Sex offender registry listings subject of court appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s Sex and Violent Offender Registry is under legal scrutiny with two high-profile lawsuits challenging various aspects of the listings.

The online database – – has deprived due process by failing to provide a means for erroneous listings to be corrected, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 28. The court reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in favor of the Indiana Department of Correction.

“We had said all along all we wanted was a very simple procedure that said someone would listen to people who said there are mistakes,” explained American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk, who successfully represented the plaintiff and those similarly situated in David Schepers, et al., v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, 11-3834.

15col-IL_Registry08.jpg From left, bailiff Erin Lantzer and Court of Appeals Judges Paul Mathias, Nancy Vaidik and Michael Barnes listen to oral arguments in Andrews v. State on Sept. 5 at I.U. McKinney School of Law.(IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Schepers, who is a sex offender, was incorrectly listed as a violent sex offender on the registry. State and federal laws require people convicted of specified sex crimes to register with their state databases that disclose their names and addresses.

The reach of those laws – particularly a 2006 federal statute – was the subject of another challenge heard by the Indiana Court of Appeals on Sept. 5 at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

Thomas Andrews argued that he should not be required to be included on the registry. Now an Indiana resident, Andrews was convicted of rape and abuse of a child in Massachusetts in 1984 and completed his sentence in 1989.

In Thomas Andrews v. State of Indiana, 29A02-1112-MI-1166, Andrews argues that because the registry didn’t exist at the time of his conviction, and because the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act didn’t pass until 2006, requiring him to submit to the registry constitutes ex post facto punishment.

“He was never obligated to register as a sex offender,” Andrews’ attorney, Cara Schaefer Wieneke, argued to the Court of Appeals, until he was contacted by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office in 2006. He voluntarily registered, she said.

Deputy Attorney General Frances Barrow acknowledged when questioned by Court of Appeals Judge Michael Barnes that Indiana could not compel Andrews to register under state law.

That was news to Wieneke.

“He only registers because he thinks he’s going to be prosecuted if he doesn’t,” Wieneke said after making her case to the Court of Appeals, which took the arguments under advisement.

Key to both sides was the Indiana Supreme Court precedent of Richard Wallace v. State of Indiana, 905 N.E.2d 371 (2009), in which justices ruled unanimously that the requirement that Richard Wallace register for a 1989 conviction violated the state Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.

But Barrow said SORNA would apply in the case of Andrews, whose business sometimes takes him out of state. She asked the Court of Appeals to instruct trial courts that they must deny relief to petitioners who ask to be removed from the registry if the courts find an obligation to register under SORNA.

“We are saying that under Wallace, the state can’t prosecute (Andrews),” Barrow said. “Under SORNA, the federal government can.”

Wieneke argued that the precedent of Wallace is clear, and the federal question is unknown. She told the court that Andrews would not be required to register as an offender under Massachusetts law, either.

andrews Andrews

In the Schepers case, the 7th Circuit said that while the DOC had revised its process for inmates who are about to be listed, no procedure was in place for those already on the registry who either should not be or whose information was erroneous.

The DOC argued that it had turned over registry information processing to the Indiana Sheriffs’ Association, but the court said DOC continued to have ultimate responsibility for the information.

“All the sheriffs as well as the Department of Correction want to make this as error-free as possible,” said DOC spokesman Doug Garrison. “The devil is in the details.”

Garrison said no decision has been made on whether the DOC will appeal.

“This ruling comes as the Indiana Legislature is conducting legislative hearings on potential changes to the Indiana Sex Offender Registry as part of a broader discussion with the DOC, the Indiana Sheriffs’ Association and other stakeholders,” Indiana attorney general spokesman Bryan Corbin said in a statement.

One possibility includes centralized administration of the registry. Data on the registry currently are maintained by the state’s 92 sheriffs.

The 7th Circuit opinion in Schepers urged all parties involved to work together to arrive at procedures that provide due process to someone erroneously listed on the registry. Falk said there is no way to know how many people might be in that class.

“We conclude with the observation that providing additional procedures to correct registry errors may wind up benefiting the state as well as registrants,” 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood wrote. “Erroneously labeling an offender a sexually violent predator imposes unnecessary monitoring costs on state law enforcement and reduces the efficacy of the registry in providing accurate information to the public.”•


  • not allowed on school property in indiana
    Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.
  • unjust retrictions
    i was convicted of criminal confinement in 2010.i did not have any sex or anything with any minor. i took 3 pictures of a 17 yr olds covered cleavage.and they were consentual pictures.i served my time in prison and thought after i had served all my time i would be done with this whole mistake and get on with my life.i was released to the state of michigan where my family lived. once i met with my parole officer i was informed i could not see my two teenage sons until i was released from parole on dec 10th 2013.i had already not seen my boys for over two yrs now because even though i had no minor restrictions imposed on me by the courts, the indiana parole board blanketed me with these conditions that keeps me from sein my children at all..i was told by my attorney during the plea bargain stage that the plea they offered me was only good for that day and if we continued with the interviews of the police officers that came to my house that evening than they would take away the plea and it was not a sex crime.. the day i went to court to sign the plea i found out than that he nor the prosecution knew at the time that criminal confinement was indeed a sex offense. my attorney passed away the following year so im not sure if i have grounds to file an appeal.the system is set up for failure and the restrictions are set up to create a violation in order to keep you in the system.the crime i had agreed on in the plea agreement doesnt even exist in michigan but i still have to register for 15 yrs now..if a person does not have a crime against children than they should not have to be subject to the same rules as a violent predator or child molester.being subject to the same rules could endanger my well being just because someone doesnt know the story behind my so called the way 17 is a legal consenting adult in indiana.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well