Source: theindianalawyer.com 8/17/21
A split en banc 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a decision from an original three-judge panel that ordered the removal of six names from the Indiana sex offender registry, finding that the state’s sex offender registration law doesn’t discriminate based on residency. However, the case was remanded for further consideration of an equal-protection claim.
Judge Amy St. Eve — a member of the original panel who dissented from the January ruling — wrote for the en banc majority Monday in Brian Hope, et al. v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Correction, et al., 19-2523. She was joined by Chief Judge Diane Sykes and judges Frank Easterbrook, Michael Kanne, Michael Brennan, Michael Scudder and Thomas Kirsch.
Judge Ilana Rovner penned a partial dissent, which was joined by judges Diane Wood and David Hamilton.
Sex offenders in Indiana are required to register at least once per year in every county where they live, work or study under Indiana’s Sex Offender Registration Act. The law, known as SORA, went into effect in 1994 and was amended in 1996 to require registration by anyone convicted elsewhere of a state offense that was “substantially equivalent” to an Indiana offense requiring registration.
SORA was amended again in 2006, this time to apply to a “person who is required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction.” But offenders convicted pre-SORA don’t have to register as such, pursuant to the Indiana Supreme Court’s holding in Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009).
According to the 7th Circuit, if an offender was under no registration requirement before SORA’s passage, courts have held that imposing a registration requirement in the first instance is impermissibly punitive. But that’s not the case for sex offenders who were previously required to register in another state. For those individuals, being required to register as a sex offender in Indiana isn’t punitive.
Rokita: Federal appeals court upholds Indiana’s Sex Offender Registration Act [wane.com 8/17]
Gonna need a short summary for a layperson here. In short, What does this mean? What happened?
So let me get this straight. Imposing registration on individuals whose offenses were committed in Indiana prior to SORA is punitive, but imposing them on individuals whose offenses were committed anywhere but Indiana at any time is not?
How is it that a black robe and/or a law degree prevents someone from seeing the flaw in that logic?
I don’t see what the issue is here . It is plain to see that people are being treated differently that moves to the state ID , are not treated equal under their own SORA./state law , and traveling don’t just mean like just traveling through , it also means traveling to , to attain or obtain a new residence , Home , the registry has shown no proof that it makes anyone safe , just another robbery of our freedoms and tax cattle . For more gov’t that we can not afford or sustain .
I don’t see what the issue is here . It is plain to see that people are being treated differently that moves to the state ID , are not treated equal under their own SORA./state law , and traveling don’t just mean like just traveling through , it also means traveling to , to attain or obtain a new residence , Home , the registry has shown no proof that it makes anyone safe , just another robbery of our freedoms and tax cattle . For more gov’t that we can not afford or sustain . ,
No matter the the venue it always seems that the courts attempt to make decisions to benefit the state. There seems to be some deeply rooted thought process on the bench that says the State can not be wrong in the underlying conviction or the application of law post release. The Constitution be damned!!
The federal government is definently about to apply SORNA requirements retroactively to every state in America within the next 4 years Tier 1=:15years Tier 2=25years Tier 3= life
Migrants being treated differently than natives? How is that not discriminating on residency? To my knowledge, IN’s SORA applies to visitors, too, so it does indeed discriminate on where and when someone lives somewhere.
How can someone be getting treated equally when one person is subject to the “non-punitive regulatory scheme” and someone is not. That’s some strange equality!
That’s exactly correct, it’s their exercising of Freedom of Travel rights that causes the disparate treatment. This is right in line with SCOTUS in Saenz v. Roe.
IMO, this will be petitioned to SCOTUS. Given the split within the 7th itself, not to mention the overturning of the original CCoA and District Opinions, I can see SCOTUS taking it up. Or maybe SCOTUS issue a per curiam, remanding it back to be reviewed in accordance with Saenz v. Roe.