The decision was a mixed one that found some aspects of the most recent version of Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act unconstitutional, but upheld it in other respects.

 

The court found for the Plaintiffs on the following issues:

(1) Under relevant Sixth Circuit case law, retroactive imposition of an in-person reporting requirement violated the Ex Post Facto clause.

(2) People who have been convicted of crimes that do not require proof of a sexual component (e.g., kidnapping) are entitled to a hearing to determine whether the crime was sexual before they can be required to register as sex offenders.

(3) People who are being required to register in Michigan due to a conviction for an offense out of state are entitled to a hearing to determine whether their out-of-state offense requires registration in Michigan and, if so, what tier they are in.

(4) It violates the First Amendment to force registrants to sign a form attesting that they “understand” their registration requirements when they don’t actually understand them. 

(5) Requiring registrants to disclose their internet identifiers violates the First Amendment.

 

The court left open for later proceedings how the state will have to address and correct these violations.

 

The court found for the state on the following issues:

(1) Registration, as a general matter, is not compelled speech that violates the First Amendment.

(2) The state is not required to provide an individualized hearing before a person is required to register. 

(3) The state is not required to provide everyone an opportunity to petition for removal from the registry. 

 

Share This

Let's Spread Truth

Share this post!