TN: Win in Tennessee – District Court Denies State’s Motion to Dismiss and Grants Injunction on Ex Post Facto Grounds
A Tennessee Federal District Court last week denied the State’s Motion to Dismiss and ordered an injunction preventing them from enforcing the sex offender registry against an individual whose offense pre-dated the enactment of the ordinance.
The best part of this case was that the court based its opinion on Ex Post Facto grounds!
A copy of the long and well reasoned opinion can be found below. The opinion is a useful read for those who want an explanation of what “ex post facto” is, as the Court’s order is quite comprehensive.
Tennessee is one of the states in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, along with Michigan – which is where Does v. Snyder came from, Ohio and Kentucky, where the reform movement is beginning to see some traction.
Tennessee District Court Order Granting Injunction
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is encouraging for sure. I’m in Florida currently, Volusia county. I’ve been about to build a decent life but having kids if my item it is incredibly frustrating at times. We are considering moving to Indiana next year not only because if registry stuff but just a better life. Hopefully the small victories will lead to bigger ones and we can all finally live free, in the home if the free.
This is really good!!
The sixth circuit not only sees that the registry is ineffective, but also that the recidivism rate is very low!
They also acknowledge that the registry does more harm than good and that it is wrong to keep adding more and more laws and restrictions on top of what was first in place, so…..this is really good!!
I keep reading the word “convicted” what if you wasnt convicted rather Adjudication Withhold? (Florida)
other issues was Dean fisher tried this in Iowa in 2018
didnt make it far died in congress
Dead/Failed/Vetoed
(6/14/2020)
https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1035556
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=HF79
A bill for an act modifying sex offender registry requirements by requiring sex offenders whose registration requirements have expired to reregister, and providing penalties.
Two thoughts here:
I found it pretty encouraging that this court implied that it would like to see evidence that the registry is effective. Pretty sure they’d have a hard time doing that.
I can’t help but wonder how much longer the USSC is going to keep dodging the constitutionality of the registry. Normally, their primary criteria for hearing any case is a difference of opinion among the circuits, which is there. In fact, if I read correctly, this court pointed out that there’s even a difference of opinion among different panels of the same circuit court.