St. Joseph Michigan Criminal Defense Blog

print shrink enlarge
Sex Offender Laws

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Request for Stay on Sex Offender Laws Ruling

Sex Offender Laws

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently denied a request from the Michigan Attorney-General for an emergency stay. The motion would have halted the rollback of two laws that retroactively punished sex offenders.

The Nation’s Fourth Largest Sex Offender Registry

Michigan’s sex offender registry contains nearly 43,000 people, and has 39,000 pictures with matching names. 32,200 of the people on the list are not in jail or prison. It is the nation’s fourth largest sex offender registry, even though Michigan is ninth in the nation in population. Critics of Michigan’s sex offender registry point out that it is so vast that it encompasses a large number of people who are not truly dangerous.

Laws that Punish People Retroactively Are Unconstitutional

In 2011, a law was passed which retroactively placed certain registered offenders permanently on the public sex offenders list. This statute divided the registrants into three categories based upon the seriousness of their crimes. Previously, individual assessments were used to categorize offenders. Five years earlier, Michigan had enacted a law prohibiting any listed offenders from working, living, or loitering within 1000 feet of a school zone.

A lawsuit was brought on behalf of six individuals by the ACLU and the University of Michigan Clinical Law program challenging the retroactive application of these two laws. Some of the six people for whom the lawsuit was brought were registered offenders because they were older teens who had sex with underage teens – and they would have potentially been on the registry for life.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the two laws placed new, and unconstitutional, restrictions on offenders after they had already been convicted.

An Emergency Stay

Michigan’s Attorney-General appealed the decision and also asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay. The purpose of the emergency motion was to block the enforcement of the Court of Appeals ruling until the appeal could be heard by the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General argued that the stay would prevent law enforcement from making time-consuming and costly changes that may not remain in effect if their appeal was successful. The request for the emergency stay was denied.

Significance of the Denial

The significance of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling is that it preserves our constitutionally protected right not to be punished retroactively. If laws such as these are permitted, then the state would have unlimited power to punish people for wrongs that they committed in the past. The denial of the emergency stay means that Michigan’s law enforcement agencies must immediately begin complying the Circuit Court’s ruling.

If you feel that your rights have been violated or that this ruling may affect your case contact Peter J. Johnson Law Office, PLLC, highly experienced and reputable sex offender attorney in Berrien County today 269.982.1100 or visit for further information.

print shrink enlarge
Drug Free School Zone


Drug Free School Zone

Recently, Michigan’s Court of Appeals restricted a law that punishes defendants who possess drugs within 1000 feet of a school zone. The court held that the prosecution must not only prove that the defendant possessed drugs, but also that the defendant intended to sell drugs within 1000 feet of a school.

Two Drug Raids, One Case

The case began with two entirely separate drug raids, and the defendants had no relation to each other. In the first case, the defendant, Lymance English, was arrested by the police when they discovered cocaine and marijuana during a raid of his home. Meanwhile, a drug raid on the car of Brandon Smith revealed that it contained over two grams of heroin. What both of these cases had in common was that the drugs were within 1000 feet of a school. Therefore, both men were charged with possession with the intent to deliver drugs within a school zone. This charge carries with it enhanced penalties, including a minimum prison term of two years.

In each trial, the defendants contended that the prosecution was required to prove that they intended to deliver the drugs within the school zone. The trial courts agreed and dismissed the counts with enhanced penalties. The two cases were consolidated on appeal.

A Grammar Battle

The appellate case hinged upon the grammatical interpretation of Michigan Statute § 333.7410(3). The statute states that a person breaks the law by “possessing with intent to deliver to another person on or within 1000 feet of school property or a library a controlled substance . . .” Both the prosecution and defendant English argued that the statute was ambiguous. Of course, the two sides argued that the opposite interpretation should be given to the ambiguity: the prosecution’s stance was that the statute does not require the intent to sell, while English argued that it did.

Ironically, it was not English who won the grammar argument. Rather, the court adopted defendant Smith’s view that the law was not ambiguous. The Court found that the plain meaning of the statute requires that it be proven that the defendant intended to deliver a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school zone.

Significance of the Ruling

What is the significance of this case? Why is it important to prove that a drug dealer intended to deliver drugs near a school? Isn’t possession of the drugs enough? A comparison of the following scenarios can answer these questions:

  1. A drug dealer places marijuana in his trunk with the intent to deliver it to a house many miles away from any schools. On his way to deliver the marijuana, he is pulled over by the police in front of a school and they discover the drugs.
  2. A drug dealer who lives several blocks from a school loads a backpack up with heroin and begins walking toward a school where he intends to sell the drugs to the school children. He is apprehended by the police slightly more than 1000 feet away from the school.

If the prosecution did not have to prove that a defendant intended to distribute the narcotics, then the following would result:

  • In the first scenario, the defendant would receive an enhanced sentence even though he had no intent to sell drugs near the school.
  • In the second case, the defendant would not face the enhanced sentence even though he fully intended to sell drugs to students on school property.

If you or someone you know has been charged with possession of a controlled substance, or for further information concerning the changes in Michigan’s drug laws, contact the highly experienced and reputable criminal defense lawyer in Van Buren County at Peter J. Johnson Law Office, PLLC 269.982.1100 or visit

Blog Directory & Business Pages -