ILNews

Justices take sex offender case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a case filed by a convicted felon who refuses to register as a sex offender for life.

The justices accepted Edwin G. Buss, et al. v. Michael L. Harris, No. 52S02-1011-CV-642. Michael Harris pleaded guilty to felony child molesting in 1999 and was re-incarcerated twice for parole violations. He learned in 2007 that he’d be designated as a sexually violent predator and would have to register for life after state statutes had been revised. He refused to sign the forms and sued in late 2007.

The trial court granted Harris’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, relying on Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 374-377 (Ind. 2009), and Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. 2009).

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in May 2010, ruling the Indiana Department of Correction isn’t authorized to determine whether an offender is a sexually violent predator. They rejected the state’s construction of the statutory provisions, ruling the legislature didn’t intend that an offender could have completed his sentence and reporting requirement and, without notice, be found in violation of lifetime reporting requirements because of amendments to statute.

The appellate judges cited Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. 2008), to support their ruling.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT