A Hudsonville father who learned from a neighbor that a convicted sex offender living nearby was not listing his address on the public registry said he immediately contacted police. His experience, first reported by WOOD TV8, has become a rallying point in a growing wave of questions about what the public can and cannot rely on when it comes to the state's sex offender registry.

Those questions are intensifying after the Michigan Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday, Sept. 9, that forced the Michigan State Police to remove more than 20,000 names from the state's Sex Offender Registry, a move that cut the active public and law enforcement list nearly in half.

Before the ruling, about 43,000 people were registered or required to register under Michigan law. By Friday of that week, more than 20,000 of them had been removed from the list, according to Col. James F. Grady II, director of the Michigan State Police.

The state police "did not make this change to the law," Grady said in a statement. "However, the department maintains the database, is required to comply with the Court's order and is taking the necessary steps to implement the ruling. Any concerns about or efforts to change the law should be directed to the state Legislature."

Grady said the review of names on the list is ongoing and that more could be deleted.

The decision came out of a case brought by Eddie Lee Smith, 61, of West Michigan. In 2010, Smith pleaded no contest in Kent County to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, involving separate assaults, according to court records. He was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison and was granted parole in 2024.

The case turned on changes state lawmakers made to the Sex Offender Registry Act. In 2011, amendments placed offenders into tiers. Smith's first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction placed him in tier III, which required lifetime registration.

Lawyers for Smith argued that the extended registration requirements were passed after his crimes had been committed and therefore amounted to unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. The question before the court was whether the registration requirements were in fact punishment, or whether they were a civil measure designed to alert the public to convicted sex offenders living nearby.

"The statutory requirements enacted after the commission of his crimes amount to punishment," the state Supreme Court ruled on Sept. 9. "Requiring him to register under the 2021 Sex Offender Registry Act is therefore an ex post facto punishment, in violation of US Constitution."

As of Sunday afternoon, Smith was not listed on the state's Sex Offender Registry, though he remained listed on the Michigan Department of Corrections website as a discharged offender.

Miriam Aukerman, director of strategic litigation for the ACLU of Michigan, said the legislature "changed the registry really substantially and did that retroactively. It made it much more punitive. It extended many people to lifetime registration."

Aukerman called Michigan's registry one of the most bloated in the country and said it has been the subject of several lawsuits. "This is the latest in a long line of court decisions both state and federal, holding various aspects of Michigan's registry are unconstitutional. It only applies to people with offenses that are 15 years old or older," she said.

For residents in communities like Hudsonville and East Grand Rapids, the ruling raises a practical concern: the registry the public is encouraged to consult to check on neighbors and the safety of their children is now smaller, and the people who remain on it are a narrower subset of those previously listed. Local officials and law enforcement agencies have not issued guidance on how residents should interpret the changes, and the state has left any further adjustments to the law to the Legislature.

The Hudsonville father who discovered the unlisted address said his concern was simple. He wanted to know whether the man living nearby was the person the registry said he was. With the registry now reduced by nearly half, that question is becoming harder to answer.