Pennsylvania and SORNA: Take two

By Aaron J. Marcus . . . Two years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shook up long-settled orthodoxy by ruling that the state’s sex offender registration law, otherwise known as SORNA (Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act) was punishment. The case, Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2018), presented the Court with two questions: whether people who committed their crimes before the adoption of the law could continue to be registered without running afoul of the state Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, a fairness doctrine that prevents governments from retroactively applying greater punishments to conduct than could have been applied at the time of the crime; and, second, whether the law more broadly violates due process by unfairly labeling a person as sexually dangerous without first proving that fact and without giving the person an opportunity to challenge that message. While the Court answered the first question with a resounding yes, it punted on the second.

The effect of that decision meant that although Pennsylvania was forced to reduce the length of registration for many people who had committed their crimes many years before, or in many cases remove them from the registry altogether, it did little to change how the law would be applied moving forward.  SORNA was largely left undisturbed for the roughly 1500 new people added to the registry every year.  The due process issue left undecided by the Pennsylvania high court in Muniz is now again before that court, and this time it will be harder to avoid deciding it.

One of the first people to be required to register under the new law was the defendant in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri.   Torsilieri was convicted by a jury of a non-consensual sexual offense. He had no prior record, the jury acquitted him of the most serious charges, and according to the trial judge he did not pose a risk of committing other crimes. Yet, SORNA automatically required him to register for the remainder of his life. He is now 27. Not willing to accept that consequence, Torsilieri filed a pre-sentence motion seeking to bar his registration under nine different theories. Specifically, he relied on the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which treats the right to reputation as fundamental and deserving of the same protections our federal constitution affords to life, liberty and property.  He also raised other claims under the state and federal constitutions, notably that SORNA is overbroad on its face and therefore cannot be applied to anyone without violating their rights to due process.

Although many of his specific claims have been raised by others seeking to challenge SORNA in the past, as we described more fully in earlier posts, the real strength of Torsilieri’s case is that he decided not to rely on legal arguments alone. He knew that facts matter, and that the facts are on his side. In support of his claims, he hired three of the world’s leading experts to present evidence that SORNA is overbroad and ineffective. The evidence and agreement is overwhelming, and importantly the state did not even attempt to rebut it. Torsilieri established that not all people convicted of sexual crimes are alike, and that many pose no more risk to the community of committing another sexual offense than people convicted of any other crime, from drug possession to theft. Most people now required to register will never reoffend, and even the few people who do, will do so within the first 10 years of their release. Moreover, he showed that SORNA does not keep us safe. It creates merely an appearance of safety, while in truth the law threatens the community by making those on the list second class citizens, thereby depriving them of the key things that reduce risk of reoffending, like jobs, family, and community reintegration.

Read the full piece here at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.


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


This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Avatar admin 1 week, 3 days ago.

  • Author
  • #54344 Reply

    By Aaron J. Marcus . . . Two years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shook up long-settled orthodoxy by ruling that the state’s sex offender registr
    [See the full post at: Pennsylvania and SORNA: Take two]

  • #54380 Reply

    Re- winding back to a time before electronic domestic surveillance which was the hidden ” something else afoot” in the run up to bartello (Alaska v Doe) which weighed ” the people’s use of electronic database for surveillance ” first. It was decided in that case that men’s right to good accurate reputation and privacy was outweighed by the need for knowledge about convictions of our neighbors and the right to post as registries do.

  • #54388 Reply

    Can anyone find the court docs to read for this case? If so, please advise.

  • #54399 Reply


    The strength is in the ” testimony” that same testimony can be had in FTR situations too.

  • #54664 Reply

    (Awaiting moderation)

Reply To: Pennsylvania and SORNA: Take two
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">