Mich. state police accused of ignoring judicial orders

The Michigan State Police is being accused of flouting orders from judges directing the law enforcement agency to remove several individuals from the state’s sex offender registry.

The state police doesn’t deny receiving the orders, but argues it is merely seeking its day in court.

“The state police can’t change the rules because it doesn’t like the decision that courts are making,” defense attorney Miriam Aukerman told Michigan Messenger. “While they may disagree with the decisions, they still have to follow the court.”

Aukerman, the attorney who successfully petitioned the Michigan Court of Appeals to remove Robert DiPiazza from the sex offender registry in a landmark case late last year, is referring to what she sees as a disturbing pattern of impropriety on the part of the state police, the executive branch agency charged with maintaining the registry.

Specifically, she alleges that the state police is disregarding the rulings of several judges in the wake of the DiPiazza case calling for the removal of other registrants.

The DiPiazza case was decided in November by a unanimous panel of judges of the Michigan Court of Appeals.  In that case, 18-year-old Robert DiPiazza had been found guilty of having consensual sex with his then 15-year-old girlfriend — now his wife — by a Muskegon County judge.

He was required to register on the sex offender registry for a quarter century, and just like the most serious sexual predators, regularly report any change of address — along with a photo — for anyone with Internet access to see, including all prospective employers.

As a result, it became virtually impossible for DiPiazza to land and hold a job.  While DiPiazza’s case turned on other factors as well — including the timing of his conviction, just weeks before a 2004 exemption took effect that allows some young offenders to avoid the registry — the decision was especially noteworthy because it held that listing underage, consensual sex offenders on the public registry amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

DiPiazza’s name and photo have since been removed from the public registry.

“You have judges who are applying that decision and saying that in the context of this case, ‘I’m going to order that this person come off the registry,’” Aukerman said. “That’s the court’s job. The state police may not like that result, but these are valid court decisions that say that those individuals must come off and the state police is obligated to follow those orders.”

Michigan State Police Inspector Greg Zarotney confirmed in an interview that several orders from judges have been received.

“It’s less than 10” cases, Zarotney said, adding that the young offenders who’ve been ordered off the sex offender registry have not been removed. He said the state police is currently “evaluating” their cases.

“The orders say they shall be removed from the registry, but they do not indicate who or which entity should do that,” Zarotney explained. He later acknowledged that the state police is the only entity that by law maintains the sex offender registry. “Yes, we are charged with administering the registry,” he said.

Zarotney added that even though the state court of appeals decision in the DiPiazza case was not appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, he argues that it probably shouldn’t be broadly applied.

“Mr. DiPiazza had a very fact specific case. As far as we know, that is extremely unique,” he said, referring to the fact that DiPiazza went on to marry his then-underage girlfriend. “No other cases are like the DiPiazza case.”

Zarotney maintains that the state police only seeks to present its arguments on the cases before judges – cases that to date haven’t featured the participation of the state police.

“In other words, we haven’t had our day in court,” he said. “The orders that we have out there, all of them say that the individual either doesn’t have to comply with the dictates of the registry or they shall be removed for whatever reason, and the state police has not had any chance at all to address these issues.”

Aukerman, meanwhile, disagrees that the state police should have a formal role to play in the cases beyond administering the registry, and abiding by court decisions handed down by judges.

“The state police feel that they should be part of the discussion, but these are cases involving prosecutors representing the people and then the defendants,” she said.

University of Michigan law professor David Moran, an expert in criminal procedure, cautioned against jumping to any conclusions on either side of the dispute.

“I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions about any improper motives or any improper actions on behalf of the state police, because I haven’t seen that in my practice.”

Moran noted that sometimes judicial orders lacking precise language can present problems for executive branch agencies seeking to comply. But he added that under normal circumstances, compliance is a must.

“If they get an order from a competent judge, that is somebody who has jurisdiction to enter the order, telling them to do something with arrest records or sex offender registry records, they are obligated to follow it,” he said.

Zarotney, the inspector with the state police, signaled that the state police will eventually conform to the orders.

“We will comply with the judges’ orders. We are just waiting for our chance to brief these judges on our position,” he said. “We are not trying to be obstructionist.”