Appeals court says homeless sex offenders not obligated to register

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion (pdf) on Tuesday which says convicted sex offenders who are homeless are not obligated under Michigan’s sex offender registry law to register with local law enforcement.

The case the court ruled on comes out of Ingham county. There county Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III filed charges against 61-year-old Randall Lee Dowdy. Dunnings said that Dowdy, who was homeless, failed to fulfill the obligations of the Sex Offender Registry Act and register with police. Dowdy argued because he was homeless, he couldn’t register.

That argument held with the trial court, which tossed Dunnings charges out. Dunnings appealed the decision all the way to the state Supreme Court, which sent it back to the Appeals Court to rule.

In the ruling, Judges Jane M. Beckering, Jane E. Markey and Stephen L. Borrello wrote:

The provisional location where a homeless person happens to spend the night does not fall within the ambit of these definitions. A homeless person is not provided an accommodation by another as a place to habitually sleep or store personal items.

Moreover, the concepts of habitually and regularity are antithetical to the circumstances of homelessness. If there is anything “habitual” to the sleeping arrangements of the homeless, it is that it is customary for them not to have the security of a customary place of lodging. If there is anything “regular” about the place where a homeless person lives, it is that it is not within a
home.

The judges then plunked the issue into the lap of the legislature, writing:

In sum, in SORA (Sex Offender Registry Act), the Legislature provided for maintaining information on the location of convicted sexual offenders in order to provide for the public safety. MCL 28.721a. But, in so doing the Legislature chose to focus those reporting requirements on persons who have a domicile or residence, as defined by the act. The Legislature is free, indeed, empowered, to make this choice, as it is to include a provision addressing reporting requirements for the homeless. As Justice Hathaway indicated in her dissenting opinion in Dowdy, supra at 863, the purpose of SORA is wise, and the Legislature is urged to consider changes so that a homeless person who does not have a domicile or residence may readily comply with its requirements. Any such change, however, is solely within the province of the legislative branch.

That has some law enforcement officials and lawmakers calling for immediate action, the Muskegon Chronicle reports.

“They’ve asked us to move forward on this, and we need to do it quickly,” said state Rep. Mary Valentine, D-Norton Shores.

State Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom, a Norton Shores Republican, echoed Valentine.

“It sounds like a huge loophole that needs to be fixed,” said state Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores. “I would think that we would have to find a way to register these offenders.”

And this from Muskegon County Sheriff Dean Roesler:

“I certainly hope the Legislature takes a good hard look at this ruling and revisits the Sex Offender Registry Act,” Roesler said. “It’s going to be an obstacle to properly investigating the cases of who has failed to register and who has failed to comply with the act.

“The intent (of the law) was to keep track of persons who have committed the sex offenses that keep them on the sex offender list,” Roesler said. “It kind of defeats the purpose.”

The Sex Offender Registry Act has been coming under fire recently as family members of teens convicted for so-called “Romeo and Juliet” crimes face dozens of years on the registry, making them unable to find jobs.