Ohio Supreme Court says juvenile sex offender status can be set before release from detention

7-22-2014 Ohio:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court says judges can hold hearings to determine the offender status of juveniles convicted of sex crimes at the time they are found guilty or when they're released from detention.

The court's unanimous decision Tuesday came in a 2011 Clark County case involving a juvenile found delinquent for a rape committed when he was 14 years old.

Lawyers for the boy, who was sentenced to at least one year in detention, challenged the fact he was also classified as a sex offender, saying that determination should be made when he is released.

The appeals court for Clark County ruled against the boy, but the Supreme Court took the case because the appeals court for Canton came to a different conclusion in another case. ..Source.. by TribTown.com

Juvenile Law Center Wins Second Ruling Declaring Pennsylvania's Juvenile Sex Offender Registration Requirements Unconstitutional

1-17-2014 Pennsylvania:

For the second time in the last three months, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled that Pennsylvania’s juvenile sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional. On January 16, 2014, Monroe County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Margherita Patti-Worthington ruled that Pennsylvania's law requiring juveniles convicted of sexual offenses be subjected to lifetime sex offender registration violates their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Read Judge Patti-Worthington’s opinion here.)

In 2012, the General Assembly enacted new legislation (SORNA) requiring children convicted of certain sexual offenses to register for life on a sex offender registry. Shortly after the law went into effect, Juvenile Law Center, along with local counsel, Syzane Arifaj of the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office, filed motions on behalf of five youth adjudicated delinquent for offenses committed prior to the law’s effective date. The motions challenged SORNA under several provisions of the Pennsylvania and Federal constitutions as well as the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act.

In a well-reasoned decision, the Monroe County Court held that registration is unconstitutional because it infringes on the youths’ fundamental right to reputation and creates an irrebuttable presumption of dangerousness in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s guarantee of due process. The Court based its decision on a historical analysis of the right to reputation and due process in Pennsylvania, as well as a review of SORNA’s impact on youth as compared to previous versions of Megan’s Law.

The Court drew upon recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence to find that the label of “sex offender” creates harm to a youth’s reputation because it connotes a degree of dangerousness not typically present among youthful offenders. “Being a child implies a unique reputation in our society … Children’s habits are not solidified and this is contemplated in the law ... Where a child’s serious transgressions might have been looked on with a more lenient eye, especially as time passed and wounds were healed, [SORNA] will remind us that this person is a sexual offender and this reminder will persist for the rest of the juvenile’s life.”

The Court also considered the rate of recidivism among youth who commit sexual offenses to determine that the statute is not narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest in protecting the community. The extremely low rate of recidivism indicates that children are not dangerous and therefore do not require costly and burdensome monitoring and registration well into their adulthoods. The lack of any individualized inquiry prior to the imposition of registration further renders SORNA problematic. This presumption that the youth are dangerous without an opportunity to be heard until twenty-five years have passed does not provide meaningful due process.

Juvenile Law Center also challenged SORNA on behalf of juveniles subject to registration in Lancaster County, PA. We are awaiting a decision in that case.

In November 2013, Juvenile Court Judge John C. Uhler of York County, PA ruled SORNA unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions (In the Interest of J.B. et al.). This case is currently on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Petitioners were represented by Marsha L. Levick and Riya Saha Shah of Juvenile Law Center, and Syzane Arifaj of the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office. The Defender Association of Philadelphia also contributed assistance to the briefing. ..Source.. by Juvenile Law Center

Lifetime registration unconstitutional for sex offenders

This case is being appealed, see lower paragraph.

11-28-2013 Pennsylvania:

York County judge orders state police to remove seven teens from sex offender registry

Seven local teens facing lifetime registration as sex offenders just got a pass.

A local judge has found the lifetime registration requirement for juveniles to be unconstitutional.

Drawing heavily on last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found mandatory life sentences for juvenile killers unconstitutional, Senior Judge John C. Uhler has held that lifetime registration for juvenile sex offenders also is unconstitutional for many of the same reasons.

