Colorado Sex Offender Registration Statute Unconstitutional 8-31-2017

The opinions expressed within posts and comments are solely those of each author, and are not necessarily those of Women Against Registry.

Colorado Sex Offender Registration Statute Unconstitutional 8-31-2017

MILLARD et al. v. Rankin

A win following the Packingham v. North Carolina win

Packingham v. North Carolina:  Justice Kennedy writing for the majority noted parenthetically that “the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is … not an issue before the Court.” Id., 137 S.Ct. at 1737 (emphasis added). That observation is significant here.

 The district courts were listening to the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court said they found troubling the fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system!!!!!

This line from the  Packingham v. North Carolina SCOTUS decision may totally change everything.  The Supreme Court has spoken and in a unanimous decision, not a split decision.  Lower courts have been sent a signal that the Supreme Court does not like what the federal and state laws have been doing to people that have already served their time.  The District court in Colorado has now shown that they got the message loud and clear.  I believe that we just passed the tipping point.  I am so excited. The work that Women Against Registry and other national and state reform groups have been doing is really paying off.  There is still a lot of work ahead but now we really have momentum and we need to charge ahead.  

We can win this WAR  

The opinions expressed within posts and comments are solely those of each author, and are not necessarily those of Women Against Registry.

1 comment for “Colorado Sex Offender Registration Statute Unconstitutional 8-31-2017

  1. September 12, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    I have to congratulate that lady for standing up. I’m sure this was a tough law for the federal judge but in all fairness it does violate the constitution in a most repulsive way. Shame on those that created a lot of this law. Protecting and serving is one thing but they are a bit overzealous in a lot of this ordeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *