The Supreme Court of the US has agreed to hear a sex offender case., Gundy v. United States.
The issues in the case are:
(1) Whether convicted sex offenders are “required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act while in custody, regardless of how long they have until release; (2) whether all offenders convicted of a qualifying sex offense prior to SORNA’s enactment are “required to register” under SORNA no later than August 1, 2008; (3) whether a defendant travels in interstate commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) when his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence; and (4) whether SORNA’s delegation of authority to the attorney general to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 violates the nondelegation doctrine.
NOTE: only (4) is being taken up by the SCOTUS
ok
so my offense committed in 1988, conviction 1994
low level, non-sorna, lifetime. if I decide to visit fl what housing restrictions and others would be in effect for me.
what if I moved to key west?
were you on probation on October 1, 1997?
not for a sex offense, as i was appealing the revocation, my probation ended in 1995
2003 i was picked up and served 1 year in prison
i was let off parole in 2005 for the conviction in 1994
BTW FAC – for about 2 weeks I have only been receiving the weekly update. I thought that it had just been really quiet but now I see it was not – I just was not getting notices. Normally I get new post notices and notices when someone replies to a thread. I also get a notice when I sign up under a new post to confirm that I want to subscribe to that notice. I am not getting those any more. Has this happened to anyone else or is it perhaps on my end?
Nothing has changed on our end. If it has on yours contact membership@ and ask them to look into.
I have a question – talking about ex post facto made me think of this. How does one figure out when a particular thing was added to a Florida law? I have tried several times to figure out when the “except sex offenders” language was added to the expungement/relief laws in FL for Adjudication Withheld. When my son was Adjudicated Withheld the judge, the lawyer, and several others (including one person from FAC) said to me that is great because he can get the record expunged. But when I looked up the laws about it the verbiage “except sex offenders” was there. So I have always thought that it must have been added close to that time because no one seemed to know about it. If the date was right it would make it ex post facto for him and he would have a good chance of challenging it. I have gone to the statute site and tried to go backward to see when it appears but I always hit a dead end and it keeps showing me the current law no matter which year I choose. Does anyone know how to do this?
Karen, I think you may have to spend some time scouring the Florida Legislature’s site (http://www.leg.state.fl.us) and do a search for the specific bill that changes the wording.
Try this:
Go to the above-mentioned site. Click on “Advanced Legislative Search and Browse” in the upper right corner. On the next screen, from the drop-down box in the top right corner, select ” All Years – Statutes, Laws, Constitutions, Opinions, and Executive Orders.”
On the next page, use the search fields along the left side to narrow your search. For example, in the “exact phrase” space, maybe try typing “adjudication withheld” while at the same time in the “containing all these words” section type “sex offender.” Click the search button and prepare for A LOT of tedious reading. Concentrate on the “laws” rather than the statutes. That seems to be the law in Bill form. That is important because the Bill has to denote when the law goes into effect. Your son’s date of offense must come before that effective date for Ex Post Facto to even be a consideration.
If, by some miracle, you find the Bill that you are looking for then scroll down to the end and note the effective date. Don’t hesitate to print that sucker out if you think it might be helpful to your kid’s case. (You can always print to PDF as well.) There’s a reason these legislature sites are a bitch to navigate: To dissuade the typical citizen from looking behind the curtain. Be a Dorothy!
Best of luck.
On a separate note… How many of you that are not on any form of supervision have to pay a registration fee each time they register with law enforcement? Isn’t that a form of probation as well because failure to pay either can lead to an arrest? I’m curious because I’ve been off probation since 2005 and at first did not have to pay the 25.00, but as of a few years ago… Received notification that we have to start paying 25.00 to offset costs at the department (I found that off). Just curious
Nit wits in Ma. have a $75.00 yearly registration fee,i have never and will never pay said fee,20 or so years now,never arrested for failure to pay said fee.Some years they send me 2 or 3 reminders to pay said fee marked 2nd notice and finale notice.The reminders have warnings in capped letters.[FAILER TO PAY MAY RESULT IN YOU NOT BEING PROPERLY CREDITED WITH MAKING YOUR PAYMENTY],,,,,That result is fine with me,,From the looks of things there are a lot of registrants that refuse to pay said fee.Will the Nti wits start arresting registrants for failure to pay??????? Link below,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
https://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Investigation-Finds-Sex-Offenders-Are-Not-Paying-Mass-Registration-Fee-307757351.html
Does any one know the stats of all the US states that do and do not charge registry fees? How much are the fees in the states that do? What states arrest registrants for not paying? What states do not?
Should be interesting.
I had been paying Florida $360 a month for the privledge of living in my home in Florida. Then I finally challenged that fee…I had been paying it since May 2009. With reluctance my PO checked my account with Florida DOC and found that they had established a ‘holding account’ for me. At that point…six months ago…I had over paid in excess of $5000 and it was being held in my account…and I suspect Florida was collecting interest on it. Do you think that someone might take the time to have told me I was being over charged…after all my PO said the amount was affixed by a judge? My PO told me that I did not have to pay the monthly fee for the next 22 months. Long before then I intend to be off of probation. Look forward to my remaining account balance being refunded to me.
why not request the reimbursement now and pay the amount you are supposed to pay monthly?
You can hold the funds and pay them.
With the work my lawyer, Gilbert Schaffnit, is doing on my case I really believe that my probation will end soon. He got me permission to travel to three out of state events this year thus far…this was in spite of Florida probation declining authorization even after Virginia probation said Florida could authorize the travel. Once authorization was approved…I believe through Tallahassee…my PO has been very helpful in getting my travel permits. I look forward to the day when those in control admit to the fact that they have no valid reason to continue me on probation…other than $$$$.
Gil is a rock star. We have a great selection of attorneys on our referral page who have specific experience in sex offender post-conviction issues.
You can find these attorneys here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/attorneys/criminal-attorneys/
PLEASE remember these are NOT pro-bono attorneys, they will charge fees for their time.
The link you shared above regarding Attorneys does not work. Has this been updated or changed? When you click you simply see this:
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Hello FAC, just officially joined and made a contribution ( donation) I have been following these interesting posts and case updates. Thank you for what you all do. On the above ( link to attorney specializing in RSO matters, I noticed that none of them re listed for north Florida, Flagler, St Johns, Volusia,, Duval etc. Our son is scheduled to be released from DOC soon as he was victim of one of the famous online dating sites luring /entrapment scams that the County Sheriff’s office and FDLE tend to organize from time to time. I’d like to start running some groundwork on interviewing and hiring counsel in anticipation of his release.
Thanks Peter – There are some good attorneys in North Florida. If you reach out to [email protected] we’ll see about getting you a referral.
We desperately need more advocacy in Duval – they have some insane regulations there.
Peter, I highly recommend Gilbert Schaffnit in Gainesville, FL. His address is 719 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, FL 32601; ph. 352-378-6593; e-mail [email protected]. He got me permission to travel to professional/alumni meetings while I was still on probation and then he got me off of probation eleven years early. He is a very nice gentleman to work with and has the best for his client at heart.
Thanks Captain, I appreciate the thought. I will definitely check into it. Peter
$360 a month?????????Probation fee? Registry Fee?? Both combined? Does Fla charge a registry fee?
It was a probation/monitoring fee.
Yes cash no checks or money ordersyes about 250 to 300 a month drug test polograph classes each week
I was paying $360 a month, which I thought was rather high. One day my lawyer from Gainesville visited my home and I mentioned it to him and he concurred that was well above what his other clients were paying. He told me to check with my probation officer. Of course when I did she got rather ‘uppity’ about my questioning their authority. She checked anyway and sure enough I was paying too much each month. Do you think DOC after a few years would let me know? No chance of that happening. Sure enough, they had put the ‘extra’ into an account…for me…while they collected the interest. It came to over $5,000. My probation officer told me that I did not have to make the monthly payments for 22 months. I quit and when I was released from probation I still had over $2,500 in the account. I had to even ‘fight’ to get that returned to me. Some of the Florida ‘crooks’ reside in DOC. I am now living a good life and don’t let the registry bring me down. I have many good friends and those who might question my being on the registry, I let them figure it out. It’s not worth wasting my time.
Capt – can you explain? Why did you have to pay a fee to live in your house? That is a new one for me…
Karen, it was my monitoring fee while on probation in Florida. If I chose not to pay I would have been ‘shipped’ back to Virginia. I had built my retirement home in Port St. John and after spending 29 years in the Navy I wasn’t about to live in some motel in Virginia Beach waiting for politicians to come to their senses.