In a 41-page analysis and opinion issued Nov. 4, Uhler ruled that the recently implemented Pennsylvania Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) violates the constitutional rights of juveniles because, while it also conflicts with the purposes of the state's Juvenile Act, it has created the same "one size fits all" feature that the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional in juvenile murder sentencing.

District Attorney Tom Kearney said he will appeal Uhler's decision.

"We have to," Kearney said Monday. "It puts us in a position where one county is handling matters differently from other counties. The appellate courts will have to decide this."

Uhler noted there was little debate on how the law, which came into effect on Dec. 20, 2012, would affect juvenile offenders.

At the time, he stated, legislators seemed more keen on closing a Megan's Law loophole as it pertained to adult transient and homeless sex offenders.

The law was passed pursuant to federal requirements.

Under SORNA, juveniles adjudicated guilty or who admitted to rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse or aggravated indecent assault, are required to register with the state police for life.

The seven juveniles whose cases were considered by Uhler all had been adjudicated or made admissions before SORNA was enacted.

In his opinion, Uhler agreed that Pennsylvania's juvenile courts were created "to provide guidance and rehabilitation for the child and protection for society, not to affix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment."

Referring to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that banned mandatory life without parole for juveniles, Uhler agreed that "children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes ... (because of their) diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform."

Uhler also took into account the wealth of research that shows recidivism among juvenile sex offenders is extremely low.

And although the legislature intended SORNA to be non-punitive, Uhler found the opposite.

SORNA's registration requirements are significantly more stringent than Megan's Law, Uhler held. Uhler also agreed that the "law is not reasonably designed to fulfill its purported function" and that it constitutes additional punishment.

"This court finds the SORNA provisions pertaining to juveniles are punitive and violate the ex post facto (retroactivity) clauses of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions," Uhler wrote.

In acknowledging Uhler's decision, the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center called it a "landmark ruling." Deputy director and chief counsel Marsha Levick said on the center's website, "Kids are different. As recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and as dictated by research, children may not be punished like adults in our justice system.

"As a court of second chances, juvenile court cannot impose lifetime penalties on children who we know are uniquely capable of turning their lives around and contributing to their communities."

Registration requirements for sex offenders

Following is the required information juvenile sex offenders must provide Pennsylvania State Police for the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.

• Names and aliases
• All addresses and residences
• Employment
• School enrollment
• All phone numbers
• Plate numbers and registration numbers for motor vehicles, including boats and planes
• Any temporary lodging
• Information on all Internet and social media accounts
• Occupational and professional licenses

Under SORNA, Tier III juvenile offenders -- those adjudicated or who have admitted to committing or attempting rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault and other specified crimes -- are to report in person to a designated authority every 90 days.

The juvenile also must report in person to notify authorities of any changes in registration information within three business days.

There is a mandatory minimum three-year prison sentence for the first failure to report and a five-year prison sentence for the first failure to provide accurate information.

On Nov. 4, York County Senior John C. Uhler ruled the lifetime registration requirement is unconstitutional.

On Monday, York County District Attorney Tom Kearney said he will appeal Uhler's ruling. ..Source.. by Rick Lee

Nevada Supreme Court upholds classification and registration of juvenile sex offenders

7-26-2013 Nevada:

State v the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

The Nevada Supreme Court, in a split decision, has upheld the constitutionality of a law that requires certain juvenile sex offenders to register with law enforcement and for the registration information to be shared with community groups.

The majority 48-page opinion written by Justice Michael Douglas overturned the ruling of Clark County Juvenile District Judge William Voy, who said the 2007 law was invalid because it did not bear any relationship to public safety or rehabilitation of the juveniles.

Both the four justices in the majority and the three in the minority said Thursday the law probably is not effective in preventing crime and was passed only to get federal money.

Douglas wrote that he, like the juvenile judge, is concerned about the wisdom of the law but that the court is bound to follow it and that, in this case, it “easily passes rational basic review.”

The law defines a sex offender as one who, after July 2006, was judged a delinquent for sexual assault, battery with intent to commit sexual assault, lewdness with a child, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses as long as the offender was 14 years or older at the time of the act.

Prior to the passage of the law, juvenile judges had the authority to decide whether the delinquent should be required to register and if there should be limited community notification.

The majority rejected the argument that the law was punitive and said it was passed to protect the public. The justices denied the claims that children declared delinquent prior to the law could also be forced to register.

While declaring the law constitutional, Douglas wrote, “Of upmost concern, it does not appear from the legislative history that the Nevada Legislature ever considered the impact of the bill on juveniles.”

He said the motivation of the Legislature appeared to be loss of federal money.

The Clark County Public Defender’s Office and the ACLU — which backed the decision of the juvenile judge to invalidate the law — said juveniles are subject to registration for 25 years to life.

Douglas said Nevada has a long tradition of public protection and this law does not conflict with the juvenile justice system.

Justice Michael Cherry, who wrote the seven-page dissenting opinion, said this 2007 law was unconstitutional because it applied to juveniles declared sex offenders before the law was passed. He called the law “akin to the historical punishments of branding and shaming.”

Cherry objected to the wider disclosure of the information to community groups. He wrote that even juveniles who have successfully completed treatment and have been certified as low risks are subject to the registration and community notification.

Cherry, joined by Justices James Hardesty and Nancy Saitta in the dissent, said the Legislature should reconsider this law. Joining Douglas in the majority were Chief Justice Kristina Pickering and Justices Mark Gibbons and Ron Parraguirre. ..Source.. by Cy Ryan

NL v Indiana

7-1-2013 Indiana:

NL v Indiana

Sex-offender registration aims to protect innocent members of society from repeat sex offenses by formerly convicted sex offenders, while our juvenile system aims to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. To balance these competing goals in light of registration’s serious social consequences and far-reaching effects, trial courts may place a child on the sex offender registry only if they first find by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to repeat a sex offense. But our trial courts have struggled with how to apply that statutory requirement. Today, we clarify that a juvenile may only be ordered to register as a sex offender if, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court expressly finds by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is likely to commit another sex offense. Because the trial court’s order here placing N.L. on the registry was neither issued in connection with an evidentiary hearing, nor accompanied by any findings, we reverse and remand.

... ... ...

Conclusion.

It is well within a trial court’s discretion to hold more than one hearing to determine whether a juvenile’s risk of reoffending warrants placing them on the sex offender registry. But when it does so, every hearing held for that purpose must be an “evidentiary hearing” as J.C.C. requires. That is, juveniles must have the opportunity to challenge the State’s evidence and present evidence of their own; and if an “evidentiary hearing” is continued, they must have continued representation by counsel at the subsequent hearings as well. Finally, the child may not be ordered to register unless the trial court expressly finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child is likely to commit another sex offense — based exclusively on evidence received at such a hearing. Here, the May hearing was not an “evidentiary hearing” as J.C.C. requires; N.L. did not have the benefit of counsel in May, even though he did for the February hearing; and the trial court made no findings about N.L.’s likelihood to reoffend.

We therefore reverse the order requiring N.L. to register as a sex offender, and remand to the trial court with instructions to conduct a new “evidentiary hearing” as J.C.C. requires to determine whether N.L. is likely to commit another sex offense, and thereafter to make an express finding of whether the State has made that showing by clear and convincing evidence.

---

Indiana Supreme Court Sets Standards for Adding Minor to Sex Offender Registry

The Indiana Supreme Court clarifies the process juvenile court judges must follow before a child who commits a sex crime can be added to the state's registry.

In a 5-0 decision, the state's high court says before a minor can be added to the sex offender registry, judges must hold a formal hearing to determine how likely a child is to re-offend.

Today's ruling over-turns a decision in which a teenage boy from Bedford, Indiana was added to the registry after allegedly molesting a 9-year-old boy. ..Source..