LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled on May 29 that people convicted of violating Michigan’s 2011 Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requirements may seek to have those convictions overturned if their underlying sex offenses occurred before the 2011 law took effect, even if their criminal cases were already final.

The ruling builds on the court’s 2021 decision in People v. Betts, which held that applying the 2011 SORA amendments to offenders whose crimes occurred before those changes took effect violated constitutional protections against ex-post-facto punishment.

Court extends Betts protection.

MORE NEWS: Cancer Survivors Day Shines a Light on Hope, Resilience, and Michigan’s Fight Against Cancer

In the newest case of People v. Shaver, the court confirmed that individuals whose registrable sex offenses predated the 2011 amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) cannot be convicted for violating requirements that were later found unconstitutional. This means people can seek to vacate prior convictions for failing to comply with the 2011 SORA rules (such as failure-to- register convictions), even if their appeals had already been exhausted. The ruling does not affect the underlying sex offense convictions themselves.

State can’t change the rules after the fact.

The court explained that the 2011 SORA went far beyond the original registry law. It created a public three-tier classification system, imposed longer registration periods and lifetime registration for some offenders, required in-person reporting, shortened address-change reporting from 10 days to immediate in-person reporting (3 business days), and made more personal information publicly available online.

Because the Supreme Court previously found the entire 2011 version of SORA to be punitive and unconstitutional when applied to people convicted before those changes existed, the state cannot punish those offenders for violating the 2011 requirements.

Registry remains in place.

The decision does not eliminate Michigan’s sex offender registry, nor does it remove offenders from public databases. Instead, it limits which requirements can legally be imposed based on when a person’s conviction occurred.

The ruling marks another significant setback for Michigan’s efforts to expand registry requirements and serves as a reminder that constitutional protections still apply – even in cases involving some of the state’s most unpopular offenders.