@ Bruce I pay one time a year 10.00 to D.M.V for Driver License/I.D. Card. and If I moved I have like 10 days to report in to sheriff office.no fee.They have homeless people here living on corners those report in every 90 days Since my sex crime wasn’t against a child. I do not have 1000 foot law. However, those who do or have the predatory status on them do I Do Not Have any intentions living near any schools, playgrounds why bring the heat if I do not want it. The sheriff dept is petty fair here They treated with respect I guess they act more professional out here in AZ then Florida now dmv some of them are rude like they don’t want to talk to u or been seen with you. However, if you say you live at a certain address you better be at that address because if they call u or leave a business card behind and u don’t call or reply back they coming for you
I pay 10.00 a year for update driver licence. or each time when I moved to dmv. Nothing to sheriff office Here in AZ
One major impact not being talked about here is if the SCOTUS acts and overturns this the majorly unconstitutional international travel restrictions would be in effect lifted. If I am not mistaken, it was SONRA that gives the Federal Govt the power to notify the destination country that a “boogie man” is about to arrive. Over the last 2 years I’ve been trurned around everywhere I’ve tried to go, including honduras where I actually have some pretty connected friends. On top of that. I believe it would also be SONRA that is allowing the state department to mark a SO”s passport. So I think that would also put the halt on that.
Has anyone considered these things? It’s not Florida that makes the phone call to the destination country, it’s the Feds and it’s also not Florida that is about to make my passport advertise that I made a mistake once in my life back in the 90’s, a passport is federal.
This case might be a bigger deal than it initially looks..
Again, a “win” in this case does not invalidate SORNA or any of its components. It would simply mean that the Attorney General cannot decide who SORNA applies to.
I’m not sure about any affect on IML. My first impression is that it would have zero affect, as IML does not specify who must tegister, but rather that those with certain victims are subject to it. I also believe that IML dictates that the State Department must notify receiving countries of a SO’s status. It does not leave that up to the State Department’s discretion.
So, Help me (and many others) understand this better please. If SCOTOS finds that the Att Gen(or whoever) can NOT say who the SORNA Laws apply to, Then would this impact anyone with a Conviction Date BEFORE 2006 ??. And if so, Would this outcome cancel out the “Retroactive” part of the SORNA Laws ????. I’ve been trying to keep up with all these challenges Against the “Registery” , But my (poor) health is now keeping me from spending the time I want on research. So I’m kinda “Lost” about what’s going on with these challenges. My Conviction Date (should I say Sentencing Date because I was Adjudication Withheld) was 3-2005. So I’m hoping this challenge will take me off the “Public” Registery at least. I know Florida has had a “Registery” since the 90’s, But it wasn’t”Public” !!. I guess what I’m asking is, Will a “Positive” outcome in this case, Have ANY Positive Impact on my situation ???. Thanks for answering my questions.
SCOTUS. Is not hearing whether or not registries can be applied retroactively. They are only considering whether Congress has the authority to delegate that decision to another governmental department. If they rule that Congress cannot, then that takes the AG’s decision off the table and retroactive application is no longer valid
BUT, you can bet that Congress would act quickly to add a line to an existing bill that makes SORNA retroactive, rather than “risk” having thousands of RSOs not be subject to SORNA.
And even if they didnt, it wouldn’t eliminate your state requirement to register. So no, don’t count on any immediate meaningful change.
This case is nonetheless important to those playing the long game. The outcome could help focus future litigation.
Agreed
Consider this question: why did SCOTUS feel a need to pass the ball down field to a wide receiver, i.e., AG Alberto Gonzales, when all they had to do was run the ball for a first down? But I should ask also—was the issue of retroactivity the only play that Congress was asking the AG to run?
You are a rare bird, what with that withhold. My understading, perhaps erroneous, is that for purposes of Federal firearms rights, a withhold used to not count as a “conviction” under Federal standards, yet it counts for registration because they threw in the “anyone required to register” language, I’m sure.
I’m certainly no attorney, but I think a lot of folks might be misunderstanding exactly what is at stake in this case.
