Sex Offender Registration

A new decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court continues the small but continuing challenges to sex offender registration as a form of "punishment" and not just an administrative monitoring rule.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a divided opinion, has held the provisions of the state’s sex offender registration law (SORNA) unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions.  The majority in Commonwealth v. Muniz held that 1) SORNA’s registration provisions constitute punishment notwithstanding the General Assembly’s identification of the provisions as nonpunitive; 2) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions violates the federal ex post facto clause; and 3) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions also violates the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.  The Court distinguished the Alaska registration scheme upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), and cited a number of other recent state high court holdings invalidating similarly harsh registration regimes.  The Court relied heavily for its analysis on an amicus brief filed jointly by the Defender Association of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL). CCRC also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, describing the counterproductive effects of such registration schemes. The concurring and dissenting opinions are posted here and here.

Brought to us by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.

Military personnel on MSRP and sex offender registration lists can now challenge one of the limitations on their personal rights.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court decided that prohibiting the use of Facebook or similar social media sites is unconstitutional--because such limits violate the First Amendment.