Yay! Thanks for sharing this!

Maybe if we persuade more states to rule in this manner - the federal court will be more apt to follow suit?

The more i learn the more i feel that change will come from the state levels. maybe even more local, like city level, when/if you can get the participation.

To those that do not want to read the entire opinion, here is a portion I have copied and pasted which gives a decent summary.

"Out of the seven Mendoza-Martinez factors we have reviewed herein, five favor a PUNITIVE effect. It is not the number that is important but the weight of these factors that leads us to our conclusion. SORA's obligations have become increasingly BROAD and ONEROUS. We find there is clear proof that the effect of the RETROACTIVE application of SORA's registration is PUNITIVEand outweighs its non-punitive purpose. The RETROACTIVE extension of SORA's registration is INCONSISTENT with the EX POST FACTO clause in the Oklahoma Constitution."

rewdiazepam

I think Jackie is correct. Positive change seems to be coming from the state levels. I knew this case was being decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court; it was argued in either January or February of this year.

I am just happy for the registrants that it will help.

This is the third or fourth instance in which a state supreme court has ruled against the retroactivity of SORNA.

rewdiazepam

Wonderful and hopeful, thanks

More on this in laymen's terms. There are two pages to this article, so make sure to click on page two.

http://tinyurl.com/oablnw7

rewdiazepam

My apologies. My links keep getting messed up and I see that you have to be a subscriber in some instances to read the article.

Here is the full article:

Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling may result in removal of hundreds of names from sex offender registry

By Randy Ellis Published: June 26, 2013

Hundreds of names of convicted sex offenders may be removed from the state's list of registered sex offenders as the result of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling handed down Tuesday.

In a split decision, the court ruled state corrections officials have been violating the Oklahoma Constitution by retroactively applying state sex offender registry laws, thereby dramatically increasing the time many convicted sex offenders must spend on the registry.
“It should be fairly significant,” Corrections Department spokesman Jerry Massie said of the impact of Tuesday's ruling.

There are currently 7,704 names on Oklahoma's sex offenders list, Massie said.

Massie said it was probably safe to say hundreds of convicted sex offenders would be impacted but declined to speculate on whether the numbers could reach into the thousands.

Individual case reviews likely will be necessary to determine which convicted sex offenders should be removed from the list, he said.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling after scrutinizing a 2007 state law that requires the Department of Corrections to assign a three-tiered risk level to convicted sex offenders.
The law requires convicted sex offenders to be placed on the sex offender registry for 15 years, 25 years, or life, depending on their assigned risk levels which are tied to the specific crimes they committed.

“We find it was not intended to apply retroactively, but is to be applied prospectively,” the court stated.

Justices issued the decision on a 6-2 vote, with Justices James Winchester and Steven Taylor dissenting. Chief Justice Tom Colbert partially agreed and partially disagreed with the decision.

Taylor and Winchester both said they thought it was constitutional to apply the sex offender registry laws retroactively.
“The public's right to have this information trumps the discomfort and inconvenience caused to the convicted sex offender,” Taylor wrote in his dissenting opinion.

The majority of justices, however, decided that Oklahoma's sex registry laws are punitive toward violators and should not be applied retroactively to inmates who were convicted while earlier laws were in place.

Tulsa attorney John Dunn, who represented sex offender James Starkey Sr. in his Supreme Court appeal, said the court's determination that Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws are punitive was critical to the case.

Punitive laws cannot be applied retroactively, he said.

Dunn said there are numerous aspects of Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws that make them punitive.

“Oklahoma law provides restrictions on where a sex offender may live, with whom a sex offender may live, prevents them from engaging in certain occupations or occupations in certain locations, and creates a presumption against them having guardianship or even the right to visit their own children,” Dunn argued to the court.

He also noted that sex offenders are required to get drivers' licenses every year instead of every four years, paying full price each time, and that the state requires the words “sex offender” be stamped on the licenses.

