MI: News from Michigan – New SORA NOT Retroactive.
Hot off the press is the following Order from the US District Court from the Eastern District of Michigan.
Michigan – Final Order 06212021
While it’ll take a few readings to understand and be able to explain the full impact of the order, we didn’t want to delay distribution of this information.
At first blush it seems to be good news, as the court concluded that the new version of Michigan’s SORA cannot apply retroactively to people whose offenses predated March 24, 2021.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds like it may be good news for all American’s induced in many ways by these retroactive ordeals if one reads this right, or should we all say who is justified in these actions or doesn’t ex post facto many anything and I don’t even understand ex post facto in this dead man walking language. Guess one can be bitter about all this registry hi-jinks but sometimes one has to take it to the limit to find ones freedom when nobody seems to care. Matter of fact that was a good song
So what does this mean exactly? I live in Michigan and i am pre-2006 and 2011 i am -re- 1995. My conviction was1992 and should of never been placed on the registry in the first place, Anyway i am not concerned about the school zone crap or the other junk. I am concerned about the unconstitutional prevision that made me go from a 25 year registry to life. those of us that are pre-sorna should of been removed long ago. So not that i understand all of the judges order people that are pre-sorna should me removed asap. enough is enough already.
Bobby
I agree, I have been on the registry for half my life now. My Charges are from 1991 when there was no registry. The registry started a month before my release. Judge told me there is “No path to get off the registry, it is out of my hands”.
So odd they retroactively applied it, then added the lifetime again retroactively. BUT, they state since it is NOT punitive (Just choked on my own breath) you have to deal with it and go about your life like nothing has changed.
It feels like I am in one of those videos games where you keep getting killed, come back to life to only be killed over and over again. Maybe we should all star in the re-make of “Groundhog day”.
Never mind.
It seems that all this is is a final judgemt to the case that the legislature ignored.
They made a law that is even harsher, thumbed their noses at the court and said, in effect, “ehh…so sue me!”
So the battle starts all over again.
It’s nice to have the case law, but if the legislators simply refuse to abide by the judiciary, or simply do so in a cursory manner…
Back to square one.
I think you missed that the new law is not retroactive
(presuming the final order includes this:)
The new law is not retroactive in that one cannot be convicted of conduct violating the old law after the new law went onto efffect. But the registry remains solidly in place (and, according to some, worse than ever).
Florida Action Committee – the new law may not state it is retroactive but it does single out pre 2011 from internet identifiers only. Kind of hints at it.
In your opinion, what does leaving out the retroactive portion leave open? I’m assuming a new lawsuit will point this out and potentially look to get pre 2011 removed completely? Can you expand a little for us?
Folks, you have to slow down here. THIS is NOT the court’s final judgment. This is the Judge’s ruling on the plaintiff’s motions to issue a final judgment. He has given them until July 12th to submit what plaintiffs think should be included in the final judgment. And while the judge did say that the new law couldn’t be applied retroactively, he also said that the final judgment will include what parts of the old law could still be applied. IT IS NOT THE FINAL JUDGMENT. IT IS THE JUDGE GRANTING A MOTION TO ISSUE A FINAL JUDGMENT. Only when that final judgment is actually issued and the state’s registrants have been notified will we know exactly what it all means. The new law is almost as obnoxious as the old one, and the judge seems inclined at this stage to let it stand. If the judge does indeed add a provision allowing parts of the old law to be enforced (he did say that in this ruling), it won’t matter that the new law can’t be used retroactively.
Gerald
So basically it is a “Win, Win” for the state and law enforcement. With only a consolation prize of false hope for the registered citizens perhaps? AND, regardless, the lawyers still get paid.
Dang I should have furthered my law education. Regardless if you win or lose you get paid (Except for injury cases). If a plumber messes up your pipes, he has to fix it for free (If you can get him to come back out).
Kind of ironic, some who cannot afford a lawyer probably have a slam dunk case to get off the registry. Then others who are loaded with cash, throw it at lawyers and never get past the hearing without a denial of relief.
CherokeeJack, you are completely wrong. This is not a win for the state and law enforcement. This is a LOSS for the state and law enforcement. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
For a better understanding of what was won, see: https://www.aclumich.org/en/news/what-you-need-know-about-does-v-snyder-ii and you will get an understanding of what was comprised in this win.
This ruling solidifies the win in Does I and says that this newly enacted version of SORA cannot be applied retroactively. That’s great news.
