Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court held that homelessness does not excuse a convicted sex offender from complying with the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA). The Court concluded that homeless offenders must report in person for quarterly verification and notify law enforcement when they change or vacate a residence or domicile. It reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether homelessness categorically prevents a sex offender from complying with SORA's quarterly in-person reporting requirement.
- Whether a homeless sex offender can have or report a residence or domicile for purposes of SORA's notification requirement.
- Whether prosecuting a homeless sex offender for failure to comply with SORA imposes an impossible obligation in violation of due process.
- Whether the lower courts erred by dismissing the SORA charges before trial.
Holdings
- Homelessness does not excuse a qualifying sex offender from the unconditional duty to report in person to law enforcement four times each year and provide truthful information.
- Homelessness does not prevent a sex offender from complying with SORA's notification requirement because the offender can report truthful information about the offender's residence or domicile to law enforcement.
- The prosecution could proceed because Dowdy's registered VOA location had been vacated or changed, he made no effort within ten days to notify law enforcement, and the record did not show that he attempted to comply but was refused.
- The due-process impossibility argument failed because Dowdy could physically report to law enforcement and provide truthful information, and he made no compelling showing that homelessness prevented compliance.
Key quotations
“We hold that homelessness is not a bar to compliance with SORA because homelessness does not preclude an offender from entering a police station and reporting to a law enforcement agency regarding the offender’s residence or domicile.” (489 Mich. at 373)
“This quarterly reporting requirement is not contingent on where an offender resides or is domiciled, and all offenders who are not incarcerated must comply.” (489 Mich. at 381)
“All sex offenders can, and therefore must, comply with the reporting obligations and notification requirements outlined in the statute.” (489 Mich. at 393)
Factual background
Randall Lee Dowdy was required to register as a sex offender because of prior kidnapping and criminal-sexual-conduct convictions. After his release from prison, he registered the Volunteers of America homeless shelter as his residence, but he left after the shelter learned he was a sex offender and remained homeless. Police later determined that he had not reported quarterly or notified law enforcement that the registered location was no longer accurate.
Procedural history
Dowdy was charged with failing to notify law enforcement of a change in residence or domicile and failing to comply with quarterly reporting requirements under SORA. After a preliminary examination, the Ingham Circuit Court dismissed the charges, ruling that Dowdy's homelessness made compliance impossible. The Court of Appeals initially denied leave, and after remand for consideration as on leave granted, affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Ingham Circuit Court for trial and proceedings consistent with the opinion, including factual determination of Dowdy's domicile if necessary.