SCOTUS to hear Sex Offender Case
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
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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