The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handles cases from the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Western District of Kentucky, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Western District of Michigan, the Northern District of Ohio, the Southern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Western District of Tennessee. Those districts matter because of a case the Court recently decided called “Does, et al. v. Snyder, et al.”
(Snyder is the Governor of Michigan.)
Like many states, Michigan has a sex offender registration law that requires people convicted of sexual crimes to register in a public access database and observe certain restrictions to their lives.
Like many states, Michigan has amended its Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) on a number of occasions in recent years for the professed purpose of making Michigan communities safer and aiding law enforcement in the task of bringing recidivists to justice. Thus, what began in 1994 as a non-public registry maintained solely for law enforcement use, has grown into a byzantine code governing in minute detail the lives of the state’s sex offenders. Over the first decade or so of SORA’s existence, most of the changes centered on the role played by the registry itself. In 1999, for example, the legislature added the requirement that sex offenders register in person (either quarterly or annually, depending on the offense) and made the registry available online, providing the public with a list of all registered sex offenders’ names, addresses, biometric data, and, since 2004, photographs.
Michigan began taking a more aggressive tack in 2006, however, when it amended SORA to prohibit registrants (with a few exceptions,) from living, working, or “loitering”1 within 1,000 feet of a school. In 2011, the legislature added the requirement that registrants be divided into three tiers, which ostensibly correlate to current dangerousness, but which are based, not on individual assessments, but solely on the crime of conviction. The 2011 amendments also require all registrants to appear in person “immediately” to update information such as new vehicles or “internet identifiers” (e.g., a new email account). Amendments apply retroactively to all who were required to register under SORA. Violations carry heavy criminal penalties. (internal citations omitted by us)
Michigan divides its compliance regulations based upon the severity of the crime committed: (more…)
Since we cover mostly Cocoa Beach and Satellite Beach here on Raised on Hoecakes, we thought it might be interesting to post who has qualified and is running for local (Commission and Council) positions in those two cities.
Yesterday we were sitting here at the worldwide headquarters of Raised on Hoecakes when we received an email from Kim Cone of the AVET Project asking us to remove their link from our blogroll on the right side of the blog’s pages.
Cone had received “messages and emails” that we had linked the AVET Project on the blogroll. Cone’s concern is that they don’t want the AVET Project to be “political.”
We don’t want that either. Veterans’ issues are something that should cross political lines. They are something that no matter where you stand in the political spectrum, you should support military veterans.
That is why whenever we wrote about the AVET Project, we wrote about them holding a fundraiser or another such event. When there was a controversy with the Wounded Warrior Project “charity,” we wrote and said:
The problem with doing stories like this and posting them on Raised on Hoecakes is that it can paint all charities – especially all military charities – in a negative light. It almost makes you think that there are no military charities out there who talk the talk and walk the walk.
Here in our back yard of Brevard County, Florida there is such a military charity that does things right. It can even be said they do things “more than right.”
Are the police racist? Do they disproportionately shoot African-Americans? Are incidents in places like Ferguson and Baltimore evidence of systemic discrimination? Heather Mac Donald, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, explains.
Frankly, this is one of those discussions that is always troubling because of human nature.
Do we think that the police are racists? No.
Do we think there are cops (blacks, white, Hispanics, etc.,) that are racists as individuals? Absolutely.
Yet it is human nature to lump all people of a certain category in with people who don’t act “properly.”
For example, here in Florida, how many times have you heard people say “old people can’t drive,” even though the elderly are scooting around everywhere. But get into an situation where one elderly person isn’t driving the way you want, and suddenly “all elderly people can’t drive.”
It seems that it is human nature to take the actions of one and apply it to a group.
After the Cocoa Beach City Commission passage of the text amendment for the Ocean Dunes Condo project last Thursday, we promised that we would come back and address Mayor Tumulty’s comments and reasoning on the issue.
We are keeping our promise.
To set up the context of his remarks, prior to Tumulty speaking Commissioner Skip Williams gave a long (perhaps too long) presentation and commentary on the history and the precedence set by past actions of citizens through referendums on Charter Amendments as well as the actions of previous Commissions who acted on the advice of the City Attorney and City Staff that a 5-0 vote would be required to pass a text amendment to the Comp Plan. For those of you who did not attend the meeting or did not watch the meeting, we have uploaded the comments here and you can download them if you so desire. They are in a .pdf format which means most people should be able to read them. In addition, Williams also read a 2002 article from the Associated Press entitled “Cocoa Beach is Vanguard of Slow Growth Movement.”
We have uploaded that in .pdf format as well for your reading pleasure and edification.
After Williams finished speaking, Tumulty began his remarks. They start at roughly the 1:29:50 mark of the meeting’s video.
MAYOR TUMULTY: Alright, that was quite a bit of information I can basically summarize it into this – just a few sentences actually.
And I will read – I will read – just one section, it’s section 6.07 Comprehensive Plan Adoption Requirements. That’s all we need to talk about tonight is that particular requirement and how we got here to this point of the process of the text amendment.
So it reads, section 6.07 Comprehensive Plan Adoption Requirements. I believe we have a couple of lawyers out here today, I would ask you to listen to me intently and explicitly to what I am saying and I’ll probably say it a couple of times to make sure my message is presented.
Any adoption or amendment to the City of Cocoa Beach Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of issues increasing permissible – permissible – building and structure height or allowable development density and/or intensity, shall require an affirmative vote by four city commissioners.
So, any adoption adoption or amendment to the City of Cocoa Beach Comp Plan with the exception of issues increasing permissible building and structure height or allowable development density or intensity, shall require an affirmative vote by four city commissioners.
(cross talk from audience)
COMMISSIONER SKIP WILLIAMS: Are you going to finish the paragraph? (more…)