to change its laws? Since their changes over the years are now considered illegal, shouldn’t they be required to stop enforcing them immediately?
Well I noticed last Friday that they moved my registration date back to 11-22-1995, when just 2 weeks ago, it said my conviction date of 6-19-1992.
So like Michigan’s ACLU said they have to make the changes, they have no choice now, and they can’t put it off, or ignore it. My questions now are, 1) when will I be put back to 25 years and have the tier 3 stigma removed. 2) or since the registry never existed in 1992, and I was never ordered by a judge to register will I be removed altogether, because even though I was on parole when the registry came into existence, my plea agreement/contract never said anything about a registry, therefore it was a violation of the plea agreement/contract.
a violation of due process, and separation of powers or at least should be, in my opinion. 3) I also think if I am not automatically removed, then it should go back to the 1994 version where I should not be on the public registry, and only available for the Michigan State Police to see NOT the public. 4) when they move me back to 25 years that will be 2020 when I am 51, but if I remember correctly I should be able to petition for removal, since I am well past the 10 year mark with out any other convictions, and I was considered a low-risk offender back in the day. Any one have any thought’s on this ? thank you.
Bobby we’ve been through this before. FAC is not a legal organization. Please ask these questions to a lawyer licence to practice in the state of Michigan.
@Mike
Yes your right I forgot about that, but the only problem with asking a lawyer, is for the simple fact is Lawyer’s and judges for that matter are not really licensed to practice anything. WHY you may be thinking because they ONLY have union due cards with a P on them followed by some random numbers. If you ask a lawyer or judge to produce their license they can’t do because they DON’T EXIST. The ONLY thing they do have is their union due cards, and some diploma’s on the wall.
HMMMM…. Not really sure where this is going.
At least in Florida, Lawyers (and Judges) have licenses to practice law, which are issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and membership in the State Bar. If you ask most lawyers (or judges, for that matter) to produce their license, they should be able to produce their Bar card. They are required to list their Bar Number on pleadings too.