KS: Kansas appealing in sex offender registry ruling

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas will appeal a state district court judge’s decision that orders a child molester’s name to be removed from its offender registry after finding the registration laws violate the U.S. Constitution, the state’s top prosecutor said Thursday.

At issue is Tuesday’s decision in which Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks found that Kansas law ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary. But, his ruling applied only to the 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County sheriff’s office seeking to end his registration requirement. Full Article

Previous Article

Case Filings

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another state embarking upon another losing battle…the dam is finally starting to crack.

I can’t help but notice that alcoholics who drive while drunk escape Kansas registration laws which are meant to protect it’s children and the public.
Maybe they don’t represent the danger I imagine?
Or perhaps drunk drivers encompass too many law makers, politicians, district attorneys and other highly respected citizens.
If anyone deserves their history printed on a drivers license, they seem suited.

I think you are seeing what you want to see when you say the dam is breaking. I would say that opinion is fine and dandy, no problem to hold — except that it tends also to lead to the wrong strategy and tactics and expectations in continuing the fight. If you think the powers that be are reasonable, you will not approach this fight with the right strategy. They are not at all interested in being reasonable or honest. And because of that mindset, the chances of this ruling being upheld all the way through SCOTUS is just about nil. Oh, I hope as much as can be that I am way wrong, but I don’t think I am, I’ve watched this stuff for far too many years.

In my opinion, no, this does not represent the dam breaking. This is simply an anomaly by an isolated judge whose opinion is unlikely to prevail and will not persuade any of his colleagues — very unfortunately. Its nice to have it, but it just is not so significant as to represent the dam breaking.

For one thing, it is this judge’s personal opinion that the Kansas law now goes to the level of punishment, Oh, I agree that it does (I agree with the former California High Court that once ruled that simple SOR without any public notice or any other collateral requirements and with a lot more leniency about doing the registration is still cruel and unusual punishment), but that doesn’t mean the judiciary generally agrees with me. No, the judiciary has already made rulings up and down the ranks and across the 50 states, and it is clear they will all bend over backward and go to extremes to say SOR is not punishment — they will flat out rule that blue is red, as they have the power to do so. Yes, maybe at some point some collateral horror that gets added on will finally be ruled to be punishment, but at best that will only get those final items dropped from the laws, and the rest of SOR will continue as always.

In California, they have prepared for that by splitting 290 up into quite a few different statues, and thus if any part is ruled to be punishment, all the other statutes-parts will remain retroactive. This is why 290 was split into several statutes a few years back.

This Kansas judge ruled that the simply fact of 25 years length of time for the SOR requirement constitutes punishment! That has already been ruled on by the California court, and I think even SCOTUS. In many respects, the Kansas law is harsher than that law in California, so maybe those parts will end up being held to be punishment, but not the whole law.

In my opinion the 290 laws in California are hideous and unconscionable at best. the problem is that we have full time legislators whom justifies their existence by passing laws which are absolutely punitive and post conviction consequences. Besides an inconvenience (justice Roberts), these laws violate each and every person(s) whom fall victim of this post punitive requirements. The California 290 laws are ridiculous and a violation the Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is America , where are the second chances once an individual pays his or hers debt to society? Just like California prop 8 , the courts will side with the change of times and make decisions according to the Constitution. This by far not over! The judge who ruled on this decision will have other judges follow suit. Standby and watch.