ILNews

Court rules on sex offender status decisions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tackling the issue of who determines whether a convicted sex offender is considered a “sexually violent predator,” the Indiana Court of Appeals today issued the latest ruling in a line of cases about the state’s sex offender registry and how convicts’ names are removed.

The state Department of Correction is not authorized to determine whether an offender is a sexually violent predator according to state law, Judge James Kirsch wrote for a unanimous appellate panel in Edwin G. Buss, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction v. Michael L. Harris, No. 52A02-0911-CV-1088.

Arising out of Miami Circuit Court, the case involves a former inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility who pleaded guilty to felony child molesting in 1999 and was ultimately released on parole in 2002 and 2005, after being reincarcerated for parole violations. Harris learned in 2007 that, because of state statute revisions, he’d be designated as a sexually violent predator and would have to register for life. Harris refused to sign the forms for this twice, and sued on the issue in late 2007.

The case has been ongoing since then, with a bench trial in August 2009 where the trial court granted Harris’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and found that he should not be listed on the sex offender registry as a sexually violent predator. That court relied on the Indiana Supreme Court’s decisions last year in Wallace v. State, 905 N.E. 2d 371, 374-77 (Ind. 2009), and Jensen v. State, 905 N.E. 2d 384 (Ind. 2009).

Specifically, the DOC argues that Jensen applies to the instant case and that classifying him in that way doesn’t violate the man’s rights.

“We are left with the question, once an offender’s sentencing hearing has concluded, who makes the determination that an offender’s status is now, pursuant to amendments to the statute, that of a sexually violent predator subject to lifetime registration requirements?” the court asked. “If we were to adopt the State’s construction of the statutory provisions, an offender could, in theory, have completed his sentence and reporting requirement, yet without notice to him be in violation of lifetime reporting requirements by operation of law due to subsequent amendments … Nothing before us indicates that the legislature intended such as result.”

The trial court didn’t err in its decision, and the appellate panel relied largely on the case of Jones v. State, 885 N.E. 2d 1286 (Ind. 2008), to support its conclusion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT