By David Eggert
Associated Press
LANSING (AP) — A federal judge’s ruling that struck down parts of Michigan’s sex offender registry law is prompting lawmakers to respond with changes that seek to reinstate and clarify unconstitutional provisions, including rules intended to keep offenders away from schools.
The Senate approved legislation last Wednesday, more than eight months after the decision left law enforcement scrambling.
The bill, which the House will consider in 2016, would remove some reporting requirements for offenders on the country’s fourth-biggest sex offender list. It also would narrow a prohibition against loitering on or within 1,000 feet of school property to 300 feet and provide exceptions for offenders who have a child in school.
“We need to protect our children from sex offenders,” said the measure’s sponsor, Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge. “I don’t care if they’re a pedophile or if they’re somebody that just flashes people. They don’t belong on a school ground.”
In March, U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland declared portions of the law unconstitutional in a lawsuit filed by six people who are on the registry for life, including some who were older teens who had sex with underage teens. He said the loitering definition is so vague that offenders are unable to determine if they can attend a parent-teacher conference. How the 1,000-foot limit is measured is unclear, he said, limiting registrants’ movement more than necessary.
For now, Michigan is only barred from enforcing the exclusion zones against the six plaintiffs, though the ruling could help other registrants facing charges.
Cleland also nullified some reporting rules as vague, such as requiring offenders to immediately report to law enforcement in person after getting a new email address, instant message account or “any other designations used in Internet communications or postings.” Parts of the ruling apply to all 42,000 offenders on the registry.
The Senate legislation would:
— Keep intact 1,000-foot school zones where offenders cannot work or live, with clarifications such as the boundary being the school property line.
— Bar registrants from loitering on or within 300 feet — not 1,000 feet — of “clearly marked and identified” schools, playing fields and other school property.
— Create a legal presumption that offenders are not in violation when transporting their children to and from school, attending a school-sanctioned event or meeting with a school employee regarding their children.
— Redefine the term “loiter” to mean “knowingly and intentionally” entering and remaining in a student safety zone.
— Revise or delete reporting requirements called into question by the judge, who has ordered additional briefing on other challenges to the law.
While the bill won approval on a 37-1 vote, it is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which initiated the lawsuit. Sen. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, voted for the legislation but said the loitering definition is “incredibly broad.”
“Anyone in the buffer zone for any reason other than a very narrow list in the bill, such as picking up kids, would be subject to a crime,” he said. “Going to a store, visiting a parent at their home — this is beyond rational.”
Jones, however, said the bill would “withstand federal scrutiny.”
Under the law, registrants pay an annual $50 fee. They are divided among three tiers, must verify their address in person one to three times a year and have to quickly report job, vehicle and other changes.
The registry has come under criticism from those who say so many people are on it that the list does not distinguish the truly dangerous. The five men and one woman who sued have children. Two, who were 18 and 19 at the time, were sentenced for having sexual relationships with 14-year-olds. Another, who was 23, is still with his victim, who was under 16 when she met him at a nightclub that was supposed to be restricted to those age 18 and older.
“There’s a ton of cleanup we need to do on the registry,” ACLU legislative director Shelli Weisberg said. “Overall, we need to take a step back and look at, given the resources spent on the registry, is it fulfilling the needs for which it was originally identified?”
————————
Online:
John Does v. Snyder: http://1.usa.gov/1NnjqoE.
Senate Bill 581: http://1.usa.gov/1jTHdEf.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
