The MI SOR: From non-public tool for LE to public, punitive, ineffective monstrosity in 20 years

image_pdfimage_print

By Dawn Wolfe . . . The ACLU and activists seeking changes to Michigan’s 40,000-person sex offender registry may have a new ally: new state Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel. Earlier this month, Nessel’s office filed briefs in two cases before the state’s Supreme Court, arguing that “the state Sex Offender Registration Act has gone far beyond its purpose and now imposes burdens that are so punitive in their effect that they negate the State’s public safety justification,” according to a press release announcing the action.

Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) was first passed into law in 1994 as a non-public database tool for law enforcement, with no reporting requirements and a 25-year time limit, except for repeat offenders. Subsequent amendments to the law have not only made the database public, but also significantly increased the reporting burden on past offenders. Today, for example, a past sex offender who has completed their sentence and probation is required to report to the police in person within three days every single time they open an online account to make a purchase or comment online; get a new job; or even buy, rent, or borrow a car.

Additional amendments to the sex offender registration law were passed in 2006 and 2011, and pulled the reins tighter in ways that have been found unconstitutional in federal court. The most recent restrictions forbid past offenders from working, living, or “loitering” within 1,000 feet of a school, place the majority of past offenders on the registry for life, and retroactively placed people into tiers based solely on their past offense, rather than on the likelihood of their committing another offense.

In two decisions in 2015 and 2017 in the case of Does v. Snyder, separate federal courts found Michigan’s geographic limitations—and the amendment placing past offenders on the registry retroactively—unconstitutional. However, since that case was filed by the ACLU of Michigan on behalf of five individuals and not as a class action, the vast majority of past offenders in Michigan are now uncertain about which aspects of the state’s registry laws they have to comply with and which no longer apply to them.

Read the remainder of the piece here at the Daily Kos.

image_pdfimage_print
Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please don not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.