Starkey, Dunn's client, pleaded no contest in Texas in 1998 to a charge of sexual assault on a 15-year-old child. He received a deferred judgment that included community supervision for 10 years, a $4,000 fine and 60 days in a county jail.

Starkey moved to Oklahoma later that year and was initially required to register as a sex offender in this state for 10 years, in accordance with the state's law at that time.

However, after Oklahoma's law changed in 2007, corrections officials contended Starkey would have to register for life.

Tuesday's ruling means Starkey no longer will have to register, since the original 10-year registration requirement time has expired, Dunn said

rewdiazepam

This is a small victory even if this does not help those like my son who's conviction came after sorna. still i am very happy to see this decision and happy for those who are able to take advantage of it. Ex post facto is unconstitutional and that is the bottom line. It seems the supreme court justices are forgetting...they are there to protect the people from governmental misuse of constitutional rights.

Every little step taken helps us to achieve the goal that they stop condemning people for the rest of their lives for a mistake they did their time for. Even though Hub's conviction is after these laws were enacted, it's still great news. Thanks for posting.

don't break my heart - why not Florida?

This is the common consensus folks among the big players. If the focus is at the state level, and if you get enough states ruling in any form AGAINST the regisrty, saying, yes, it is punitive and cannot be applied proactively, THEN SCOUTUS will have to sit up, revisit and act upon it. There's a danger to focusing on SCOTUS right now, the thought being they might give a ruling which would be very detrimental to our movement. Better to begin and work at and through the state level.

Nice win for OK..

Dave in the Philippines

This fight will not be won all at once, but rather one step at a time.

I keep reminding people of this fact, but as humans, we are impatient. I do understand the anger and impatience here, but we ARE making progress.

Like dbradford said, if we keep garnering wins on a state by state basis, we will start to make some progress on the national stage.

Be paitient, friends. We have to keep working and be willing to stay the course.

rewdiazepam

rewdiazepam, a favorite saying around RSOL is that this struggle won't be a sprint, but a marathon. We need to have enough victories beneath our belt, then, hopefully, it will snowball, reaching critical mass fairly quickly. We need to be hoping for, and looking for some sort of 'tipping point' in the movement.

Dave in the Philippines

Folks, the mindset of the Oklahoma Supreme Court will not just stay in Oklahoma. This will gradully spread to other states and many more registrants will be given some type of relief from the rigors of the registry.

Maybe not he specifics of this particular case, but the fact that courts are declaring SORNA to be punitive will have a far reaching effect.

I had followed this case from the beginning; oral arguments were in January or February and I knew a Supreme Court decision would be coming this summer.

This should give hope to everyone and here is WHY:

The government overplayed its hand. If they had continued with their original enforcement, only requiring a registrant to register in person once a year, for a 10 year period WITH NO OTHER restrictions, they would have been fine.

But the state became greedy and added residency restrictions, the words “driver license” on a registrant’s driver’s license (which had to be renewed once a year); they then increased the duration of registration from 10 years to life for most registrants, and increased the frequency of registration from once a year to every 90 days; then that wasn’t enough. They then decided that two sex offenders could not live in the same dwelling, so we had to list each person who lived with us along with their social security number. Then the state passed a law that some registrants could not live with minors except in certain situations. I could go on and on….

But the point is, that at some point, all these regulations became TOO MUCH and they court ruled it had become PUNITIVE and then the ex post facto situation kicked in.

There is a good chance that this will happen to the sex offender registry some day and will affect ALL registrants. They keep piling on punishment, and some day the registry will be declared punitive and maybe abolished.

One victory builds on another victory.

rewdiazepam

Advocate2,

Once the right defendant with the right case comes before the Florida Supreme Court, the result may very well be the same as in Oklahoma.

So don't lose hope.

This should make us like a shark in the water smelling blood; we should continue to work like madmen (or women) to get these laws changed.

rewdiazepam