MO: Nearly 30 years after guilty plea, Boone County woman may have sex offense record cleared

Source: 4/11/23

A nearly 30-year-old sex offender case is coming back to Boone County. It is not to decide the offender’s guilt or innocence, but whether changes in law meant they ever were required to register as an offender in the first place.

The main reason the case is coming back to Boone County is so that Department of Mental Health records can be accessed to determine if Liana _____, formerly Liana M. Bradford, completed the required treatment programs to clear her record under the Tier 1 offender parameters of the federal sex offender registry and notification act, adopted in 2008.

Tier 1 offenders can have their records cleared 15 years post-conviction and have the option to move for removal from the registry after 10 years under federal law, so long as they have a clean record.

_____ pleaded guilty in 1995 to a one-count misdemeanor of sexual misconduct with a person under 17.

She had a one-year sentence that was suspended in favor of probation. When changes occurred to Missouri’s registry law in 2000 to include misdemeanor offenses, she sought the advice of the Boone County Sheriff’s Office and “out of an abundance of caution” started to register at that time, wrote Judge George W. Draper III in the court’s opinion.

She moved for removal from the registry in 2020 by filing for summary judgment. The state did the same and the court sided with the state and its claim she was a Tier 3, not Tier 1 offender, requiring lifetime registration. It was this ruling _____ appealed.

_____ fits three of the four parameters to reduce her registry period to 10 years under Tier I of the federal law and both sides agree on this matter, Draper wrote.

_____ sentence did not exceed one year, she kept a clean record for at least 10 years and successfully completed her probation.

She also had to take part in a certified treatment program during her probation, and this is the item under question needing review by the Boone County Court to determine if _____ ever was required to register for the federal law in the first place.

If it is found the records meet the clean record provision, which meant she could have had her registry term reduced to 10 years in 2005, the federal registry law would not have applied as it was adopted in 2008. By extension, if _____ didn’t have to register under federal law, she would also not have been required to register under state law in 2000, as it could not be applied retroactively to her 1995 conviction.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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

So many questions and processes! Oh what a tangled web yee weave when yes practice to deceive all that a database can circumvent interpersonal violence. A lie then and a lie now.
The database will not save you.

No one should be required to register at all if their conviction is prior to the registry .Very Unconstitutional. The courts should have the obligations to protect a persons rights after serving a conviction. Not allow more punitive retroactive rules or laws applied to anyone who is now a citizen of this country who has had their rights restores after serving their conviction. I always believed that’s what statues were created for? The system is so dirty. Lets see them try this with someone who has served a dui charge 5 years ago now they have to report to the police station every Friday to summit a breathalyzer. Not gonna fly, why should this?

The Judiciary will now decide if the chronology of events proves that she does, or does not, pose a Frightening and High risk of future crimes. The chronology of the events relevant to the case will be the exclusive determining factor as to if she does or does not.

If chronology matters, then she does not pose a Frightening and High risk. If the chronology of events does not matter, then she does pose a Frightening and High risk of future crimes. Either way, the chronology of the events will be the sole determining factor.

Also at stake…

Is the legislature stuck with whatever Devinely infallible revelation of universal and eternal truth was in effect at the time of conviction…or do they get to impose the results of their new Devinely infallible revelation of Universal and eternal truths post conviction?

Either way, it is inescapable fact that the Judiciary agrees that the legislature is omniscient.