Dear FAC, I really believe that you are misunderstanding what this is. It is the judge’s ruling in response to a motion by the plaintiffs to have the judge issue an actual final judgment in this case. He ruled that he WILL issue that final judgment. This is not it. The motion was made because the state asked that the case be dismissed as moot because of the enactment of the new “amendment.” That is what the “new” law actually is, an amendment to the existing law. The original law is still on the books. The only things specifically repealed by the amendment were the student safety zone prohibitions, and certain aspects related to youthful offenders. That is why the judge here made note that the final judgment will include a single page outlining which of the old provisions can still be applied to existing registrants. He wants that in a single page specifically to avoid confusion. Registrants like myself, as well as law enforcement officials, had a difficult time deciphering the new amendment. The judge wants to ensure that everyone knows what is expected of registrants, because it is obvious that there will be different rules depending upon when your crime was committed. The Michigan Legislature almost always amends existing law rather than repealing and replacing it. That’s what they did here. Unless the judge COMPLETELY strikes down the old law, it will remain on the books, and parts of it will still be enforceable. If you investigate the actual new bill, it specifically states that its purpose is to “amend” the sex offender registry law. It did not replace it. Unfortunately, the judge even hinted that if the Michigan legislature has included a provision to make it retroactive, his ruling might be different. Remember that the whole retroactivity issue hinges on whether a law constitutes punishment. The federal SORA has been held to be non punitive. If a state law is correctly modeled after the federal law, we would still be stuck with a law that oppresses people for no effective purpose. We have to wait and see exactly what that final judgment in Roes v Snyder actually entails. That won’t happen until sometime after July 12th.
Gerald, “a single page”, huh?
That, in itself, would be a miracle!
(Knowing their bloodlust, I anticipate lawmakers will be sure the single page has a 2 mm margin on all sides, is single-spaced, and uses a 4 point font so they can squeeze in all of their desired punishments.)
Sorry, I was off a little bit. The Judge is actually planning a single SECTION. No doubt that section will be many pages long.
Cherokeejack, it is looking to me that it is another instance of getting people’s hopes up, only to dash them later. Michigan almost never repeals and replaces a law. They simply amend the old one and make it more confusing. Michigan’s Attorney General has publicly stated that she is in favor of getting rid of the sex offender registry completely. I wish that our legislators had as much sense.
I would love to give that Attorney General a big hug. of course I would be arrested for touching someone without their permission but “Air hugs” then LOL
CherokeeJack:
Dana Nessel is a touchy feely left winger. I’m sure she would love to get a hug from you.
I’m not fond of the radical left by I respect her courage to be the only AG in the whole country to recognize the registry for what it is. Now we have to get back in federal court while she is still the AG of Michigan.
Thanks for your hard work, guys!
Question: Is the carve out still there for people who move to Michigan from out of state?
Thanks
Here’s a news article from a TV station in Saginaw, Michigan.
https://www.wnem.com/news/lawsuit-against-states-sex-offender-registry-act-enters-final-judgment/article_0228b086-d2ca-11eb-82a5-f714b384b22d.html
It’s far too easy to get excited when reading judicial orders. It also notes that the parties have until July 12 to submit what they think the final order should contain. There is also a sentence that says, “The final order will provide a single document defining what violations of the old SORA can be prosecuted in the future.” Page 17. There is no mention anywhere of anyone being removed from the registry. As a Michigan registrant, I am vitally concerned about the final judgment. However, this is not it yet. My crime was in 2003. If they are ever forced to go back to the registry version in effect at that time, my information will no longer be public. I hope that the ACLU will urge the judge to completely wipe out the old registry completely, but I am afraid that this order indicates otherwise.
Correction, the parties do not have until July 12 to submit what they think the final order should contain. Judge Cleland will issue that himself without any input. The State of Michigan has until July 12 to provide contact information for those on both the public and non public registry to the ACLU so it can be determined what sub class each person is in. This is so every registrant will know exactly how the new law affects them.
Disgusted in Michigan, read the order. The judge DID ask the parties to come up with a final order that they can agree on. Judges often ask the parties to work out an agreement between themselves to make further appeals less likely. But the judge is always free to ignore their suggestions and write it as he sees fit. Whether the parties can agree on one is another matter. Most of all, the state of Michigan wants to keep everyone on the registry, even those whose convictions were before the creation of the registry. The ACLU will not want to agree with that.