Highlights the problem right now in Michigan. Takes representation by a lawyer to get the state to obey the federal decision on a case by case basis. ACLU is still working on forcing the state’s hand, but it seems to be a long process. Their advice is to keep obeying the old laws until the situation has been resolved, or risk being arrested and having to fight it out in court, hopefully with a good attorney.

I’m an Attorney who has represented Michigan SORA clients — you should consult with a qualified attorney. Without giving you legal advice, my very preliminary opinion is that if the acts you committed of which you were convicted and sentenced as a sex offender predated the 2006 and 2011 SORA amendments (those are the amendments the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found constitute punishment) then you may have a viable Ex Post Facto challenge.

I have located one reference supporting my earlier post regarding changes in Michigan’s sex offender registry law, and how the requirements now vary depending upon the conviction date.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/DOM_2018-23_SORA_609801_7.pdf
I hope that copied link works. It was the very last item on the Michigan Department of Corrections “Policy Directives” page.
http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,4551,7-119-1441_44369—,00.html
Of course, they haven’t corrected the actual Policy Directive it references yet. Here is what it says:
On August 25, 2016, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe, et al. v Snyder, et al.,
case nos. 15-1536/2346/2486 ruled that the retroactive application of the 2006 and 2011 amendments
to the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) were unconstitutional. Both parties
appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recently denied leave to appeal,
which means that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on retroactivity remains in effect.
PD 01.05.115 “Sex Offenders Registration Act” and its implementing procedure are therefore revised
to be consistent with the ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Specifically, this means that
the requirements of the 2006 amendment only applies to those registered offenders whose offense
occurred on or after January 1, 2006, which is the effective date of the 2006 amendment. Similarly,
the requirements of the 2011 amendment only applies to those registered offenders whose offense
occurred on or after July 1, 2011, the effective date of the 2011 amendment.
The Deputy Director of Field Operations Administration (FOA) shall issue instructions to Field Agents
implementing the Court’s ruling and this Director’s Office Memorandum.
I know my copy and paste makes it look a little off, but it is plain that the state is changing its enforcement of the registry. Nothing there about those who were wrongly placed on the registry even though there was no registry when they committed their offense.

This is a reply for Bobby. I got my information from a man on parole in Bay City, MI, who was given the info by his parole agent. It specifically instructs parole agents not to give any help to anyone seeking to be removed from the registry. Is that dirty, or what? I am sure you will be able to petition for removal once they finally sort everything out, but it is obvious that they are determined to drag their feet on this issue. A word of caution though. It appears that Michigan has a rule that you are only permitted to petition for removal one time. So it would be best for you to wait until the state issues specific guidelines before you try it. There are lawyers out there who will take up your case, but they are very expensive, and they can’t guarantee success. I will post more info when I find it.

Thanks, Gerald,

I just e-mailed Ms Aukerman and Juan Caballero again , on this very issue, this is starting to get ridiculous.

Where did you find your information? My question is since my conviction date was 6-19-92. That to me would mean I should be removed immediately like NOW. WHY, because when I was convicted Michigan had NO registry yet,. When I do get replies back from the ACLU. it’s always be patient we are working on it, and we are filing a class action lawsuit.

I even contact the cowards up in Lansing like that idiot Rick Jones, and Rick Snyder and Bill Schuette, and of course I get NO reply back from these COWARDS.

I have not been able to locate the information on the internet yet, but the 1 page that i have a picture of appears to be an MDOC policy that the parole department is passing on to parolees. It does warn that the Michigan State Police department is reviewing everything and hasn’t yet determined how to change the registry to comply with the federal court rulings. Here are a couple of quotes from that document:
“Discontinue charging offenders registered solely under retroactivity with SORA violations or technical violations related to SORA, as they are no longer required to abide by SORA”

The next section outlines the registration requirements of sex offenders, which vary according to their offense date.

Requirements for registrants whose offense date is pre 1/1/2006: Report name change; Report address change; Report campus information; Verify according to Tier.

Requirements for registrants whose offense date is between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2011: Report name change; Report address change; Report campus information; Verify according to Tier; Abide by Student Safety Zone Restrictions.

Requirements for registrants whose offense date was on or after 7/1/2011: Report name change; Report address change; Report campus information; Verify according to Tier; Abide by Student Safety Zone Restrictions; Report employment; Report internet identifiers (must be reported at the offender’s next verification period); Report vehicle information; Report phone numbers (must be reported at the offender’s next verification period); Report passport and immigration documents (must be reported at the offender’s next verification period); Report professional or occupational licenses (must be reported at the offender’s next verification period).
That shows how the registry requirements have gotten more onerous over the years. I have read that the state Attorney General did put out a directive advising agencies to not prosecute offenders for noncompliance related to retroactive requirements, but unless you can afford a good attorney, you just don’t want to push it and possibly become a test case. It would really be nice if the ACLU would update their information and advice on the matter.

I would love to know what’s going on with Michigan…my 25 years is up and the the state isn’t saying anything nor are there updates from the aclu who is supposedly filing a class action to try and force the state’s hand….I’m trying to be patient as this is the first ray of hope we’ve had in years…if anybody knows anything…I’d be glad to hear it