Ex Post Facto Argument WINS in NY Case
ex post facto
ˌeks pōst ˈfaktō/
adjective & adverb
adjective: ex post facto; adverb: ex post facto
with retroactive effect or force.
The US and most state constitutions prevent the application of laws “Ex Post Facto”, with retroactive effect or force.
What this means, for example; let’s say in 1995 you got a DUI, you had your license suspended for 6 months, you attended 12 hours of driving school and paid a $500 fine. Fast forward 15 years and in 2010 the State decides to pass a law saying “anyone convicted of a DUI will have their license permanently revoked and can’t live 2500 feet from any establishment that serves alcohol.” Ex Post Facto protection would prevent the punishment from being applied retroactively, meaning people who got a DUI after the 2010 law passed would be subjected to the punishment, but you can’t go back and now apply that law to people who had DUIs before.
The intent of “Ex Post Facto” protection is to give people fair notice of the punishment they could face if they commit an offense. It also prevents governments from “moving the finish line” on people who have served or are serving their punishments.
What I hear a lot is, “sorry you can’t find anywhere to live, but you should have thought of that before you looked at that stuff online…” Certainly; if residency restrictions even existed at that time… but residency restrictions were completely unforeseeable at the time. They didn’t exist!
Maybe, if the penalty for not wearing a seat belt was a one year license suspension, we would have fewer driving fatalities. If that law was passed today, however, and applied retroactively, we would have a bunch of people crying foul! Or if if the new punishment suspending licenses for a year was applied indistinguishably to all “vehicular offenders” from parking tickets to DUI…
So when new laws get passed increasing punishments for offenses, why don’t we go back and collect the increased traffic fines from people who got tickets prior to the increase? Or why don’t we round up people who previously served time for offenses and bring them back to jail to serve the increased time? Because that would be unconstitutional because of the ex post facto violation.
Then how do we impose residency restrictions against those who committed their crimes before these restrictions existed? Why do we increase the time someone is required to serve on the “public registry” beyond the duration that was required when they were sentenced? Because in 2003 the Supreme Court decided a case, Smith v. Doe, which ruled that the registry is not punishment and since “registration” is not considered punishment, it’s not subject to ex post facto protection from retroactive application of punishments.
Since 2003 States and local municipalities have taken this opportunity to pile on additional requirements to their registries, such as residency restrictions, proximity restrictions, bans on certain activities (including certain employment) and made their registries publicly available on the internet. They have also taken the opportunity to extend these “registration requirements from a period of time to LIFETIME, as is the case in Florida. Banishment and shaming have historically been considered punishment.
The argument that these restrictions are not punishment, but civil and remedial would make more sense (not that this argument is valid to begin with) if they were effective. Studies have consistently found that they don’t work. In fact, many studies have proven that residency restrictions are actually counter-productive.
Today’s New York Law Journal reports that a NY Judge ruled a 2005 law which impaired a registrant’s movement within their state could not be applied to an individual whose offense was in 2002. As grounds; the State’s laws against retroactive punishment.
Finally!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NY did this to me. It came down to speeding tickets as a teenager in 1990.
Punish a 50 year old man for what he did decades ago.
I HATE NY more then I thought I could ever feel hate.
Lifetime revocation wile people in my new state have records 10 times worse got sober and their lives back I am being punished evedry day of my life till the day I am dead I HATE NY go to hell and burn NY
Registries protect no one. It is quite trivial to demonstrate and understand that Registries are not needed or beneficial either. Registries exist for hate.
Registries are a colossal failure. But one thing that the Registries do very well is create hate. They also radicalize people very well. People who support Registries are morons. AND, I truly believe that today there are literally zero moral, informed people who are actually serious about public safety or protecting children who support the Registries. Zero.
“People” who are informed and support Registries are scumbags.
How may we here in FLorida overcome local “home rule issues” which for the most part are those ordinaces that restrict retroactivley. registered citizens. Either we reach those in power to repeal these laws or citizens as a class must stand and sue.
Reaching those in power has been an utter failure as evidenced by the state senators and representatives unanimously approving every new punitive wave of sex offender laws. The time has come to sue.