PA: HUGE WIN!!! – SORNA Declared Unconstitutional
YES, you read that correctly. A Pennsylvania Trial Court has declared SORNA Unconstitutional.
The court wrote, “we find that SORNA is unconstitutional as a legislative scheme in both its use of a constitutionally infirm irrebuttable presumption and the punitive effects of its registration and notification provisions, as well as in its application to this Defendant, who has a strong support structure, is educated, is working, is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation, and is highly unlikely to reoffend”
The Court also found that “based on the evidence of scientific and academic consensus presented, we find that SORN laws do not have the effect on recidivism and public safety anticipated by the Legislature, and that they are not rationally related to the purposes for which they were enacted.” This is one of the first cases (to our knowledge) where the scientific and academic studies have been considered and used in formulating the court’s decision.
PA Torsilieri SORNA Opinion 2022
A copy of the Order follows, and before you ask, NO, this is not binding on Florida.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1) What wonderful news. The Court’s analysis was spot on.
2)Wow, Dr. McCleary got his arse handed to him by the court!
This is great news for everyone living in Pennsylvania, but this is a state trial court finding Pennsylvania SORNA (not federal SORNA) unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already done more than once. So this is just another in a long string of victories for Pennsylvanians but has little practical impact on people living in other states.
But we should celebrate that someone got relief, no?
Yes 100%
and then we wait for our turns.
Wow so whatâs that now three states are saying SORNA is unconstitutional (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alaska). Do we know when the deadline is for Pennsylvania to appeal the decision, or if they are going to appeal.
Michigan has not ruled SORNA to be unconstitutional, only that our previous version of the registry, as applied to class members, was unconstitutional. We are in court again stating our current registry is also still unconstitutional, because the legislature did nothing to address the ex post facto claims, among other claims.
Disgusted in Michigan is exactly correct. It took 9 years of appeals to rule Michigan’s law unconstitutional. They simply wrote a new onerous law, which will also likely take years to appeal. I suspect that Pennsylvania had their appeal prepared before the judge ruled. The Michigan situation should worry everyone on a registry in any state. As it stands now, it would appear that a state legislature can simply write a new law and make it retroactive whenever a law is struck down.
The only state that I can recall seeing just rolling over after being hammered by the courts was Georgia. But they were hammered not only by the federal District Court but also by the state Supreme Court. That was an ex post facto decision at the state level. If I recall, the Federal court decision mightâve only addressed the issue of people being forced to move because a child oriented business opened within 1000 feet of them after they had moved into their house of course. The state Supreme Court said that all of the stuff was subject to ex post facto restrictions. That really didnât mean anything for anyone convicted after 2008 or so . They are dealing with some of the horses restrictions in the land. But going back from there every couple of years you get some of those restrictions stripped away until you get back to around 2003. If you were convicted before that, you just have your original 1990s restrictions and nothing more. What they also did there in 2010 was to pass a law providing for legal recourse so that you can be removed from the registry after a time certain. They also removed any requirement to turn over your Internet identifier information and such. I think a number of us have discovered thatâs a lot bigger deal than those people might think. Itâs weird to think of going to Georgia to get off the sex offender registry, but if you have an older conviction, itâs probably one of the better places. The only place I can think of thatâs better is Vermont where if you qualify for tenure relief itâs automatic. If youâre beyond the 10 years, you donât even have to register.
In Maryland, if your offense pre-dated Sept. 1995, you don’t have to register at all. However, if you haven’t been registered for the amount of time that federal SORNA requires, you may get bugged by the feds. This was a Maryland Supreme Court decision, so I hope the rules don’t change again if the current judges get replaced some day.
This judge’s ruling is like a breath of fresh air for those who hope that sanity still exists in the world.
Sadly, insanity is so pervasive that I’m not sure how much traction this will provide for reform. Even so, the lives this touches will have to waste untold years and likely the cost of future lawsuits before it ever (if ever) has a tangible effect for them.
(I use the term insanity because anyone who still believes in the registry after reading this opinion must be out of their right mind.)
Keep up the hope guys and keep pressing for change. it took about 100 years from the emancipation proclamation before the black community saw their watershed moment of reform take place (and at the expense of much bloodshed and many lives lost). Perhaps we, or more likely our children, will see a day free from this cancer that is the sex offender registry.
Well, that’s great but I am not having children and I am concerned with the one life I have to live at the moment. Don’t bother calling me selfish as that is what today’s “woke” BS is all about.
In 100 years mankind (can you say “man”kind anymore?) as we know it will be either gone or so shi^^y that it will make today seem like a picnic – either way I don’t care as I will not be living.
I am sickened that those labelled as sex offenders are being used as pawns for corrupt politicians and for emotional manipulation of the masses. đ
I definitely don’t mean to poo-poo this. It’s a great win for sure, but what are the odds it’s going to be appealed to a higher court and the higher court will support the lower courts findings? Probably very great.
IMHO it’s sort of like doing a victory dance over getting a 1st down when you’re already down 100 to nothing late in the 4th quarter. It may have been a nice nudge forward but it’s a long long ways before any real relief is brought to the masses who are impacted by this law.
The way I view this is its will absolutely be appealed. The benefit I see here is that since they specifically quoted studies on effectiveness the higher court will have to either consider or specify a reason for not doing so.
This could be a domino moment if it is appealed to federal level and wins. This decision probably has the largest potential I’ve seen so far to have a meaningful chance of changing things.
I think you meant to say overturned by a higher court, not supported.
You have many valid points. This case is only applicable to the litigant, and does not apply to anyone else in Pennsylvania, although I do think a class action there will probably be next.
Yes, it would go to the federal court next, if the State chooses to appeal, and potentially SCOTUS, should they decide to hear it if it gets to them. Whether that would be a good or bad thing is subjective, but I see many courts now looking at registries as BS, and I don’t think it will be long before SCOTUS thinks the same thing.
The way I read it, the case was remanded to this lower Court by the Supreme Court with some strong suggestions on how the lower Court should rule.
That was the state supreme court, not SCOTUS.
There is no higher court for a ruling on the Pennsylvania constitution, which this was.
Dennis, research the case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court AFTER the registrant had already previously WON his claim. Why would they do that if they agreed with the trial courts earlier decision? The state brought this current appeal. I doubt that they are done. Their Supreme Court has not affirmed the decision.
They can continue challenging it, just like Kansas defied the U.S. Supreme Court and fought tooth and nail for over two years to keep from having to release Matthew Limon. But they will lose.
In fact, it appears as if it would be binding ONLY in PA!
Yes! So it’s very good news for Pennsylvania and encouragement for the rest of us to do whatever they did in Pennsylvania!