Judicial Review

US 6th Circuit Appeals Court Ruling on Michigan Sex Offender Laws Retroactive Application

US Court of Appeals 6th Circuit

We begin our analysis with the Ex Post Facto issue. As is the case with many of the Constitution’s guarantees—“due process of law,” “the freedom of speech,” “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”—the Ex Post Facto clause leaves unanswered foundational questions about the guarantee’s scope and means of enforcement. The document itself provides simply that “No State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto Law.” U.S. Const. art. I § 10, cl. 1. As with the other guarantees, it is the courts that have done most of the work in expounding the legal meaning of this provision—indeed, the Ex Post Facto clause was one of the first, if not the
first, such constitutional question to be exposited by the Supreme Court, when it issued its 1798 decision in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).

Read the court’s ruling here.

This judicial ruling delves into foundational concepts found in the US Constitution. The author brings in interpretation on the concepts of Ex Post Facto punishment. It is the effect of the law, not the form, that determines if it is Ex Post Facto (punishment)


US Court Of Appeals 11th Circuit Ruling On Florida Residency Restriction Ordinance

11th Circuit 9-23-16

The 11th Circuit reversed a lower federal courts ruling uphold a Florida city’s residency restrictions on sex offenders.

Our role in reviewing the grant of a 12(b)(6) motion merely is to determine whether the plaintiffs stated a plausible claim, such that they should be permitted to proceed to discovery. See Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Here, Doe #1 and Doe #3 alleged sufficient facts to raise plausible claims that the County’s residency restriction is so punitive in effect that it violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and Florida Constitutions.
Whether Doe #1 and Doe #3 ultimately prevail is a determination for a future stage of this litigation. Thus, we reverse the district court’s grant of the County’s motion to dismiss as to Doe #1 and Doe #3’s ex post facto challenges and remand for further proceedings.



Testimony regarding update on Sex Offender Registration Law

By Kimberly A. Buchanan, Senior Deputy Attorney General

Click the link below to read Senior Deputy Attorney General Buchanan’s memo to the Nevada legislature dated March 19, 2015. In it she makes some interesting claims about the public’s intelligence to utilize the information contained in the public registries to protect their families from predators. She fails to inform the general public and the Nevada legislature of the statistical evidence refuting the claim that child abuse will be perpetrated by a person known to the family that is most likely to not be on the registry. Is the public aware that this legislation and the registry websites will not increase public safety as claimed due to these facts?

Testimony of Kimberly Buchanan on AB 579

In addition, some have argued that A.B. 579 creates a needle in a haystack problem because the tier levels of many offenders will increase as a result of the implementation of AB 579 and the public will not understand how to identify the serious offenders. That argument underestimates the ability of Nevadans to process the information they receive concerning sex offenders in a manner to better protect themselves and their children. A.B. 579 does increase the tier levels of many offenders and provides the public with more information about more sex offenders that previously wasn’t available to the public. However, the average Mom or Dad does not look statewide at all of Nevada’s sex offenders. They look at who is in their neighborhood before allowing their children to play at a neighbor’s house. A.B. 579 makes more sex offenders public through the website ensuring Mom and Dad have more information to keep their children safe in whatever manner they sit fit.


McNeil V State Docket Records

Here is a link to all of the court documents filed in this case. Case View 66697

Here is a link to the decision handed down by the Nevada Supreme Court. NcNeil v State Decision

In this appeal, we consider whether the State Board of Parole Commissioners may impose conditions not enumerated in NRS 213.1243 on a sex offender subject to lifetime supervision. We conclude that the plain language of NRS 213.1243 does not grant the Board authority to impose additional conditions. We further conclude that this omission was intentional because the Legislature may not delegate its power to legislate. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment of conviction based on violations of conditions of lifetime supervision not enumerated in NRS 213.1243.