Montana Supreme Court rules Ex Post Facto registry requirements punishment and unconstitutional
Better words can’t be written in a court opinion: “Under our constitution, citizens have the right to be free from retroactive punishment,” the decision said. The Montana Supreme Court ruled recently that the application of new laws after someone’s conviction is unconstitutional. The requirements of the registry are so demanding that it represents punishment. The combination of the punishing nature of the registry and the after the fact (Ex Post Facto) application rendered it unconstitutional to both the Montana and the US Constitution.
Montana’s registry for sexual and violent offenders is very similar to most states. It started simple and unobtrusive in the lives of those affected. It only involved mailing a post card. Time on the registry was also supposed to expire. Over years of having the registry in place, so many requirements and punishments for failure to comply were added with each revision that it was deemed to control the lives of those forced to be on it.
As troubling to the Judges, was their alarm at the lack of benefit to having people on the registry. No evidence was presented that convinced them that all these new requirements were reducing sexual or violent crime rates. They concluded the registry only existed to ostracize those forced to be on it.
This ruling will benefit all Montanans forced to register whose crimes were before major changes took place to registry requirements. It is a very big win.
Can this ruling be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?
i Believe they can but I think it would rare for SCOUTS to overturn a State Supreme court. My guess is they punt on this and leave the MT rulling intact. If they were to take it they would be bound by well guided by Doe V Smith 2003. So best case is they dont take it and let more and more states rule it unconstituional until SCOTUS has no choice but to reverse themselves in Doe V Smith.
SCOTUS can be applied to and can rule on it, if accepted to be heard. They did not for PA when PA applied to SCOTUS with their big PASC registry case and was denied to be heard.
My point exactly. Even if MT appealed to SCOTUS, I doubt would take it.
Tearfuleagle
50 different states, 50 different state supreme courts, 50 different laws/requirements and 50 different registries. Add to that, each county in each state tweeks their registry rules to suit themselves. That is untold 1000s of different registry compliance rules.
On top of that, one state wins a victory over the registry while the rest of us suffer. Since it is supposedly over seen by the Feds, again, each state makes their own versions of the said punishment (Which somehow isn’t punishment at all?)
I have always thought that ex post facto is going to be the key to abolishing the registry altogether. Can you imagine the logistic nightmare for the state of figuring out which of these punitive laws apply to whom?
I love how something can be deemed unconstitutional, yet only applied to those before a specific date. I’m sorry, but if it’s deemed unconstitutional, it should apply to everyone, no matter any date! Let’s call it for what it truly is, the separation of those who came before, and those who remain after!
@Tereto
Although I agree with you, to explain it, people like myself had an offense that was 6 years before the registry, was arrested 5 years before the registry. Was sent to prison, 4 years before prison. The exact month I was released from prison, the registry in Florida started. The day after I got home, my celebration of getting out of prison was to go register, then go meet my probation officer.
Ever hear kick someone who is already down? How do you expect people to prove they are not dangerous if they have to everyday wake up knowing they are not a free citizen (Probation like registry).
As far as those who who were not retroactive, I agree no one should have that happen, yet we all will take the wins we can get. When I see someone who has gotten off the registry and I didn’t, I am happy that at least we are making progress, even if it isn’t me.
PLEASE God, those who get removed from Montana, DO NOT MOVE to FLORIDA. You will be added back onto the registry for life. Many on F.A.C have commented they moved to Florida after being removed somewhere else but then told they had to register in Florida. Why?
It is like escaping from your kidnappers, but in the process of getting away, you get hit by a car.
You are absolutely right Cherokee and I would say it’s like getting away from your kidnappers and then get kidnapped by some more that are even more violent
I think differently. I hope there is a person who had a conviction in Montana before they created the registry. Now if they’re in our state they can file to be removed in since Montana has ruled it punishment. Since now with the legal ruling behind this person they have a greater chance than the case of removal https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/22-10420/22-10420-2022-09-14.html this case the man was off the registry in his original state but the 11th circuit said there is a rational reason for still keeping the man on the Florida registry.
Now we can argue if we can get a plaintiff who crime took place in Montana their state has ruled the punishment of the registry now if they challenge to be removed from being here in Florida it seems the state (Florida) would be forced to explain why the Florida registry is different than the Montana registry which there was registry was ruled unconstitutional. We all know Florida is just as harsh as Montana so the court would have a hard time showing how it’s not punishment.
That’s why one ex-registrant, who is intellectual disabled and so disabled that he always need 24/7 care and supervision for life, cannot go to Florida for this reason even although he is no longer in registry. He lost his livelihood he once enjoyed and his mental, social, and verbal skills dwindled as result. His family pay a lot of money to comply with registry. I am heartbroken for this man but cases like his are too common.
Praise God someone has good news and a victory.
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
What was the argument that allowed MSC to make that ruling?