MI: Supreme Court says 2011 changes to sex offender law cannot be applied retroactively
Sex offenders whose convictions predated 2011 changes to Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act do not need to comply with those changes, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 2011 requirements — which included bans on living within school safety zones and “onerous” in-person reporting requirements — constituted a new form of punishment that cannot be applied retroactively to past cases, a high court majority said in an opinion written by Justice Elizabeth Clement.
“These demanding and intrusive requirements, imposed uniformly on all registrants regardless of an individual’s risk of recidivism, were excessive in comparison to SORA’s asserted public-safety purpose,” Clement wrote. “…the retroactive imposition of the 2011 SORA increases registrants’ punishment for their committed offenses in violation of federal and state constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, those of us that are pre- 2006 and 2011, should be removed correct? My conviction was 6-19-1992, soy original 25 years was up last year. 6-19-2020. So that to me means I should be removed with many others here in Michigan.
Bobby, i would say yes. If you were changed from 25 years to life, and now that it has been declared unconstitutional, you should be reverted back to the 25 years, and with that time complete you should be removed.
Ex post facto the shit out of the entire registry. No one should be on it. However those of us who were put on it YEARS after we were sentenced should be the first to be removed. We got no chance to fight it in a trial or to plea bargain.
We should pass a retro active law that all judges, police, probation officers etc should be put on a registry and see how long they last. They turned some of us into hard as nail survivors that’s for damn sure.
It’s about time,these Expost Facto Violations are being NOTICED & ADREESED..I Myself being FORCED to abide by NEWLY IMPOSED REGITRATION REQUIREMENTS,20 YEARS AFTER MY 1994 OFFENSE DATE,EVEN THOUGH I SERVED OUT THAT SENTENCE 12 YEARS AGO IN TEXAS!!..
So if course this is great news.
But, what’s the next step. Will they take it to supreme court? If so will they hear it and it go with the decision?
Any step forward is a good step.
Note that the court found a “violation of federal and state constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws.” Unless there is a conflict with the federal constitution, I don’t believe the US Supreme Court can overrule a state’s high court on an issue regarding its state constitution. Michigan, like many states, have ex post facto provisions in their constitutions.
Please let me know if I am wrong in this.
Veritas.
Offenders whose ‘convictions’ predated 2011?
So if you committed a crime back in 2010, but state did not prosecute til 2012, then 2011 SORA can still apply to you?
Or does it go by date of criminal conduct?
I realize that this is in addition to Judge Cleland’s very wise Federal ruling. What I am trying to figure out is, does this here ruling benefit those who have been crime free since before 2011, but convicted after 2011.
@Confused. The simple answer to your question lies in the opinion of the Court that states, “Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act, MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2011 PA
17 and 18, when applied to registrants whose criminal acts predated the enactment of the 2011
amendments, violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, US Const, art I, § 10;
Const 1963, art 1, § 10.”
Note it says “criminal acts” not “criminal conviction”
I think its safe to say that it is the date of the offense, not the date of the conviction.
Ed C:
You’re correct, the state supreme court interpretation of it’s laws and constitution are binding on all federal courts.
Also, a lot of people here are confused about an appeal. This is a criminal case and can be appealed to the U.S. district court. Only civil cases are appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Regardless, this is the end of the line for this case. The Michigan Supreme Court has spoken and to appeal the federal question would be mute.
Interesting that they refer to the changes as “new forms of punishment” and used ex post facto as their basis. They are basically admitting that the registration scheme is a form of punishment. This could be the beginning of the end.
That’s the whole point.
👏👏👏👏👏