« Larry Flynt hustles his way into Missouri litigation over lethal injection | Main | Now on to the real trial: "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is Guilty of All 30 Counts in Boston Marathon Bombing" »
April 8, 2015
Federal judge finds unconstitutional "geographic exclusion zones" for sex offenders in Michigan
Thanks to a helpful reader, I did not miss this notable new story from the state up north headlined "Sex offenders can be within 1,000 feet of schools after federal judge strikes down parts of law." Here are the details:
A federal judge struck down some portions of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act in a court decision handed down last week. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Cleland issued a ruling March 31, striking down four portions of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act, calling them unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of five John Does and one Jane Doe against Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and Michigan State Police Director Col. Kriste Etue.
Cleland's ruling stated the "geographic exclusion zones" in the Sex Offender Registry Act, such as student safety areas that stretch for 1,000 feet around schools, are unconstitutional, according to court documents.
The law is too vague on whether the 1,000 feet barrier should be as the crow flies or how people actually travel, and if it goes from building-to-building or property-line-to-property-line, Cleland said in his ruling. "While a prescribed distance may appear concrete on its face, without adequate guidance about how to measure the distance, such provisions are susceptible to vagueness concerns," he wrote.
Cleland also stated law enforcement doesn't have strong enough guidelines to know how to measure the 1,000-foot exclusion zone around schools. Neither sex offenders or law enforcement have the tools or data to determine the zones, even if the guidelines on how to measure the zones were stronger, he said. "Accordingly, due to (the Sex Offender Registry Act's) vagueness, registrants are forced to choose between limiting where the reside, work and loiter to a greater extent than is required by law or risk violating SORA," he wrote.
Cleland struck down other portions of the law as well, but ruled in favor of the government on the rest of the lawsuit. Other portions of the law ruled unconstitutional were: a requirement to report in person to the "registering authority" when an offender begins to drive a vehicle regularly or begins to use a new e-mail or instant messaging address; a requirement for an offender to report all telephone numbers routinely used by an offender; a requirement to report all e-mail and instant messaging addresses; a requirement to report the license plate number, registration number and description of any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel used by an offender....
The ruling drew an immediate reaction from State Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge. In a statement released Tuesday morning, Jones, a former sheriff, said he plans to help rewrite the law to make up for the judge's ruling. "I warn sex offenders to stay away from schools. This is one judge's ruling, and the law will soon be changed to clarify it," said Jones, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I'm working to make sure there is no vagueness in Michigan's Sex Offender Registry law. Child molesters must stay away from our schools. Law enforcement will be watching."
The full ruling, which runs 70+ pages, is available at this link.
April 8, 2015 at 12:19 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201b8d0fe905a970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federal judge finds unconstitutional "geographic exclusion zones" for sex offenders in Michigan:
Comments
Sen. Rick Jones shows his ignorance by incorrectly assuming that anyone on the Sex Offender Registry is a child molester.
Posted by: kat | Apr 8, 2015 12:40:22 PM
Given that 95% of sex offenses are committed by people without prior sex offense records, it's disheartening that so many resources are squandered on what is essentially crime control theater as opposed to directing those resources where they might have greater impact on addressing our problems with sexual violence and exploitation.
It's (mostly) a good opinion that recognizes how burdensome and myriad registration requirements have become. In essence, any time someone thinks of another piece of information that would be good to turn over, it becomes another part of the law -- and another crime and trap for the unwary and uninformed -- until it touches every aspect of your very existence.
Posted by: Guy | Apr 8, 2015 2:45:19 PM
As I have said before, these exclusionary laws could actually put law enforcement personnel, parole officers, politicians like Rick Jones himself, prosecutors, judges, and the like at risk for their own personal safety if these laws give former sex offenders the idea that they now have no incentive to behave and, therefore, nothing left to lose by striking back against these laws.
In short, these restriction laws might provoke former sex offenders who are bitter about these laws' prevention of their rehabilitation into seeking revenge against the above categories of law enforcement personnel in the form or murder or injury attempt.
Our law enforcement personnel have a dangerous enough job without having to make sure that former sex offenders who are NOT committing any new sex offenses or other violent offences either register or stay a minimum number of feet from given locations. Now, if an officer had PROBABLE CAUSE to suspect that a former sex offender was in the process of committing another violent crime, then that would be different. But to require officers to make sure that a former offender merely didn't fail to register or merely failed to keep a certain distance from a public building is a waste on personnel power and provokes a former sex offender into wanting to get even with this law by either booby-trapping their home as an offender in Savannah, GA, recently did, or by provoking another into shooting a judge as an offender in Minnesota did a year or two ago. One can imagine where clusters of former sex offenders in Miami, FL, should ever get the notion of banding together to form a militant radical self-defense group like the Black Panthers and dare the police to a confrontation.
I pray this radical violence never happens, but I would not be surprised if it ever does eventually.
Some advice for Rick Jones: one day, he and his wife might find themselves falsely accused or convicted of a sex offense and be labled like a child-molester, and then he and his wife would get a cure for their arrogance.
Posted by: william r. delzell | Apr 8, 2015 4:32:11 PM
Rick Jones:
What part of this law is working so well that you would claim all of your other so-called responsiblities (are there any?) secondary so you can polish this POS again. As an ex-sheriff, am I correct in thinking your education is not up to par (GED or equivalent only)? You are not proving me wrong.
Stop your grandstanding, unconstitutional madness and wasting of resources solely so you think you can get more votes for another job when your term limit expires. Maybe, your buddies need more federal dollars to continue to finance this theater, but the public is beginning to figure out the lies.
The law does not separate those who are potentially a danger from those who are not. Only a judge, subject to review, can make an attempt at this determination, no matter how many times you waste your time trying to rewrite un-acceptable, Jim Crow laws.
I would only hope that the governor comes to his senses and vetos the legislation.
Posted by: albeed | Apr 8, 2015 6:23:08 PM
As a general rule:
-Law enforcement officers turned poloticians are vehemently in FAVOR of the most stringent sex offender legislation possible. One reaon only: VOTES.
-Rank and file law enforcement officers are just as vehemently OPPOSED to such legislation, as they are VERY aware of the real numbers involving recidivism (or lack of), and they feel it's a waste of valuable time taken away from the real problems.
I get a kick out of how politicans like Jones in Michigan, and the Runners in California, all state how much more DANGEROUS it is for "child molesters who live right across the street from your child's kindergarten," yet have absolutely zero evidence of even ONE incident where proximity to a school has resulted in one stranger-danger abduction or molestation of a child.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Apr 9, 2015 12:10:09 AM
At what point do laws based on conjecture and not based on fact become examples of tyranny?
Posted by: Oswaldo | Apr 9, 2015 10:34:49 PM
