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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT