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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT