ILNews

COA upholds violent offender registration

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the state's sex and violent offender registry doesn't violate the Indiana Constitution by requiring violent offenders to register for a 10-year period or for life. The appellate court also overturned a Marion Superior Court judge's grant of a preliminary injunction barring lifetime registration by certain violent offenders, finding the injunction should only apply to a specific subclass of offenders.

In James Gibson, Mark Lamar, and John Doe, and others similarly situated v. Indiana Department of Correction, et al., No. 49A04-0803-CV-165, Gibson and other plaintiffs challenged the amendments to Indiana's statute creating a sex and violent offender registry, which required violent offenders to register for either 10 years or for a lifetime depending on the crime and other circumstances. The plaintiffs are all violent offenders and believe the recently amended statute, Indiana Code Section 36-2-13-5.5, violates Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the state's constitution.

The plaintiffs argue the registry violates the Privileges and Immunities clause in Section 23 because it requires registration by people convicted of only certain crimes that caused death. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the registry is for people who "have demonstrated intentional violent deadly behavior towards another person."

Those who commit lesser crimes that happen to result in death haven't demonstrated the intentional violent deadly behavior toward another person that would require compliance with the registry, wrote Judge Terry Crone. There are sufficient inherent differences between murder, felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, and attempts to commit those crimes as compared to other offenses resulting in death that allow the General Assembly to specify different treatment, the judge continued.

The appellate court also affirmed the registry doesn't violate Section 12 because there is some recidivism among violent offenders, which means community notification about violent offenders provides an opportunity for enhancing public safety. Requiring violent offenders to register for at least some period of time meets the low threshold of rational relation, wrote Judge Crone.

The plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction on registration, except for a small subset who have been more than 10 years removed from the date of release from prison, placed on parole or probation, put in community corrections, and aren't violent sexual predators. The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction against lifetime registration for all violent offenders and remanded with instructions to clarify the preliminary injunction consistent with the opinion. A violent offender is required to comply with the registry for 10 years unless he or she also falls within a subsection of the statute requiring lifetime registration, wrote Judge Crone.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT