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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT