These appeals were filed by level three sex offenders to challenge their indefinite detention in prison or prison-based residential treatment facilities (RTFs) after their prison terms expired or they were granted parole.
All three offenders were subject to post-release supervision (PRS) and were held past their release dates by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) when they were unable to find housing that complied with the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which bars certain sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of any school grounds (Executive Law § 259-c[14]). DOCCS relied on Correction Law § 73(10), which authorizes it “to use any residential treatment facility as a residence for persons who are on community supervision.”
Download a PDF of the court’s summary
Watch the oral hearings that begin October 13 at 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern online at http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/live.html
There was an old USSC case that held that detention after a sentence was served wasn’t constitutional simply because they called it “treatment.” Will look for it later (at SOSEN, I think), but I imagine any court that heard arguments on this situation somehow found it didn’t apply to registrants.
I believe the case you have in mind is Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
It seems to me that this happening screams “Banishment!”
Will look later, but I think the case I was referring to was decided in the 70s or 80s. And this situation doesn’t scream “banishment” – it screams “life sentence” after a sentence has been served.
Im in the final process of creating a Prosee Pitition challenging Megans law, the tiered n Static 99 test under the Daubert standard. In the Northern California Federal Courts.related to pre offenders . I will send a copy to Miss Bulluci