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.
I see this as the START to what we all (granted some longer than others) have been fighting for!! This is just the beginning of a movement in the correct direction for justice-hopefully sometime soon it will follow suit in other places/states- finally!! Thank Goodness-
I think it’s a grave mistake to assume that the defendant in this case has actually won anything yet. The case was remanded back to the trial court by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with instructions for the trial judge to make further determinations. There is nothing indicating that the state can’t appeal this decision. They likely will. In the final analysis, only a state Supreme Court ruling that a statute is unconstitutional will carry any precedential weight. And even such a ruling could be nullified by a federal court. And I think it’s unlikely that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will look favorably on a trial court taking it upon itself to declare a state law unconstitutional.
He has won a tremendous amount. The PA registry was declared unconstitutional facially and as applied to the defendant. Are people here not reading the order at the end of the opinion?
Gerald, I don’t believe that a federal court, even SCOTUS, can overrule a state spreme court’s interpretation of state law or the state constitution. That is unless somehow the decision is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
As to the decision itself, I was flabbergasted that the judge provided such a detailed and articulate analysis of recidivism data and challenged the legislature’s finding of dangerousness. That last issue is usually just blown off by the courts under “rational basis review.” As FAC#3 pointed out the judge declared PA-SORNA to be FACIALLY invalid, as well as being punishment akin to unending probation. The decision has a real “WOW” factor, and the analysis will be extremely useful to everyone.
This judge is a Republican woman who holds an elected position. I applaud her political courage and judicial integrity.
My main point is that this was NOT a decision by a state Supreme Court. It was by a local trial court. Trial courts are bound to follow their state laws as interpreted by their state Supreme Court. A trial court judge can’t rule a state law unconstitutional. He or she doesn’t have that authority. Pennsylvania’s appellate courts can completely overturn the decision. There is no victory until the game is over.
Right, it ain’t over till it’s over. A trial court can indeed rule a law unconstitutional, it just doesn’t have the final word. I originally presumed the state would invariably appeal the decision. On second thought, it may prefer to allow the issue to languish at the trial court level where the decision is merely persuasive and not precedential.
Since the PA Supreme Court directed the trial court to analyze SORNA’s constitutionality, the state may not want to risk an adverse decision by the appellate or supreme courts. They might just write off Mr. Torsilieri as a singular loss. This will be interesting.
I didn’t articulate my point very well. Federal courts cannot nullify any state court’s decision based solely on state law. So the feds will have no role in this process.
Ed C, the thing about this case is that the offender won his claim in that same trial court a couple of years ago. This current ruling is pursuant to the state of Pennsylvania’s appeal of that decision. There is no reason to suspect that they are going to stop appealing that decision now. Pennsylvania’s courts are already filling up with others trying to make the same claim based on this decision. It will end up back in their Supreme Court, and that Court will have to make a final decision on the matter.
He won in trial, appellate court AFFIRMED his win and remanded for judicial decisions as to specific issues. Trial court decided those issues on behalf of the Supreme Court. We dissected this case in another post. Why are people still debating this?
I will quote the conclusion of thr Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanding the case to the trial court by copy and paste from the actual ruling itself:
As is apparent from the trial court findings, the evidence presented by Appellee
provides a colorable argument to debunk the settled view of sexual offender recidivation
rates and the effectiveness of tier-based sexual offender registration systems underlying
the General Assembly’s findings as well as various decisions of this Court and the United
States Supreme Court. Nevertheless, as the trial court did not have the benefit of the
opposing science, if any, the evidence currently in the record does not provide a sufficient
basis to overturn the legislative determination. Accordingly, we conclude that the proper
remedy is to remand to the trial court to provide both parties an opportunity to develop
arguments and present additional evidence and to allow the trial court to weigh that
evidence in determining whether Appellee has refuted the relevant legislative findings
supporting the challenged registration and notification provisions of Revised Subchapter
H.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s order declaring the
registration requirements of Revised Subchapter H of SORNA unconstitutional and
remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
And earlier in the decision, their Supreme Court specifically stated:
Unfortunately, the procedural posture of this case prevents tidy resolution of the
matter by this Court. While Appellee presented a colorable argument that the General
Assembly’s factual presumptions have been undermined by recent scientific studies, we
are unable to affirm the trial court’s several conclusions finding Revised Subchapter H
unconstitutional.
Their Supreme Court did NOT affirm the trial court’s decision. If they had affirmed it, there would be no need for remand. They may eventually agree with the trial judge and rule accordingly, resulting in a huge change in that State’s law, but the trial court’s opinion here is just that, his opinion. It is not binding precedent. It is not authorative. It is still subject to appeal. It is simply wrong to think that the trial court;s ruling is the end of the matter. And the Pennsylvania Legislature will certainly do its best to try to circumvent any ruling adverse to their laws. I urge everyone who is interested to simply read the last 4 or 5 pages of that Supreme Court of Pennsylvania opinion. There is no finality in the case yet.
https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2020/06/Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court-Opinion.pdf
It seems most likely to me after reading many articles that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded this case for the major purpose of amassing more legal argument to use in a future sweeping ruling on the overall constitutionality of the Pennsylvania law. They already ruled 5 years ago that it couldn’t be applied retroactively for offenses committed before the law’s passage in 2012. But ANY such important ruling has to come from a state’s highest court in order to carry any authoritative weight. It took 5 years from the law’s passage to have the retroactive portion ruled unconstitutional. It has taken 10 years since the law was enacted for this case to reach their Supreme Court. What happens if Pennsylvania follows Michigan’s lead and simply enacts a brand new law to replace the old one? And it took appeals to the federal court for Michigan to get that decision. And unless you can afford a lawyer, it’s hard to get relief even when a court decision is favorably to your own situation. They don’t ordinarily automatically remove you from the registry, even if you shouldn’t have been placed on it in the first place. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn’t given their final decision yet. It will be interesting to see what they say. I’m sure that it will be a lengthy opinion.
SCOTUS cannot/will not overrule the PA State Supreme Court should they rule in our favor BECAUSE the issue deals with the PA Constitution and not the US Constitution. If it were to rule they would have to say that no PA citizen has a right to a good reputation under any circumstance. The Federal Constitution has no provisions dealing with reputation in it. Therefore, Amendment X of the Federal Constitution kicks in leaving SCOTUS out of jurisdiction.
The whole idea that the word “reputation” magically makes Pennsylvania’s case unique is flawed. The state will simply argue that the offender lost the right to good reputation through his own illegal actions, just as an offender loses his rights to liberty when he breaks the law. The truth is that we should all hope that more state cases make it to the US Supreme Court so that they will revisit the issue in total, and stop allowing the government to persecute people with a system that serves no purpose other than to inflict additional punishment.
I still dont know how so’s still got dis credited from being able to vote. You can rob a bank and still live next to it. You can car jack a car and still own a car. You can jack a car with a kid in it and i believe you can still be around kids. Im serious when i say if I hit the lottery I would put so much money towards the best attorneys to fight for us. I am so tired of a double sided coin here. Are politicians so afraid if felon and especially so’s could vote their the vote could be so swaying? Please correct me if you feel im wrong
This judge is raised an interesting question. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court excepts these findings, then doesn’t that mean that the current provisions of SORNA cannot be applied to anyone who was convicted before it was passed? Or in portly for some of us would it mean that the old 10 year rule in Pennsylvania must be applied to everyone as opposed to applying the “which ever is greater“ standard. In the case of Florida, that’s technically a “life sentence“ and in most of our cases well beyond the permitted sentence for our offenses likely both in Pennsylvania and Florida. Of course, there’s always the risk like in Michigan and other places that the state will merely ignore the rulings of their own court. It’s ironic that one of the few states that it seems to have fully accepted what their courts ordered them to do was Georgia, one of the strictest states of all. If you’re convicted today or if you were convicted after 2009, you’re hosed. But if, like me, you were convicted before the Georgia legislature started ramping up the requirements and punishment for registrants, then you have virtually no restrictions including, it would appear, any obligation at all to turn over your Internet information to the state. What you can get off the registry in Georgia and they actually seem to be letting people off, even out of stators, using Georgia standards not Florida standards. Obviously, the wheels of justice turn slowly because this case is apparently arising out of the Muniz case, Which is what? Six years old? Shades of Michigan.
So even if PA SORNA is abolished [never happen], wouldn’t the PA registered citizens still be under the aegis of Federal SORNA?
Also, what’s the latest on Michigan? Should I pack my bags yet?
Yes, the obligations under a State registry scheme and federal are separate.
But doesn’t the federal sorna have an impossiblebility defense? If the state constitution determines that having you on the registry is unconstitutional and they won’t put you on there, how are you supposed to “register” On the federal list? Do they have some kind of new provision does that
Unless the Federal government sets up a federal registering facility you simply cannot register at all.
Since 1992, the Supreme Court has ruled the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce federal law.
Therefore, if there is no way for you to register in a state you cannot be arrested by the federal government and held in contempt.
The federal government could set up a registering facility in states where sorna is deemed unconstitutional, but states frown on the federal government getting involved in matters where the state has made judgement in opposition.
With this newest round of rules and such, do you actually believe that the feds will not arrest someone and force them to prove that it was impossible for them to register? Remember that in many instances, these “registration violations” are strict liability offenses.
There are many states that do not strictly adhere to sorna.
In Ohio, sorna was stopped from being retroactively applied to people under Megan’s law and declared a breach to the ‘Separation of Powers’ doctrine, (State vs. Bodyke) and everyone that was pre-sorna was put back on Megan’s law even though sorna replaced it.
Now I haven’t seen or heard of any federal agents coming to Ohio to arrest those who have been relieved of the Adam Walsh act obligations because of the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling and that was 12 years ago.
The federal government has a lot more better things to do than to look for people in states where federal laws have been deemed unnecessary or unconstitutional and prosecute them because the 10th Amendment as judged in 1992 clearly states that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce federal law.
So if the feds already know it is impossible for you to register in a state, why would they come and arrest you for what they already know you can’t do because state law prohibits it??
I really want to talk with you .
As i want to move to Georgia
But i am afraid .
Some states are really Hard on SO. The lewd and lascivious is from 1999. Comoleted everything and no longer on probation or classes or anything.
Just have to Register once a year.
Can you DM MSG me please.
I value your time . And it is very important please.
We are scared to move to geogia.
But really want to .
God Bless. Thank you.
A registrant seeking advice on moving to GA should contact a GA attorney such as Mark Yurachek or Brandon Thomas.
If you move to Georgia, as best as I can tell, the only restrictions that you would be under would be the ones that require you to register. No residency restrictions, no work restrictions and apparently no requirement to submit your Internet identifiers, etc. to anyone. There are a number of lawyers that handle removal cases. I haven’t talked to in the oven for a couple of years. Back in like 2019, the prices range from $3000-$10,000. If you have been off probation for 10 years, that makes life easier I think
Good news indeed. I hope we can start taking these cases and learning from them. Cases seem to be strongest when there is one named defendent (as opposed to several Does), who brings a simple case asking the Court to reckon with one maybe two questions in a facial challenge against the STATE. From what i am reading we seem to be experiencing some issues bringing cases againt Rick Swearingen personally. If by the time it is appropriate for me and for our cause as a whole and if no other cases have been brought, i’ll hire Ron Kleiner and gladly file a case myself, no problem. Wish I could do it today.