823 N.W.2d 101
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- TD was tried as a juvenile for a CSC II offense (sexual contact with force) in 2007, based on a 2006 incident where he allegedly attacked a female classmate with restraint and exposure,
- TD reached age 18 and sought relief from SORA registration under MCL 28.728c, but his offenses and status were applied under mandatory exclusions,
- The trial court found SORA unconstitutionally applied to TD as cruel or unusual punishment, and TD challenged both the statute’s application and its constitutionality,
- SORA requires public registration for juveniles adjudicated for listed offenses, including CSC II under 750.520c(l)(d)(ii), with no exemptions for juveniles in TD’s position,
- The court of appeals held, de novo, that SORA’s registration is not punishment and reversed the trial court’s ruling on unconstitutionality
- ,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is SORA registration punishment as applied to TD? | TD argues it is cruel/unusual punishment under Michigan Constitution. | TD asserts registration serves public safety, not punishment. | Not punishment; registration is nonpunitive. |
| Does the statutory framework bar relief from registration for TD? | TD is categorically excluded from relief under MCL 28.728c(14)(c)(ii). | Whether relief is allowed is controlled by the statute; the court is bound. | Relief denied by statute; issue not dispositive of punishment question. |
| Do rational-basis or separation-of-powers concerns render SORA unconstitutional as applied? | SORA’s blanket restrictions and public data violate due process and separation of powers. | Legislature's police power supports public safety purpose. | Statute passes rational-basis review and does not violate separation of powers. |
| Are Ayres, Dipiazza, and Wentworth controlling on whether public registration constitutes punishment for a juvenile offender? | Those precedents show SORA punishment for juveniles may be unconstitutional. | Later statutory changes and distinctions render those precedents distinguishable. | Dipiazza distinguishable; AYRES remains persuasive but changes with public registry; SORA not punishment here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Golba, 273 Mich App 603 (2007) (SORA registration not punishment; protects public safety)
- People v Dipiazza, 286 Mich App 137 (2009) (reconsidered punishment under Ayres; public registry effects; HYTA context noted)
- People v Ayres, 239 Mich App 8 (1999) (public registration not punishment where data confidentiality protected juveniles)
- In re Wentworth, 251 Mich App 560 (2002) (discussion on confidentiality and juvenile records; impact on Ayres reasoning)
- People v Pennington, 240 Mich App 188 (2000) (SORA not punishment; ex post facto considerations)