There will be a phone conference for registrants on Monday, Feb. 17, at 12:30 p.m. when ACLU Senior Attorney Miriam Aukerman and Oliver Law Group Attorney Alyson Oliver will update registrants on the implications of Friday’s ruling.
Join Monday’s call via Zoom with the information below
To ask questions during Monday’s call, please call: (313) 578-6829, as you may not be able to ask questions directly via Zoom during the call.
To ask specific questions otherwise, please email: [email protected]
ZOOM CALL-IN INFORMATION:
Time: Feb 17, 2020 12:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting by computer: https://zoom.us/j/935926284
Or join by phone: (929) 436-2866
Meeting ID: 935 926 284
Could someone please post a link to the podcast? Thanks.
It will be posted on their website tomorrow…..ACLUMich.org/en/sora
Thank you Mp.
I found it here. It provides a lot.
https://www.aclumich.org/en/SORA
Will the FAC, NARSOL and /or the ACLU be filing these issues in Florida in the near future???
I’m not sure what you mean.
Yes, attorneys in our ex post facto plus challenge will soon be making a supplemental filing, thank you FAC
Way i see it: the big win here is at least the retroactivity and the fact that as acknowledged as punitive the sora requirements fall under ex post facto. In other words Seems its immediate relief for those who predate the newer restrictions. No new restrictions could be imposed AFTER the original qualification date: wed be subject to whatever sora was at the time originally subject to it.
I think
The 6th Circuit found the registry to be “unconstitutional”. Will this be addressed in Florida?
Florida is in the 11th Circuit. The 6th Circuit decision is only binding on the states in the 6th Circuit (Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee), not the other circuits.
In Florida, we have our own challenge, Does 1-5 v. Swearingen, that has cited to the 6th circuit decision as persuasive precedence.
FAC, I have a question since perhaps I’m misunderstanding something here…
If laws are ruled unconstitutional, wouldn’t that unconstitutionality apply to EVERYONE on the registry? Why would it only apply to ex post facto? The way I read the court’s findings is that it’s unconstitutional to require people who committed their offenses BEFORE the laws were made to be relieved from such laws. But the way I’m interpreting the situation as a whole is that if such laws are unconstitutional for some, shouldn’t they also be unconstitutional for all? Otherwise, the only thing registrants can do is simple “exist” and not actually live a fulfilling life. So how is that constitutional?
Can you shed some light on this? Anyone?
My error; please let me rephrase – It’s unconstitutional for people who committed their offenses BEFORE the laws were made to NOT be relieved.
That’s what I meant to say.
But then such laws that make it difficult for people to live normal lives will still apply to those who committed their offenses AFTER such laws. If the laws are unconstitutional, then strike such laws for all, not just some. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
Punishment is constitutional. Ex post facto punishment is not. That’s why the ruling affects different people differently.
Certain other provisions of the law are, of course, unconstitutional in other ways, and that’s why they are struck down for all.
There is a legal concept called Ex Post Facto, which is Latin for with retroactive effect. The concept is in our US Constitution and in our Florida Constitution. It essentially means that a statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed or increasing the punishment for an offense after it was performed, is unconstitutional.
Setting aside the argument of whether the statute is “punishment or not” (which the 6th Circuit determined it was), it is unconstitutional to add/increase a punishment after the offense was performed. So anyone whose offense was BEFORE the 2011 change can’t be subject it to. Anyone whose offense was committed AFTER the punishment was enacted can.
Thank you. I understood the retroactive part of it but I was under the impression that if the laws themselves were unconstitutional, then it should apply to all, not just a few. So they only fought the ex post facto aspect of it. The laws themselves (the SOR laws/rules/regulations, etc) AFTER a person has completed their full sentence obligation, should be challenged. Because an armed robber or drunk driving defendant doesn’t get lifetime probation or registration. Not that I’m encouraging such a thing. The punishment must fit the crime. The registry restrictions are very similar to typical probation restrictions and therefore should be told that to a court as proof that it’s continued punishment.
I think you need to read the decision. As to PRE 2011 it was struck, as to POST 2011 SOME PARTS were declared unconstitutional.
Items such as buffer zones and strict liability were struck for all.
When were the changes made in 2011? Also, in said year 2011, if you were charged in the early part of the year but convicted prior to years end where would you fall?
Ex: Charge month May but conviction date November…changes come out in between where do you fall?
Does 1-5 v. Swearingen is not a class action suit and will only provide relief to the 5 Does.
You are completely wrong, David.
The Michigan case sought and was granted class action status. The Florida case has not sought class action status. The court cannot grant relief were specific relief is not sought .
So, David, how do you explain the facial challenge to the statutes? Specifically Paragraph 106, 108, 112, 115, 118, 122, 124, 127, 129 and the prayer for relief in 131 of the current complaint. So if the statute is declared facially unconstitutional it will only benefit the 5 named “Does”?
What is a Class Action Lawsuit?
A class action is a form of lawsuit that permits one or more people (called “plaintiffs”) to represent a larger group (called a “class”) of individuals who all have similar claims. A class action allows the court to decide those claims for everyone at once.
In Does II, there are six individual class representatives who are bringing the case on behalf of all registrants. This is in contrast to Does I, which was brought only on behalf of individual plaintiffs. The class in Does II includes all individuals who are currently or will be subject to registration under Michigan’s SORA. Does II also has an ex post facto subclass which includes people who are or will be on the registry for offenses committed before the 2011 amendments were added to SORA.
In a class action, the court first has to decide whether to “certify” the class. That decision determines whether only the named plaintiffs can bring the case, or whether the decision will apply to everyone in the proposed class. A motion has been filed in Does II seeking to certify a class of all registrants, as well as the ex post facto subclass.
If the class is certified, you do not have to do anything to become part of the class.
I also wanted to point out that in the Does v. Swearingen case the plaintiffs are all seeking relief from the original 1997 law regarding the registry. All plaintiffs were sentenced prior to the original enactment.
You are incorrect.
Well, I certainly hope so.
Thank you, Gail and FAC, for this notification and your advocacy! I am jumping on the call tomorrow! I wish every state had an FAC! your work is tremendous and a lifeline. THANK YOU!!!
What does this mean for Florida’s registrants?
Go listen to the Rrgistry matters pod when it comes out today or tomorrow cast. Its covers this in great detail. It’s an excellent resource for any registrant. You can find it in Spotify, Apple or most pod cast apps.
Thank you. 😀
Prediction: The Michigan ruling sets a precedent for Michigan only and other states, such as Florida in particular, will try to push new legislation in anticipation of arguments like this. Basically, unless SCOTUS rules in agreement, this case will have little to no bearing on any relief in Florida.
Ben,
it may take a few years but i think your incorrect especially when it comes to Miami either the courts will have to kick ronnie crooks in the teeth here in Florida or SCOTUS will have to weigh in as there is a split decission
It’s binding precedent for MI, OH, KY & TN (states in the 6th). In FL it is not binding precedent but persuasive authority and, among other things, cited in a supplemental filing to our ex post facto plus challenge. So yes, it could help push for relief in Florida, IF we fight for it.
It may well go to SCOTUS if our circuit eventually rules differently on these issues than Michigan’s circuit did. But if our circuit rules similarly, then there may not even be a need for SCOTUS, which has already denied cert to the state of Michigan.
If states try to push new legislation in response, then that would be a defensive measure on their part. Michigan’s legislature in particular is now being forced to come up with new legislation. But to avoid further litigation, the registry scheme it comes up with will have to be softer.