The Montana Attorney General’s Office opposed removing a former Missoula man from the state’s sexual offender registry despite evidence he was designated a sex offender because he had consensual “gay sex” when he was 18 years old.
At a trial held Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge Dana L. Christensen, Assistant Attorney General Hannah Tokerud argued the case did not hinge on whether the man, Randall _____, was convicted for having consensual sex.
“It hinges on whether he is required to register in Idaho,” Tokerud said.
If any state requires a person to register as a sex offender, Montana will require that person to register, regardless of the facts of the case, Tokerud said.
Menges’ attorney, Matthew Strugar, argued that Montana is trying to “pass the buck” to another state while enforcing an unconstitutional registration requirement.
Strugar asked Christensen to order the state to stop requiring Randall _____to register, remove his name from the offender list and delete any state records related to his conviction.
Christensen did not rule on the case from the bench, but said he would get a ruling out “quickly.”
Depending upon how it is written, the decision in this case could have very important implications. As with some other states, Montana requires (since 2005) registration if registration was required for a conviction in another state. There is no requirement that the out-of-state offense would trigger registration if committed in Montana, nor even that the actions be unlawful in Montana.
Not only does this policy raise equal protection questions, but also smacks up against the contention that registration is a public safety issue. Why would someone convicted of an out of state crime be presumed more dangerous than a resident convicted of an identical offense? The government’s main justification upholding the policy is “to clarify administrative issues that had arisen over the course of administering the Act and to better serve the public.”
In other words, it simply costs less if the state is not required to determine whether Montana’s sex offense laws are equivalent to those of another state. That is a budgetary consideration having no bearing on public safety. This cry for administrative efficiency is a tacit admission that registration is not merely a civil policy to improve safety.
Veritas.
The IML is just a way to make life more painful for anyone on any registry for whatever conviction; e.g. statutory rape, child porn, or mooning. Since neither the registry nor the IML are considered punishment, equal protection violations are not as clear cut.
Each state can also determine how it wants to handle registrants who travel from other states. The primary issue in this Montana case centers around Lawrence v Texas. However, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the court will at least discuss the equivalency question.
Veritas.
Here’s another article:
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article250380661.html