MI: Senate approves tightened restrictions in Sex Offender Registration Act
The Michigan Senate voted Wednesday to codify court-recommended changes in the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act.
The legislation now only needs Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s signature to become law.
State lawmakers approved altering registration protocols for sex offenders during its Wednesday session, fulfilling a 4-year-old mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The federal court ruled in 2016 that it was unconstitutional to impose new restrictions on people convicted before the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act was updated. House Bill 5679, sponsored by Rep. James Lower, R-Greenville, addresses that problem and was approved in the Senate by a 21-17 vote.
[FAC COMMENT: Wanna bet this winds up back in court?]
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The changes aren’t “court recommended”. In 2016, Judge Cleland gave the legislature time to correct the unconstitutional aspects of the registry believing this could be done within a matter of months. Over the years, I have read thousands of cases and this is the first and only case I have ever encountered where the judge gave the state legislature time to pass legislation to correct unconstitutional conditions.
Judge Cleland didn’t “recommend” or in any way approve of any aspect of this legislation. The legislation was drawn up by legislatures trying to dance around what the courts found unconstitutional in Does I. The legislature fails to address Temelkoski and all of the other court decisions that found various aspects of the registry unconstitutional. The previous decisions only sought injunctive relief and attorney fees not monetary damages. These decisions open up the possibility of monetary damages in future litigation, so there could be some political backlash if registrants start to win money judgments against the state.
In order to comply with these various court decisions, the legislature must totally give up the idea of forcing persons whose offense date predates July 1, 2011 to register regardless of whatever state they were convicted in. Michigan had the misfortune of having Bill Schuette as AG throughout the Does I litigation. Does I should have taken almost all pre July 1, 2011 off of the Michigan registry, regardless of the state of the offense. Schuette, being the ass that he is, took the stance that this wasn’t a class action so only applied to the named plaintiffs. Judge Cleland, being the ass that he is, allowed these unconstitutional conditions to continue except for the named plaintiffs and hence, Does II to enforce Does I because Judge Cleland refused to apply Does I to all of the affected registrants. Fortunately, in 2018, Michigan elected Dana Nessel as AG, who took the surprising stance of wanting to remove most registrants from the registry. She appears to be content to allow this to play out in court so she suffers no political fallout from any court decision. The bottom line is, that Does II is a class action so affects everyone in some way who is on the registry and almost everyone whose offense date predates July 1, 2011, regardless of which state their conviction is in, will be removed from the Michigan registry. Persons whose offense date predates July 1, 2011 who have a felony convictions separate from their sex offense conviction that occurred on or after July 1, 2011 will remain on the registry due to the “recapture” provision. We haven’t gotten to that issue yet. Almost all registrants whose offense date predates October 1, 1995 are off of the registry today. When Does II becomes final, almost all registrants whose offense date predates July 1, 2011, will be removed from the registry. The remainder will be dealt with in future litigation. There are those on this site that disparage me saying that this will not occur in their lifetimes. We will see in a few months if they relocate to Michigan to get off of the registry or not. If they remain in a state that requires them to register, then being on the registry isn’t that important to them.
We anticipate that persons who have offense dates predating July 1, 2011 will be moving to Michigan to get off of the registry in Michigan once Does II becomes final and have been developing arguments in case that becomes an issue and will forward those arguments to Miriam Aukerman if removing out of state registrants becomes an issue (unlikely with Dana Nessel as AG). This is a simple issue to win, i.e., see Hope V IDOC, Indiana District Court, S.D. 2017.
Also, note the close 21-17 vote. This is thanks to the ACLU’s effort in educating legislators about these laws. This is why it has taken Michigan more than 4 years to pass any legislation. Thank you ACLU!!!
Detroit
I would move from Florida in heart beat but taking care of my elderly parents are more important than registry issues to me. Am I saying I don’t mind being on the registry? Hell no but my priorities are my family.
Also I have lived up North before when my father was in the military and we lived on lake Michigan. You could not pay me enough to live in Michigan in the Winter.
I am praying for some wins here before I go into a nursing home but not holding my breath as my health continues to decline.
“before I go into a nursing home” Please let us know which ones will take us. I can’t find any. Thanks
Cool news!
Detroit: I’ve see your posts on here I’m a registered citizen in new York I had couple questions for you about Michigan registry I’ve considered moving out to Michigan and just had couple questions about Michigan and stuff is there a email I can contact you at and exchange phone numbers or something ?
Let’s fix the unconstitutional with even more unconstitutional. Putting my head down nodding while deep ” sighs ” come out of me.
It can go back to court all it wants, in the mean time the damage is already done and won.
Looks to me like they only made the conditions worse.
“We want to be fair and proportional, but we also want to protect the public.”
Which is it? You either want a registry or you want to protect the public. Resigtries only shame. Registries protect no one. If you wanted to be truthful, you want a registry for 3 reasons:
Shaming.
Informing/inciting the public and being political.
Federal dollars.
“Law enforcement personnel who willfully fail to periodically report on offenders would face a penalty.” That is surely an incentive for abuses of power written in the bill
“Law enforcement personnel who willfully fail to periodically report on offenders would face a penalty.” Really?? I’m not on paper any more. Wtf
They penalize registrants for failing to report anything they have to report. So now they are penalizing Law Enforcement for the same things ?