ILNews

Legislature, courts navigate uncertainty about registry laws

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Hoosier lawmakers are revising state law following the confusion created by an Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year, which involves how convicted sex offenders can be removed from a statewide registry if they believe registration wasn't required at the time of their conviction.

A legislative fix is going through the Indiana General Assembly on the heels of Richard P. Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009), in which state justices in April 2009 unanimously held that Indiana's Sex Offender Registration Act imposed retroactive punishment on offenders convicted before the time it was passed in 1994 and later revised, in violation of Indiana Constitution Article I, §24.

But in deciding that issue, justices did not specify how offenders should be removed from the registry if there's a potential or alleged ex post facto claim. Since then the Indiana Department of Correction has been at odds with county judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs about the Wallace decision's scope and how specifically offenders convicted before 1994 should be removed from that list.

That has sparked a handful of lawsuits, raising questions about the state statute gap in a post- Wallace world. The nation's highest court is pondering similar issues in an Indiana case about whether the federal sex offender law is considered retroactive punishment when applied to those who'd committed crimes before the law applied but still later failed to register.

Registry challenges


Sex offender registry issues have been playing out in courts for years, with mixed guidance surfacing from various state and federal courts. For Indiana, the Wallace case put a new spin on how the process works.

In that case, it was argued that the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act violates the ex post facto prohibitions of both the Indiana and U.S. constitutions because Wallace had committed the crime, been convicted, was sentenced, and served the sentence before any registration or notification was required. Justice Robert D. Rucker authored the opinion, relying on seven factors laid out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963), about whether the statute is punitive or nonpunitive.

But in the months since, the Indiana Department of Correction has been at odds with county courts, prosecutors, and sheriffs offices throughout the state in deciding who should be removed from the statewide registry and how it's supposed to be done. The state agency believes each person must file a court motion before being allowed to be removed, while counties have automatically removed registered offenders who committed offenses prior to 1994 or the later revisions.

For example, in Allen County, Superior Judge Fan Gull said the county's criminal division has been flooded with requests from state, federal, and out-of-state offenders wondering if the Wallace decision applies to them and how they can be removed from the registry. The courts are strictly applying the statute, and if someone's crime happened before the registry was in effect, then their names are taken off the list, she said.

At least four lawsuits - including a class-action complaint in Marion County - have been filed throughout the state on the issue of post-Wallace registration requirements, and those remain pending. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana represents plaintiffs in the class-action case. Indianapolis attorney Kathleen Sweeney, who represented and won on Wallace, represents the plaintiffs - who didn't want to be a part of the class action - in other suits.

In Sweeney's eyes, the biggest issue hasn't been the Wallace decision but how it's been applied by the state, and how there's been little guidance from the Indiana Attorney General's Office on this issue.

"I think it clarified the law, and we can't pretend that the registry isn't punishment anymore (for these pre-registry offenders)," Sweeney said. "What's so important to me about Wallace is the court's recognition that the registry is so pervasive that it's punishment. ... One of the most important things is the court said it's like being banished. Because it's punishment, that should make it pretty simple as far as who comes off the registry."

But attorneys on both sides disagree about whether Wallace applies to an estimated 2,000 people convicted for offenses prior to the registry requirements now in place. Sweeney finds it troublesome that the Indiana Attorney General's Office hasn't offered much guidance on this since the April 2009 ruling.

"That's the most frustrating part," she said.

State's legislative fix


The Indiana Attorney General's Office has stepped into the process, and has been working during this legislative session to address the issues Wallace raised. Attorney General Greg Zoeller named this issue as one of his top legislative priorities for 2009-2010, pointing out that Wallace and an accompanying case "muddied the waters" and made it unclear how registry rules apply statewide.

Seeing this void in state law, the AG's Office began working with everyone involved to provide some clarity in the procedures. The state agency also worked with the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney's Council and Indiana Public Defender's Council to craft a legislative fix for this problem, specifically by putting into law the procedure and stance taken by the DOC. The language revises the statute regarding offenders seeking relief from registry requirements by requiring that person to file a petition in court and request a court order for removal. The prosecutor would receive notice and have a chance to respond, and the offender would have to provide information to prove he's no longer eligible for listing on the registry. If the judge orders removal, the DOC would be required to grant it.

"There was a void in the law following Wallace, and this amendment seeks to fill that void by allowing courts to review the propriety of requiring individuals to register as sex offenders, while ensuring that courts are made aware of the relevant facts before rendering decisions," said Bryan Corbin, AG litigation spokesman.

An amendment was attached to Senate Bill 224 on Feb. 22 to address that issue, and the full House voted unanimously in favor of the committee-amended legislation Feb. 25. It was returned to the Senate for consideration of the amendments, and then it was sent to conference committee where it remained at deadline for this story. If lawmakers pass it and the governor OKs it, the new law would take effect July 1.

Court challenges remain alive

Despite the legislative remedies being finalized, the pending lawsuits won't be affected by any new law, according to the AG's office. That means whatever relief procedures in place before would still apply, Corbin said. Those cases remain pending in Marion, Hendricks, Howard, and Elkhart counties, but the state is pushing to have them all dismissed in order to rely solely on the class action complaint in Marion County.

While those state disputes play out, the U.S. Supreme Court considers the same topic as it relates to the federal Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act passed in 2006. On Feb. 25, justices heard arguments in Thomas Carr v. U.S., No. 08-1301, a 7th Circuit case out of the Northern District of Indiana. The case involves a man who moved to Indiana from Alabama and failed to register here as a sex offender, and he contends that at the time of his offense and conviction he wasn't required to register. Fort Wayne attorney Stanley Campbell from Swanson & Campbell was one of the lawyers on the case, though he didn't make arguments.

Justices expressed concerns during arguments about how the law's impact might change depending on the order of offense, conviction, travel between states, and failure to register. Several justices also were concerned with both parties' interpretations of the law, and it wasn't clear how they might rule or how it might impact what's happening in Indiana and other states on sex offender registry rules.

"There still are more questions than answers," said Larry Landis, director of the Indiana Public Defender Council. "It's interesting what happened in Wallace because the U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that requiring registration of someone prior to the offense wasn't ex post facto, where our justices differed and said it violated our own Indiana Constitution. What happens next may change that."

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. Hello everyone am precious from the united state of America am here to testify in the name of this great man who has brought back happiness into my family after my lover Chris left me for 3years for another woman,i really loved Chris because he was my first love i tried everything within my power to get Chris back to my life but people i met just kept on scamming me and lying to me,Then normally on Saturdays i do go out to make my hair and get some stuff,Then i had people discussing at the saloon if they do listen to there radio well,That there is a program (how i got back my ex)And started talking much about Dr EDDY how this man has helped lots of people in bringing back there lover,So immediately i went close to those ladies i met at the saloon and i explained things to them they said i should try and contact Dr EDDY that he has been the talk of the town and people are really contacting him for help immediately we searched on the internet and read great things about Dr EDDY i now got all Dr EDDY contact instantly at the saloon i gave Dr EDDY a call and i shared my problem with him he just told me not to worry that i should just be happy,He just told me to send him some few details which i did,And then he got back to me that everything would be okay within 36hours i was so happy then Dr EDDY did his work and he did not fail me,My lover Chris came to me in tears and apologized to me for leaving me in deep pain for good 3years,So he decided to prove that he will never leave me for any reason he made me had access to his account and made me his next of kin on all his will,Now the most perfect thing is that he can't spend a minute without seeing me or calling me,Am so grateful to Dr EDDY for bringing back the happiness which i lack for years,Please contact Dr EDDY for help he is a trustworthy man in email is dreddyspiritualtemple@gmail.com or you can call him or whatsapp him with this number...+23408160830324 (1)If you want your ex back. (2) if you always have bad dreams. (3)You want to be promoted in your office. (4)You want women/men to run after you. (5)If you want a child. (6)[You want to be rich. (7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever. (8)If you need financial assistance. (9)If you want to stop your Divorce. 10)Help bringing people out of prison. (11)Marriage Spells (12)Miracle Spells (13)Beauty Spells (14)PROPHECY CHARM (15)Attraction Spells (16)Evil Eye Spells. (17)Kissing Spell (18)Remove Sickness Spells. (19)ELECTION WINNING SPELLS. (20)SUCCESS IN EXAMS SPELLS. (21) Charm to get who to love you. CONTACT:dreddyspiritualtemple@gmail.com

  2. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  3. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT