ILNews

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 – www.icrimewatch.net/indiana.php – 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.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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 crime..by the way 17 is a legal consenting adult in indiana.

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT