PA Appeals Court Rules Online Dissemination of Sex Offender’s Information is Punitive and Violates Federal Ex Post Facto
A Pennsylvania Appeals Court has found that the dissemination of persons who have been convicted of sexual offenses’ information on the internet (Megan’s Law) violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution for individuals whose offenses pre-date the ordinance.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court had a prior landmark decision (Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa.2017)) finding similarly, so this new opinion will not likely be groundbreaking, but it will show that the prior findings are being upheld and people in Pennsylvania DO have relief from the public online dissemination of all their information.
The opinion can be found here: www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/j-a12038-19oa.pdf#search=”‘Superior%2bCourt'”
NOTE: Pennsylvania has a State Constitutional Provision that protects reputation.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I find it ironic that this was posted in Florida, but not Butler county in which this is connected to. The paper the day before had information in the front page about the hearing, but as the legislature lost, at this level, it’s NOT on the front page. I deliver the Butler Eagle, the local paper, and nothing in the front page. I don’t receive extras and refuse to open someone else’s paper, I can’t say if it was in yesterday’s, or today’s, paper.
That, to me, shows a huge bias against offenders. I’m quite sure that if the plaintiff had lost that it would be front page news. In fact, the tv news didn’t say anything, either.
Or FAC members are just on top of their stuff! We need to thank one of our members for digging this up and sharing it. It’s a team effort.
I need help fighting Megan’s Law I’ve been for 15 years this year I went to prison in 1989 Megan’s Law didn’t start until 1996 I don’t have any money I’m on ssi
The Florida ex post facto case is for pre 1997 offenses correct? I can’t remember the exact date.
Incorrect – it’s for ALL
When you say that it is for all, are you saying it can help people whose offense was in the past two or three years? If so, how can it help them?
If a restriction was added in 2018 and the person’s offense was committed in 2017, it would benefit the person as to the 2018 amendment.
And it would benefit the 2018 offender because ex post facto is only one of several grounds on which the law is challenged.
It can help them because it challenges The law on multiple constitutional grounds, not just ex post facto.
100% correct!!!
Not a very detailed response. But you said it with such confidence you must be right. It’s sad when uneducated people mislead.
As a person required to register in Pennsylvania, this applies directly to me, and after several very careful readings and much research, I think this is what I’ve distilled it down to:
Since PA found, in the Muniz decision, that retroactive application of increased registration requirements and punitive measures (specifically increased registration period and amount of information collected/displayed), this new challenge specifically went after the dissemination of information via the publicly accessible website for those that committed their offense prior to December 12th, 2012. The challenge was successful, and the PA State Police have been directed to remove the Appellant’s information from the public website.
This doesn’t yet help persons required to register in other states, but does set a good precedent for determination of punitive actions by the registry.
The decision also doesn’t indicate that it will provide any relief to persons required to register other than the Appellant. Maybe we need a class action suit now? Unfortunately, PARSOL doesn’t have a very strong presence here in PA.
so if your offence was back in 92 and you want to move to PA dose this mean you dont have to register with PA just asking
Although I am not a lawyer, I have heard previously that they go by the laws the were in place where you were convicted so moving won’t change that “UNLESS” they put that in their laws language. A few people in this room stated they moved to Florida after getting off a list someone else only to come here and be put back on. I tried to do that myself and where I moved to was worse than what I had here so came back.
So if someone moves into Florida from a state where they did NOT have to publicly register online, doesn’t this same argument apply? The person would not need to be placed online as they weren’t placed online in their home state, thus being placed online is extra punishment?
No it does not affect internet listing by other states.
if it gets appealed to PA top court then to SCOTUS and cert is granted it could
Well it SHOULD affect them. It should NOT matter when a law was put in place and when a person committed the crime. What matters is that you did your time, completed whatever community supervision you were under AND got taken off the registry in your state, another state does not and should not have the right to put you BACK on a registry as that is the same as double jeopardy. Being re-punished for something you’ve already paid the price for.
States need to be challenged on that and it needs to happen YESTERDAY.
We don’t come off registries just to be put back on them when we move or go on a vacation. We regained our freedom and should have the right to enjoy it. Period.
why would you be put on the registry for going on vacation? If you are not on your states registry and visit somewhere else, why the heck would you have to check in with the local authorities? Just saying.
Moving there / here / where ever it seems you have to go by their made up rules. And yes Florida even has dead people on their offender registry
@Maestro
“What matters is that you did your time, completed whatever community supervision you were under AND got taken off the registry in your state, another state does not and should not have the right to put you BACK on a registry as that is the same as double jeopardy. ”
I’ll just leave this here as a response:
The state is obligated to REMOVE you from the registry if you leave the country. So if you are removed when going on a 6 month stay overseas, what right does the new state (that you move back to from overseas) have to put you back on the registry? Food for thought, especially for any attorneys on here.
Incorrect if you want to be technical. The “Double Jeopardy was being put on the Registry in the first place because you / they did their time and is being further punished past sentencing. Being put back on by another state after being taken off would be a “Triple threat “, since now you are being punished for the same crime incident three different times.
Why would anyone want to move to one of the harshest states in the Union? Florida is the de most Draconian state out of 50 states. I fled that state and what family I had left … I left there. Flee when you get the chance I been here for close to 10 yrs now and no problems at all
What state would that be?
This is the problem with Federal, State, County and city laws, rules and ordinances. Things are so confusing and different that people who can drive into another state and be arrested for something that is perfectly legal in another state. Then be told that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It seems to be ok to ignorant of the if you’re a Pennsylvania state police officer. My court records can show this.
My opinion is that the “ignorance of the law” arguement for the prosecution went out the window when that started retroactively applying laws. How could you possibly know what future laws could be passed against you?
This was a search and seizure violation that seemed to be perfectly fine to the court. The officer even stated that he didn’t know that it was illegal.