ILNews

SCOTUS accepts Indiana offender-registry case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation's highest court has taken an Indiana case that asks whether someone can be criminally prosecuted under a federal sex-offense registry law if that defendant's underlying offense and move to another state predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's passage.

At its daylong opening conference Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Thomas Carr v. United States, No. 08-1301, a case from the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled on late last year.

The certiorari petition was filed April 22, 2009, with the government's opposition brief filed in August. The petitioner's reply brief is here.

The Carr case was the first its kind in the Circuit. It's now one of 10 cases the justices accepted, including two others from the 7th Circuit - one asks whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into constitutional clauses in order to be applicable to the states, thereby invalidating home handgun possession ordinances; the other case asks whether someone must file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the employer's use of the discriminatory practice or awareness of the practice.

In the Carr case, justices will delve into an issue that's been surfacing more nationally and has brought disagreement from state and federal courts. The 7th Circuit issued its ruling in December 2008, combining it with the related case of U.S. v. Marcus Dixon, No. 08-1438. Judges found that a reasonable grace period is required before the federal government can enhance a convicted sex offender's punishment for not registering after a move to a new state and that time frame falls somewhere between zero days and five months.

The judges dismissed claims that federal law was unconstitutional on several fronts and instead focused mostly on the notice received from the federal government before a criminal failure to register with state authorities is enhanced to a federal crime. Overall, the court determined the law isn't unconstitutional and any convicted sex offender must register even if they came to the state prior to the federal law's passage.

But in its certiorari petition, attorneys argue that the requirement violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution and that failure to register under the federal law is not a continuing offense under the clause.

Fort Wayne attorney Stanley Campbell with law firm Swanson & Campbell is one of Carr's lawyers, joining a cast of defense and federal prosecuting attorneys from Washington, D.C., and other jurisdictions.

The high court hasn't yet set a date for arguments in this case.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT