NY: Appeals Court hearing oral arguments online Oct 13 on continued detention of former sex offenders after release


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

Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

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.