[admin]

By Olivia Covington . . . Six men required to register as sex offenders after moving to Indiana can have their names removed from the sex offender reg
[See the full post at: Seventh Circuit orders names of six Indiana registrants removed from registry]

[Tim in WI]

Gov. efficiency at its most pathetic. Injunction ordered in 2017 and it is now 2021. One of the primary reasons why the prohibition upon ex post language use in statute applied to the already adjudicated was ratified. Neat and clean finality in law and order.

Final orders were intended to be factually final by the founders- save appeal. Only lawyer types benefit from such inefficiencies and not the general population. Hopefully these men will continue to pursue formal action upon the state of Indiana because in America the presumption of innocence has been demolished.

[WC_TN]

Yet another nice addition to the growing body of favorable case law.

In ruling for the appellees, the 7th Circuit recognized 3 facts: (1) This sets up the very sort of multi-tiered state citizenship that the Supreme Court’s right to travel cases prohibit. This discriminatory classification is a penalty in and of itself and can only survive if it satisfies strict scrutiny. (2) The court was pointed to NO EVIDENCE indicating, nor does the State suggest, that individuals who began to reside in Indiana after the other jurisdiction provision of SORA was enacted are more likely to re-offend than whose who were residents prior to that time. (3) However small in number the plaintiffs may be, Indiana has assigned them to a class of citizenship that is inferior to that enjoyed by other, similar situated, Indianans, and for the plaintiffs, it is their relocation from other states that has resulted in that second-class status.

[Richard]

So does this mean I could move to Indiana from California and not have to register any longer?

[WC_TN]

Larry has made this statement many times on “Registry Matters”:

For the life of me, I cannot understand why any state would want to spend the money to bring a P.F.R. back to their state! If they are gone, that’s one less they have to worry about. And yet they spend lots of money hunting them down using the U.S. Marshalls to bring them back just so they can prosecute them and throw them in prison. People who leave are that many less the state has to pay money to monitor and keep up with. You think they’d be happy!!! Our fiscal conservative magically flip-flop to “No amount of money is too much when it comes to keeping up with these very dangerous predators. I put my hand on that BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBLE and swore I’d speak for my voters and keep them safe and that’s what I’m-a gonna do!!”

[hershel meadows]

the 7th circuit ruled it was unconstitutional to require registration for these 6 men. My circunstances are exactly like one of these 6 men. So why do I have to hire an attorney and go to a state level court and get a court order ordering my removal?

[freedom]

Don’t register. Make them take you to court. Because of this ruling, they will not do it.

[freedom]

There is prohibition against any retroactive laws. Ex Post Facto and prohibition against changing a contract. ALL THINGS fall under one of these two categories.

[JZ]

As usual, a narrow “victory” for a handful of registrants while thousands more with the exact same circumstances, or future Indiana residents, will continue to languish on the registry.

[Perry]

As usual; The State will always try, one way or another, to see how it can get around such rulings as these. The Appeals I’m certain, have been filed by now, and you can bet this will go to The U.S. Supreme Court,,,and we all know how that’s going to turn out, given the most recent appointments.

[Author]

Posts