ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


MA: Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated and set aside a superior court judgment affirming a Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) decision to classify John Doe as a level two sex offender, holding that there was not substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner’s decision to classify Doe as a level two sex offender by clear and convincing evidence.

SORB classified Doe as a level two sex offender after Doe was convicted of two counts of open and gross lewdness. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) SORB had jurisdiction to classify Doe as a sex offender; (2) in order classify an individual as a level two sex offender, the hearing examiner is required to make three explicit determinations by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) in light of this three-prong test, the hearing examiner did not support her decision to classify Doe as a level two sex offender by clear and convincing evidence. Opinion

Join the discussion

  1. LostandNoLongerDevastated

    Before my appeal went through, Kate Frame was the one who represented me in front of SORB. She was telling me about this case. I cannot say enough good things about her. She is a wonderful human being and an amazing attorney. She and Eric Tennen are the Janice’s of the East Coast!

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      I’ve spoken to Kate many times. She is indeed amazing. Unfortunately I can’t currently afford to hire her to help with my reduction / removal from the list. Hopefully in the near future…

      • Tim in WI

        Here is what is so readily ignorant about ” the attempt” to re classify folks.

        In Alaska \ DPS decisions a determination was made that “NO” hearing on Dangerousness was needed precisely because IT was Not the touchstone – hence no new judicial branch determination ( AKA REdeprivation procedure) was denied to felon. Therefore the attempt to reclassify triggers ( highlights) a process normally associated with criminal justice. A traditional circular argument affirming the true underlying intent in the first case.

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      Hey LostandNoLongerDevastated. I tried to contact you via email, but I’m not sure you still use the one I have from last year. Would love to catch up with you again. Let me know!

  2. Eric

    “in order classify an individual as a level two sex offender, the hearing examiner is required to make three explicit determinations by clear and convincing evidence.” So I’m wondering exactly what the criteria is for the new California tiered registry and the justification for putting CP offenders on level three.

    • matthew

      Well this is a different state. While we can reference it, it doesn’t really do much at this point.

    • Scotus Save Us Now

      Each state has it’s own rules for what level people are on. Some are based on individualized assessments, some are based on crime you were convicted of.

    • SR

      Currently, none. The upcoming tiered registry is 99.99% offense CODE based (we can all agree that the same code can have a huge amount of difference, especially for CP where 1 pictures or several several sever’s worth is the same in regards to that code number). The remaining .01% is your Static-99 score which can automatically land you on T3 regardless of your offense. If they actually had to evaluate us as individuals, vast majority would be T1 or not have to register at all, if that was an option.

  3. CA cool RC

    How often can California evaluate you? Once ? If you did a tier 3 crime and you are on there forever with out an evaluate on if you will reoffend 20 years later?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *