"All Other Claims Against Defendants Are Dismissed With Prejudice" - Well, At Least The Court Terminology Is Honest - USA

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Doe v Raemisch

"Plaintiffs' affidavits explain in detail the difficulties and embarrassment they and their families have endured as a consequence of complying with these new restrictions, even though their convictions are now almost twenty years in the past and they have led completely law-abiding, if not exemplary, lives in the interim. Their stories raise substantial questions as to the wisdom and fairness of subjecting them and similarly situated individuals to lifetime registration and notification requirements with their attendant obligations and restrictions. But given the previous decisions addressing the issues Plaintiffs raise, I conclude that the relief, if any, must come from the legislative branch. With one limited exception, the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. For the most part, the amendments to the Wisconsin sex offender registry system do not depart in any meaningful way from the systems already found to be constitutional by the Bollig and Smith Courts.

The lone exception I find to this is the $100 fine provision, which I have concluded cannot be constitutionally imposed on them. With this exception, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment declaring that imposition of the $100 annual fee on Plaintiffs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 301.45(10) constitutes punishment in violation of their rights under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions and enjoining Defendants from assessing or collecting such amount from Plaintiffs. All other claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice."

September 25, 2013

Federal Court of Appeals: Sex Offender Registry Fee Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Violation Under Certain Circumstances

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html

Doe v Raemisch

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8848008220643270891&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/doe-v-raemisch.html

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html

"They Have Paid Their Dues" - In The Land Of 'The Free'

Mar 24, 2013

Michigan sex offenders could face new fees

"Bill stirs debate over who should pay for registry

A bill to require the more than 40,000 people on Michigan’s sex offender registry to pay an annual fee is igniting a debate over who should bear the costs for operating and maintaining the state’s system used to track offenders.

Registered sex offenders already are required to pay a one-time $50 fee, but some lawmakers want to charge them $50 every year to cover the $600,000 a year cost to operate the database. The state says the move could bring in about $540,000 more in revenue annually.

Sex offenders “put themselves onto this registry by their actions,” [uh, no, you did, when you chose to prosecute them] said Republican Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, who is sponsoring the legislation that is headed to the Senate floor, but not yet scheduled for a vote. “Therefore, they need to pay a fee to maintain it.”" [uh, no, you do, you made the laws, not them]

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/viewart/20130324/NEWS01/303240022/Michigan-sex-offenders-could-face-new-fees

Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Governor signs Jones bill that will protect children from sexual predators [sic]

"Public Act 2 of 2013  (Senate Bill 44) amends the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) to require that a registered sex offender convicted of certain Tier 1 offences against minors to be listed on the public website."

http://www.misenategop.com/senators/readarticle.asp?id=5770&District=24

Should sex offender have to pay an annual fee for their monitoring?

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2013/03/should-sex-offender-have-to-pay-an-annual-fee-for-their-monitoring.html