KS: Kansas Supreme Court divided over offender registration law

The Kansas Supreme Court is divided over whether a law requiring criminal offenders to register with local authorities after prison represents extra punishment.

A 4-3 majority has concluded that registration for sex, drug and violent offenders is not extra punishment. Its latest decision came Thursday in the appeal of Djuan Richardson.

He was convicted of selling cocaine in Sedgwick County in 2003 and pleaded guilty to violating the offender registration law in 2011. He later sought unsuccessfully to withdraw that plea. Full Article



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

With so much overwhelming evidence that the registry in fact creates a lot of disabilities socially, if not legally (not being allowed to see your child’s play on school grounds is a legal disability and not being able to find a home or job is a social one), how can they still claim it doesn’t amount to punishment? What is their rational that’s it’s not punishment?

Does anyone know what was actually said in the ruling in regards to this? I’m curious the definitions they used to come to this ruling.

This case deals with (drug) offender registration – NOT sex offender registration.

Noteworthy that 3 judges find even drug offender registration – a far cry from the restrictions imposed by sex offender registration – to be punitive…

I am giving this Djuan Richardson’s lawyer an “F”

I did not know that any state had a drug offender registry. Is this it, then? The acceleration of the push to get every person who has ever committed a crime on a registry for that crime? That seems inevitable in the long run if courts continue to find that registry schemes are only regulatory, may be applied retroactively, and do not constitute punishment.

The article implies that there are also “violent offender” registries other than sex offender registries. Or perhaps only that they would be considered constitutional if they did exist.

In view of Smith v Doe, I’m frankly surprised the vote of the Kansas Supreme Court was only 4 to 3 in favor of registration for drug offenders not being punishment. Again, it seems like any other conclusion would be impossible, since it would also apply to the sex offender registry.

Now, they can now start putting restrictions on where drug user can live.

If any judge thinks that registration is not punishment they are either a dumbass or dishonest. There is no middle ground. Ignorance in our judiciary is “frightening and high.”

Sorry NPS, but your wrong. I am currently getting both grants and student loans just as anyone else. Denial for possession only applies if you were selling it when you are receiving aid.Drug offender registration is a one time thing, and only last for five years. I am in CA, and yes we have both arson and drug registration.

Oh, and yes, I have a felony possession of a controlled substance.