News Sharing and General Commentary
Members, advocates, and all followers of Florida Action Committee’s news website:
Please use this post to bring our attention to fresh news or media content. You may also use the comment area on this post to leave comments on any topic relevant to FAC’s journalistic mission.
Question: Why does this post exist?
Answer: FAC comment policy for all other posts is that comments must be relevant to the post topic and cannot contain links. For this post and only this post, these policies are suspended. You may comment on any topic and may share links. Comments must still be news worthy or informative, as well as related to the registry in some way.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DETROIT – In the latest in a long string of judicial decisions holding Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith struck down significant portions of the law in a decision released late last week. The court’s decision in the class action lawsuit, Does III v. Whitmer, will affect tens of thousands of people and follows two recent rulings by the Michigan Supreme Court, as well as numerous federal court decisions dating back to 2013, finding constitutional problems with Michigan’s registry.
In a 115-page opinion the court upheld some aspects of the registry, but – as in the prior decisions – again found multiple constitutional violations including:
The registration of people who did not commit sex offenses;
The retroactive extension of registration terms to life;
Harsher treatment of people with non-Michigan convictions; and
Violations of registrants’ First Amendment rights.
Mac
All of us hate registries, but those of us who were retroactively applied years after being sentenced, is especially concerning. For example, a person who commits a crime and knows well there is a registry, at least knew what they were facing.
Those of us who were arrested and sentenced before the registry, had no say in the court room, and for me personally, I would have changed my plea if the registry had been in place. And the fact that every year they add new add-ons like they just did in Florida, makes it even more scary due to more tip toeing through the landmines of new laws that could send us back to prison.
I totally agree with you, Florida is very draconian.
Here is more of the Michigan decision:
The class action lawsuit brought eleven constitutional challenges on behalf of the more than 45,000 people on Michigan’s registry.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on six claims, including rulings that:
Retroactively extending registration terms from 25 years to life violates the Constitution.
In-person reporting requirements imposed in 2011 cannot be applied to pre-2011 registrants.
People who were not convicted of a sexual offense cannot be subjected to SORA without a judicial hearing.
Michigan cannot impose harsher registration requirements on people with out-of-state convictions than on people with Michigan convictions. Such individuals must receive a judicial hearing to determine their registration requirements.
SORA’s requirements to report internet identifiers like email and social media accounts violate registrants’ First Amendment rights.
Forcing registrants to attest that they understand SORA, even if they do not, is unconstitutional compelled speech.
Under the court’s decision:
About 17,000 people will be removed after they complete 25 years on the registry without another registrable offense.
More than 3,000 people with out-of-state convictions will be entitled to a judicial determination of their registration requirements.
A judicial hearing will be required if the state seeks to keep about 300 people on the registry based on convictions for non-sex offenses.
The in-person reporting requirements will change for about 31,000 people and the internet reporting requirements will change for about 14,000 people.
The court ruled against the plaintiffs on three claims involving individualized review,
why do you think that every state says the same thing: “convicted on or after 19??, or still serving sanctions on that date”? which makes it ex post facto. Clearly, not all states can be that oblivious to the constitution.
Just want to bring attention to this article https://theappeal.org/south-florida-sex-offense-homeless-population-spikes/ today officially marks the day that you may arrest the homeless person if they refuse services of a shelter.
In Florida there a few places have shelters for registrants through homeless very few places rent to registrants high portion of registrants are homeless are chronically very close to becoming homeless at any given time. Supposedly, they’ll give you every opportunity to help you before they arrest you is what they say.
However, in supreme court case California versus Robinson, you cannot arrest somebody for simply a status crime.
12. The designation of a person as a sexual offender is not a sentence or a punishment but is simply the status of the offender which is the result of a conviction for having committed certain crimes.”
-Florida legislator 943.0435
If you look up the Supreme Court cases of the recent grant pass homeless case which is about cruel and unusual punishment for a status offense of homeless people and the California versus Robertson case which was the status about a drug addict and the Texas court case which was the status about being drunk in public, which was conduct which is punishable and they’re saying the case Grants Pass is applying to everybody not just homeless people so it’s not a status crime its being evenly forced upon everybody thing however, in Florida, we are banned from a lot of stuff simply for our status. This act simply criminalizes being a registered homeless individual with incarceration for simply living as a registrant in the state.
lets go after shady grady
https://all4consolaws.org/2024/09/ca-federal-court-ruling-leads-to-removal-of-mugshots-on-lake-county-sheriffs-office-website/
-Whatever happened to the expo facto case “doe v. SWEARINGEN” with convictions prior to 1997 that was sent back to the lower court by the 11th District Court ? Was that case canceled by the judge ?
In our recent legal update post at our site, the first sentence says, “Our Ex Post Facto I case in the Southern District is currently in standby but is still alive.” One of the attorneys, Val Jonas, has asked FAC to gather some data for her, which we have been doing. Court cases can take a long time, unfortunately. Nothing happened with this case for a long time as the judge appeared to be waiting for the Ex Post Facto II case in the Northern District to be completed. Now that it has, movement has started in the Ex Post Facto I case in the Southern District that you are referring to.
Our post where the one-sentence statement was made concerning the current status of our Ex Post Facto I case:
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/updates-on-fac-legal-team/
Meta/Facebook/Instagram owner Mark Zuckerberg told the US Congress in a letter yesterday: “Zuckerberg wrote. “Our platforms are for everyone – we’re about promoting speech and helping people connect in a safe and secure way.” If that’s true Mr. Zuckerberg, why do you ban people who are forced to register as sex offenders (compelled speach) in Florida from your international platforms?
LOL
as long as we are on the registry, we might as well still be in prison. I think I had more rights and freedoms in prison than I do now off of sanctions (Because so much has changed since then)
And if anyone is fooled, all the sanctions on us are only going to get worse as they pass the test on each new banning that passes muster from the courts.
Surprised we do not have patches on our clothes like some did in Germany during WWII identifying us as undesirables. Of course I guess the registry does that for us huh?
You got to be kidding
Supreme Court of Missouri cherry picks quotes to say the registry is not punishment https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2024/sc100296.html
How is the registry exempt, immune and insulated from being a form of cyberbully and doxxing? These judges would rather let our houses burn down than risk their own houses being burned down by continuing to lie, distort and mislead with “their” distorted version of “not punishment”.
Every time a “not punishment” ruling is rendered from a court, it sets us back years – if not decades!