ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: May 16 – Phone [recording], June 13 – Phone, July 11, August 15 details
Oct 10 and 11 – Conference (Los Angeles),

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

National

UT: ‘Conviction’ aside, Utah Supreme Court says sex offender must register

The Utah Supreme Court has ruled a man must register as a sex offender, despite his conviction ultimately being set aside in another state. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Chris f

    Not surprising.

    Same thing would happen in Texas.

    Any type of deferred or set aside conviction still counts toward registration if you plead guilty or no contest. That was in Sorna also and was unconstitionally added by the attorney General I believe as that violates Seperation of Powers.

    In Packingham, the SCOTUS Justices found it “troubling” that any restrictions continue after the court decided duration of government supervision ends. Seems like they should be extra troubled by it continuing after that time and without even a conviction. It makes judges useless pawns and plea deals moot. Yet, we cant get the right cases in front of them to fix this.

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      “In Packingham, the SCOTUS Justices found it “troubling” that any restrictions continue after the court decided duration of government supervision ends.”
      —–
      What gets me is Smith only said one’s public records could be compiled and published online. Then, Packingham talked about the “troubling fact” of things being imposed past supervision/sentence. To me that greatly hedges in where SCOTUS thinks things can go, and yet court after court seems to think it’s all fine. No, it’s not. Show me, Mr. or Ms. Judge, where in Smith it says ANYthing about being able to impose limits on the designated class. You can’t, because it’s not there. In fact, quite the *opposite* is there, as SCOTUS talked of the RCs being able to work and live freely, just like anyone else. For some reason, that part gets glossed over and rarely (Muniz, Snyder) seems to yield a win for us.

      I still think if a case like Snyder or Muniz gets appealed to SCOTUS with an Opinion contrary to what those two cases found, SCOTUS will take it and strike it down. It’s my sincerest belief SCOTUS rejected those cases because they were correctly decided.

      • Chris f (@AJ)

        Exactly AJ.

        I have a similar beef with Connecticut DPS v Doe from the same year. It says no determination of dangerousness is needed because the registry has nothing to do with those on it being dangerous. Back in 2003 that may have been loosly true. That was before all the federal and local restrictions aimed at those on the registry. The moment any restriction was added that inferred dangerousness or altered rights and it now violates Due Process for both Procedural and Substantive Due Process. Yet, every state gets away with restrictions while incorrectly pointing at Con DPS v Doe.

        Then when you add in Smith and Con DPS being directly tied to McKune V Liles from the year before and its false 80% recidivism…and this entire line of cases is begging to be shot down cold.

        I do love the “hints” scotus justices throw in to opinions on how to challenge these things but yet nobody can get a good case in front of them to do that.

    • CR

      @Chris f:

      I’m not sure if he would be required to register in Texas. Maybe so, because he had a conviction that was later set aside.

      However, if he had gotten a deferred adjudication (not sure if there is such a thing in Idaho) instead of a conviction that was later set aside, he would not be required to register in Texas. That situation is explicitly exempted in the Texas registration statute (chapter 26 of the Penal Code).

      Texas only requires registration for those with a deferred adjudication in Texas. I’ve posted the registration criteria from chapter 26 a few times already, so I won’t do it here again. But it’s plainly stated in the statute.

      • Chris f (@CR)

        Thanks CR, I keep forgetting that.

        Shouldn’t that be challenged by someone in Texas with deferred? Doesnt that sound like a violation of Equal Protection since similarly situated people that may have done the exact same thing somewhere else are treated differently? Considering the liberties affected by registration, it should be looked at under strict scrutiny and the state should have to show a compelling reason and that it is narrowly tailored.

  2. TnT

    More B.S ! Its so sad to think these little pecker heads get away with this kind of stuff all the time. Need a million reg. march ! On the front of their capital door steps .

  3. AJ

    It seems to me this guy is fighting in the wrong jurisdiction. The story says he was required to register in ID despite the conviction being set aside. Why didn’t he fight it there? As the UT SC states, UT requires registration if required to register in another jurisdiction, which is exactly the case here.

    The guy himself even gets this, rendering the other argument moot.
    *****
    Mr. H____ concedes that he qualifies as an offender under the statute, because he required to register in another state[.]
    *****
    So, even if UT said, “you’re right, dude, you’re not an offender in UT’s eyes,” he’s *still* need to register with UT because of the ID requirement. He’s fighting the wrong fight, in the wrong State.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      I tend not to agree, if he does not reside, work, or go to school in Idaho, then he is not required to register in the jurisdiction. Under this reasoning, “concedes that he qualifies as an offender under the statute, because he is required to register in another state.” Would mean because any other state would require us to register there, regardless if we had been there, we would have to register in ________.

      • JohnDoeUtah

        Also, Utah Code only states “conviction.” It says nothing about “pleading guilty.” It all hinges on “conviction.” So, what happened to the “plain language” doctrine? The Utah Supreme Court just committed a carnal sin by rewriting the legislative intent and abandoning the “plain language” doctrine. Of said conviction is tossed, it does not trigger registration.

        “The Plain meaning rule is a type of statutory construction by which statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute…The soft plain meaning rule means that the statute is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd.”

      • AJ

        @JohnDoeUtah:
        “if he does not reside, work, or go to school in Idaho, then he is not required to register in the jurisdiction.”
        —–
        It seems to me you’re confusing the terms “required to register” and “required to maintain (current) registration.” The man is required to register in ID–he himself concedes that (so whatever you or I may think doesn’t matter). He’s only required to keep said registration *current* if living/working/schooling in ID.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          I think this is a prime example of a ripe constitutional challenge. A state cannot maintain jurisdiction over an individual if that person has left the state, and is no longer under the supervision of that state’s courts. That would include the “requirement to register.”

        • AJ

          @JohnDoeUtah:
          “I think this is a prime example of a ripe constitutional challenge. A state cannot maintain jurisdiction over an individual if that person has left the state, and is no longer under the supervision of that state’s courts.”
          —–
          While I personally agree, what limited “long-arm statute” case law exists doesn’t really seem to say clearly one way or the other. One would expect extraterritorial jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, but apparently the courts can’t quite figure it out. Heck, even our federal government does it. Expats are required to pay the IRS and citizens can be tried in the US for behavior overseas.

        • Ny won’t let go

          @johndoe no one ever told that to NY I have to maintain my info on their site and I don’t live in the country

  4. Robert Curtis

    More freedoms as a nomads in the US than a resident. Not sure what the loop holes in the laws are available on this but if one would get an out of country driver’s license driving in the USA would still be aloud. Buy and register a mini van under a friend or family member’s name with you listed as a driver “bam!” freedom to live and travel. Trick is know days required to register in each state travelled and never violate that timeline. Talking with law enforcement on how those time restrictions are applied helps…ie. I chatted with a Nevada deputy sheriff that told me the requirement is 48 hours but it is applied by jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction is city PD or county sheriff’s…just stay under 48 hours within individual jurisdictions. In Arizona and New Mexico it’s 10 days. Always do your research and check with legal counsel before travelling.

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 *

.