SCOTUS is only considering whether Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine. In essence, the plaintiff is arguing that the Attorney General should not have the authority to make SORNA retroactive because Congress is not allowed to delegate to another branch of government the authority to make policy. If SCOTUS agrees, then the authority given to the AG would be revoked and SORNA would indeed become inapplicable retroactively.
Until Congress passes a quick fix to correct it. All it will take is a short paragraph tacked onto any other bill and SORNA goes back to what it is now. So I hope no one is seriously hoping any decision on this case will bring any sort of quick relief.
However, a positive result in this case could potentially open up the federal government to litigation that so far seems to have been limited to state suits. If Congress has to make it law that SORNA applies retroactively, they can be sued on the same Constitutional violations that were addressed in Snyder and Muniz. And we all know SCOTUS denied review in both of those.
So, while there is nothing immediately beneficial to Gundy, there may be hope on the horizon.
I agree, Chris – however, whenever the SCOTUS opens up the door to this issue, there’s an opportunity
Explain ex post facto law. How do/did Congress violate this protection.
Ex post facto was a very important protection that the founding fathers built into the Constitution. The reason for it is to prevent government from punishing someone twice for the same crime. They were concerned that if a tyrannical leader (like the one they had just committed treason to escape from) came into power, that those in opposition to him/her could be punished perpetually. This protection was so fundamental to Thomas Jefferson that he once wrote:
“The sentiment the ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just.”
— Thomas Jefferson , Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
So if Jefferson were alive today and he had any say at all, the registries would never have passed muster in the first place.
As to how Congress et al violate Ex Post Facto protection, it is very simple:
Both Congress and all state legislatures have in the last 24+ years passed laws that are increasingly more punitive to those who have been convicted of a sexual offense. Registrants are subject to these new laws even when their crime was committed before the passage of those laws (in many many cases DECADES before.) Registrants have no say in the matter; they cannot defend themselves, nor can they face their accuser, so there is no due process (a separate violation of Constitutional protections.) What are they being accused of when these new laws are passed? Being dangerous to society, even though statistical data shows otherwise.
That is a very brief reply to your question, but if you are really interested in reading something in depth, try reading some of the law journal articles on the subject. Try this one:
https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=king
Thanks so much Courtney!
Expost Facto Provisions do not apply to so called remedial sanctions. All the legislatives need do is classify punishment as regulatory and puff the constitutional protections no longer apply.
Wait, I’m confused. I had 2 separate convictions in Florida. The first was 1995 and the second 1998. I see mention of prior to 2006 but does this only effect someone with a 1997 or earlier conviction or is there some kind of “partial” effect to people convicted prior to 2006.
these are two separate challenges.
ONE is at the SCOTUS, and challenges SORNA
THE OTHER is also a federal challenge, but going to challenge the FLORIDA registry.
Can you share more in the Florida registry one?
Ditto on that question _ , that Ge217 requested? ( unless I have missed it ( FAC reply)
Can you share more in the Florida registry one?
Thank you
You know this brings up another issue -Florida applies all their new RSO laws to everyone – across the board. When a state law is made about something I would think that qualifies it as punishment. Things like the identifier law. Applied across the board – does not depend on when you were charged at all.
It is legal as it is regulatory and not punishment
Call it what you want, the effect is the same.
Yes sir. I wonder how these “regulatory” opinions would change if such reporting were applied to all owners of firearms convicted of a misdemeanor crime, ever treated for depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc. etc.? We are so far removed from the constitution nothing would surprise me in the name of “safety” from our fear-mongering political hacks, nor from the public who sheepishly watch their rights disappear.
I hear what you are saying John but….the civil county by county laws are civil and regulatory – but the state laws I believe automatically are not considered regulatory because they only focus on a certain group of people. Making a law that focuses on only a certain group of people has got to be unconstitutional – and anything that carries a jail punishment is just that – a punishment
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL:
This argument does not demonstrate the conclusion it purports to justify. Let us apply the majority’s reasoning to a similar, hypothetical case. After investigation, Congress determines (not unrealistically) that a large proportion of violent crime is perpetrated by persons who are unemployed. It also determines, equally reasonably, that much violent crime is committed at night. From amongst the panoply of “potential solutions,” Congress chooses a statute which permits, without judicial review, the imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew on anyone who is unemployed. Since this is not a measure enacted for the purpose of punishing the unemployed, and since the majority finds that preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal, the curfew statute would, according to the majority’s analysis, be a mere “regulatory” detention statute, entirely compatible with the substantive components of the Due Process Clause.
The absurdity of this conclusion arises, of course, from the majority’s cramped concept of substantive due process. The majority proceeds as though the only substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause is a right to be free from punishment before conviction. The majority’s technique for infringing this right is simple: merely redefine any measure which is claimed to be punishment as “regulation,” and, magically, the Constitution no longer prohibits its imposition.
Because, as I discuss in Part III, infra, the Due Process Clause protects other substantive rights which are infringed by this legislation, the majority’s argument is merely an exercise in obfuscation.
Hope this clarifies the confusion
Unless I read that incorrectly Justice Marshall was calling BS on the “regulatory” crap.
Shout to CMC! That was a great analogy and I commend you for it. Me, I interpret what you’re saying to mean that if those clowns in DC had a mind to they can pass legislation to justify the re-imprisonment but instead of regular prisons but Nazi style concentration camps.
They already have. It’s called civil commitment
I believe that was exactly what the Nazis told the Jews when requiring them to be place on a registry.
Seems it was punishment in the end.
John Doe – when something carries the threat of jail it stops being regulatory and becomes punishment
No, the State of Florida did not apply the 1000 foot rule to persons convicted prior to 2004 once they finished sanctions, BUT they did a run around and permitted cities and counties to invoke the 2500 foot rule. Only lack of funding has prevented that from being challenged until recently, I’m sure.
The State of Florida never intended is residency restriction to be regulatory. It’s intent and purpose was to punish. The problem is that the Excile case was presented as preemption challenge.
State constitutional law prohibits home rule Counties from imposing Punishment.
On its face the State statue is punishment barring counties from increaseing the punishment imposed.
Example Dade County can not impose a life sentence man slaughter if the State punishment is say 20 years.
I guess something that always confuses me also is that technically the registry is not part of a persons sentence – if it were then it would be considered punishment. It makes no sense.
Many of the restrictions placed on sex offenders from say 1997 until 2004 were statutorily mandated special conditions of probation aka PUNISHMENT. THAT is the main problem with the subsequent county and city imposed residency restrictions, at least as they apply to folks convicted before 2004. Of course, that SHOULD be persons whose OFFENSE was before 2004.
I pray to god whomever is fighting for our side is at the top of their game and has their ducks in a row.
If we are successful here other RSO nonsense can be appealed to SCOTUS
I’m having trouble finding details on this case, but was Gundy charged with failure to register while he was in custody?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/34is8oq2xmowoyt/17-6086-petition%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0
My son was 2010 so this of course does not affect him – however, in my opinion ever time an ex post facto case is decided in our favor it is a chink in the wall of the registry. Think about this ex post facto is based on the big P word – punishment. By acknowledging ex post facto they are also acknowledging punishment!
I am from Michigan, and even though we won, Does v Snyder and The Michigan Legislature still has not gotten of their butt’s to revise our registry, because when they do I will be removed from the registry since my conviction was on 6-19- 1992 before Michigan even had a registry.
How would this effect me, or would it even effect me at all just curious about this and how or if it would effect Michigan at all, thank you.
If the law was declared unconstitutional and there is not replacement law, then why are you still registered?
Gundy still does not seem to the “big one” where SCOTUS finally rules on the constitutionality of the Registry itself. Nonetheless it appears to me that they are inching their way to that.
I agree with others who think that good, or at least interesting outcomes will come from this case
The case is rather interesting. Sexual offense laws are so overreaching that it is threatening other governmental foundations. If it is inching it’s way there, it’s because instead of containing the fire, law makers keep fanning the fire towards the supreme court and they will eventually have no choice but to put it out themselves. Might even come sooner than we think – ” Hopeful ”
Justice Gorsuch would probably want to take a crack at SORNA again.
He doesn’t like government overreaching and does not like SORNA due to his dissent opinion in Nichols V. United States.
SCOTUS even agreed with Gorsuch’s dissent with SORNA in Nichols V. U.S. when they reversed the 10th circuit’s ruling.
scroll to the bottom of the page to Nichols.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-supreme-court-nominee/
I was convicted in fl in march 2006. The sorna wasn’t in effect til July 2006. Does this affect my situation.
The date of your CHARGE is what matters actually. So yes, this most definitely may affect you.
Actually was charged in may of 2005. I figure if it is a good outcome then Florida will probably not notify anyone affected because thats how Florida is. We will have to do it ourselves
Are you sure it is based on your “Charge” ?? And not your “Conviction” Date ??. I was told several times it was our Conviction Date !!???. My Charge was Feb ’03, I’m hoping it based on the Charge Date, That puts me way before the SORNA crap !!.
The date of your charge determines what year statutes your punishment/ conviction falls under. For example, you get arrested for something that happens in May of 2017. You get convicted for the crime January of 2018. Because your charge occurred BEFORE October of 2017, you will be sentenced under the 2017 guidelines. This is Florida law btw. (I’m guessing other states and the federal system work the same way? )
I’m under the impression the same will hold true here.
That’s true because the judge said the Jessica Lunsford act didn’t apply to me because of the date of my charge
I may be wrong, but I believe the important date is not the date you were charged nor the conviction date, but rather the date the crime was allegedly committed (or the latest date if a date range was given.)
But Florida also don’t care when your date was. Anything changes to laws or statutes you still have to follow them. So your guidelines are whatever they desire to pass that year.
Or your day when released from prison or other sanctions or the date they picked at random, blah, blah, blah.
Date of OFFENSE is supposed to be the standard, not date of conviction. Had you been arrested for a crime say in January of 1990 and the crime was eliminated from the statutes in the 1990 spring legislative session , do you honestly think that you would have been let go with no further action if your case had not been resolved yet? Not bloody likely.
It is doubtful that SCOTUS took up this case to affirm the district and circuit court. This could be good news in the making.
The more I read the more interesting this becomes. My conviction was in 2000. This registration requirement almost sounds as though it crosses the line of ex-post facto. As in my case and in the cases of a vast majority of ex-sex offenders, I am certain that the registry is a waste of valuable law enforcement time. I follow sex related arrests in the news and without a doubt very, very few re-offenses are committed by anyone on the registry. It’s amazing that we have so many legislators who are not guided by facts but by paranoia. How can a nation survive with that kind of quality in our lawmakers?
I would like a better explanation as to what this case actually means to the average person being forced to register. In my case does it affect me as My conviction was in 1991 and am being forced to register?
Here is a quick summary taken from: https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-environmental-regulation-epa-892f82ff3bc3/
SORNA was enacted in 2006, and it applied automatically to all sex offenders who were convicted after it took effect. The provision of SORNA at issue in Gundy provides that “the Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders.”
Pursuant to this power, the Justice Department issued a sweeping rule which provided that “the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act apply to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.” Thus, even though Gundy was convicted in 2005, before SORNA was law, DOJ regulations require him to register as a sex offender.
Gundy’s lawyer argues, however, that this delegation of authority to the Attorney General violates a largely defunct constitutional doctrine known as “Nondelegation.”
From reading the SCOTUS Blog it seems that they will take up this case during the next term/session. Does that mean they won’t place it on the docket until the first Monday in Oct 2018?
These cases are very confusing to me.. What would be the potential impact be at the state level since states have enacted laws that require registration and not “policies/rules”? For example I think Florida law states anything after 1997.
I see this as a very narrow scope and that is the nondelegation doctrine, whether or not the DOJ had the authority to issues these rules, and not addressing ex post facto at all?? Since the states have been given a blank checkbook to write these laws, I don’t see a win in this one. I hope my assumptions are wrong..
According to my research, President George W. Bush signed AWA into law on July 27, 2006. So if Gundy wins his case, everyone convicted, charged, offended, etc. before that date would no longer be required to register? Would this apply to federal cases only or state also?
That is incorrect. people would still be required to register.
People would still be required to register in the state of their conviction if their offense pre-dates SORNA. What if an individual whose conviction occurred prior to SORNA’s enactment moved from the state they were required to register in? Would that enable folks to move without having to register in a different State, or will states be allowed to defer to their own registration requirements concerning folks convicted elsewhere? Thanks for any info.
Please explain why they would still be required to register if their conviction pre-dates SORNA? If that’s the case, why bother with it?
Not under federal requirements, but potentially under their state requirements. Depends on each state (since this is SCOTUS, the decision will impact all states).
There are a number of states that are not Adam Walsh Act (which is where SORNA originates) compliant. They don’t want to comply because it’s burdensome and ineffective. Now they won’t have to, as applied to PRE-SORNA registrants.
Additionally, many people are convicted FEDERALLY for registration violations that they may otherwise not have been hit with. It’s then up to the State to see whether (a) it would be a requirement that’s a violation under their laws, and (b) whether they even want to prosecute.
I was federal. Only got home confienmnt and probation (rare) it was 1998. So would this affect me? Only got caught up in every retroactive b.s. since then and stuck in florida.
Does your J&C require you comply with the sex offender laws of Florida?
Dunno what a j&c is i resided in ny and never everrr an issue. Got me on a failure to register here in florida but the case was dropped and a no information filed. For aome reason though the correction capt literally put me on the florida list that same night while processing. Then told me i needed to go to register when i got out. Thought that was kinda of odd. No court order no seeing a judge no due process just the c.o. Personally putting me on the registry in florida when i even had an airline ticket to go back to ny the next day. Have nothing from florida that told me to do it.
We are trying to organize a lawsuit to challenge FL registry for out of state registrants but we’re having a hard time pooling plaintiffs and funds for it.
If anyone is interested, contact [email protected]
So Floriduh, which is overly-AWA compliant, would still require someone with a state conviction prior to July 2006 to register even if SCOTUS rules post-SORNA registration invalid?
Yes – florida’s registry was 1997
But a federal conviction?
You mention the 1997 FL law for registry. How is that original one different from the AWA. and were there any additional requirements between 1997 and 2006 that would effect FL registrants
One is a State law. One is a Federal Law.
The federal law, passed in 2006, added a laundry list of requirements state registries had to have. Some states, such as Florida, already had, for the most part, requirements that were harsher than the AWA. Whatever was not harsh enough was added. Plus every year we get NEW punishments on top of that.
Well, that just sucks! So in reality, there is no relief to be had for registered citizens in Floriduh! Time to move! At least in Georgia the courts are striking down many of the unconstitutional provisions.
What has Georgia struck down? I didn’t realize they were any less zealous than floriduh.
DW,
Here’s the Georgia FAQ:
https://gbi.georgia.gov/sex-offender-registry-frequently-asked-questions
Thanks very much for the information. Have a blessed day.
JZ,
I just read the gbi link. Georgia still okey-dokes folks with the ol’ if you were on probation or released from custody after 1997? I was encouraged when I read if one’s crime was committed post-1996, but then the kicker. I’m sure they are not as evil as floriduh. No place in the union is as far as I can tell. It’s big business down here, which is why I doubt our ability to get judicial relief. Praying I’m wrong.
I’m not sure about all Georgia’s other “requirements” but just having to register if one’s crime predates the legislation is an affront to Justice, let alone all the crap they keep adding to folks whose crimes were committed after. There truly seems to be no escape anywhere in Fascist Amerika.
Hoping everyone, everywhere, gets some relief from these garbage laws.
I was getting psyched reading through the bullets under “who is required to register”. But that last bullet, requiring me to register solely because I’m required to register here in Florida sucks. Too many states add that EASY qualification for registration.
Therein lies the okey-doke. Great bunch of lawmakers we got ourselves nationwide huh.
Georgia at least has an escape hatch for low tier offenders that have not reoffended after 10 years. Good luck getting off of Florida’s registry though, even if you only successfully deregistered elsewhere and visited here for a couple of days several years ago.
Yes indeed….floriduh is its own special kind of hell on earth. Gotta be a special place in the other one for the pandering POSs that fear-mongered society into buying such un-constitutional nonsense.
Brought to you by Alberto Gonzalez, that titan of legal scholarship. LOL
Awaiting the results.
Dunno what a j&c is i resided in ny and never everrr an issue. Got me on a failure to register here in florida but the case was dropped and a no information filed. For aome reason though the correction capt literally put me on the florida list that same night while processing. Then told me i needed to go to register when i got out. Thought that was kinda of odd. No court order no seeing a judge no due process just the c.o. Personally putting me on the registry in florida when i even had an airline ticket to go back to ny the next day.