Matthew Freeman

Matthew Freeman

Convicted sex-offender Matthew Freeman of Pittsfield Township may yet find some legal relief — emphasis on the may — according to a new development in the case reported by AnnArbor.com earlier this afternoon.

Apparently, Washtenaw County prosecutors are considering dropping charges that Freeman violated the terms of the Michigan Sex Offender Registry Act… by living with his parents. The act prohibits anyone convicted of any of the state’s criminal sexual conduct laws from living within 1,000 feet of a school safety zone. The Freeman home lies 326 feet away from a local elementary school.

The case is important, in part, because it might mark a new chapter in how state officials enforce the housing restrictions registered sex offenders must abide by.

Back in August, a state trooper paid Freeman a visit as he was playing basketball in the driveway and determined Freeman was indeed in violation of the residency restriction. Freeman, now 23, was subsequently charged with the misdemeanor offense punishable by up to a year behind bars. That’s what is apparently being reviewed right now.

Back in 2003 when he was 17, Freeman was found guilty of having a consensual sexual relationship with his then-15-year-old girlfriend. He pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the fourth-degree — the state’s least serious sex crime but one that nevertheless still carries the minimum 25-years on the online sex offender registry as a punishment.

Freeman’s case reminds me the recent DiPiazza case that was argued before the Michigan Court of  Appeals in November. That case — another one stemming from a so-called Romeo and Juliet relationship –  held unconstitutional the requirement that DiPiazza be forced to register for 25-years despite having had his conviction expunged under a “youthful trainee” probation agreement.

Like DiPiazza, Freeman still had register for a quarter century as a sex offender — lumped in with rapists and child predators — because he was convicted prior to a reform went into effect in October 2004 that no longer required that “youthful trainees” register if they successfully compete the terms of their probation.

But the more striking thing both young men have in common is that both of their cases present very sympathetic fact sets at odds with the employment- and housing-stultifying punishments passed down on them. Still, it doesn’t appear that Freeman’s underlying requirement to register through 2028 will be reviewed. Only the recent school safety zone violation is presently being reviewed. Even so, that’s unusual — and worth following.