MI: Michigan Supreme Court limits sex offender registry law to post-2011 cases
The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that people who committed sex offenses before July 2011 cannot be required to follow the state’s current sex offender registry law.
The unanimous decision says applying the 2021 law to older cases would add punishment after the fact.
The ruling does not affect people whose offenses happened on or after July 1, 2011. They remain subject to the current registration requirements.
https://mirs-uploads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/3670-eddie%20lee%20smith%20order.pdf
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s a start. Any new laws after you were sentenced should not apply to you. It just makes sense.
So that state Supreme Court recognized the registry as punishment?
My lawyer in Michigan asked me the Supreme Court case name. Does anyone at FAC know it?
People v. Eddie Lee Smith
https://mirs-uploads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/3670-eddie%20lee%20smith%20order.pdf
Thanks
Finally a little bit of sanity in the insane world of politics (yes, all of what they put us through is for political show). Hopefully rational thinking like this will spread to other states.
Listen I know that this is not Florida, however aside from Does v Snyder, this is the biggest win yet. Congrats to the Michigan PFR’s. Wins like this only effect Michigan, my home state, by the way it is just another brick taken out of the dam that is the Sex Offender Registry. The Bricks that come out the weaker the dam gets and pretty soon it bursts and SCOTUS rules in our favor and the chains will come off. We just have to be diligent, stay strong, and stay clean.
Have the best weekend.
What does that mean? Only for cases there in that state?
Yea, like what about visiting Michigan? I have missed many family gatherings due to the requirements to visit the state.
Yes.
YES, AND STILL CAN BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE USA SUPREME COURTS AS WELL.
Only if the State is willing to appeal and SCOTUS accepts the case.
But that is the thing they declined to hear Doe V Snyder so they will not hear this either. They usually only take cases like this if there are splits. AND i hope they do because after their Ellingburg ruling in January this would be a good time. They cant kick the can forever.