Court Strikes Down Portion of Sex Offender Registry Law
The Maryland Court of Appeals rules that people convicted of sex crimes prior to 2009 do not have to register with the state.
Some people convicted of sex crimes prior to the existence of the state's sex offender registry may no longer have to register with the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, according to a ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The split decision, issued Monday, struck a registry requirement, imposed upon the defendant by legislation passed later, on the basis that it violated a clause in the Maryland Declaration of Rights prohibiting retroactive laws. [A copy of the ruling is attached to this story.]
"Registration was imposed, over twenty years later in 2009, under the sex offender registration statute as a direct consequence of petitioner’s commission and conviction for his sex crime. The application of the statute has essentially the same effect upon petitioner’s life as placing him on probation and imposing the punishment of shaming for life, and is, thus, tantamount to imposing an additional sanction for Petitioner’s crime," the court wrote in it's majority opinion.
The ruling stems from a case involving an unnamed person convicted in Washington County of a sex crime that occurred nearly 20 years ago. The sex offender registry was not created until 1995.
The unnamed defendant was a junior high school teacher accused of a sex offense involving a 13-year-old student during the 1983-1984 school year. The defendant was later convicted by guilty plea in 2006.
The crime committed by the unnamed petitioner occurred while in high school. In 2009 and 2010, the General Assembly added a number of requirements including one requiring juvenile sex offenders to register with the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.
The 2009 amendment required offenders like the unnamed teacher who committed prior to Oct. 1, 1995 but convicted on or after Oct 1, 1995 to register. The 2010 amendment ultimately required the teacher to register for the rest of his life.
The teacher's lawyer argued that the lifetime registration was not part of the original plea agreement.
But Court of Appeals Judge Glenn Harrell, in a separate opinion wrote law requiring the unnamed teacher to register did not violate the state's Declaration of Rights. Harrell went on to say that the teacher should not be required to register for another reason.
"Instead, I would direct specific performance of Mr. Doe’s guilty plea, not to include requirement of registration as a child sexual offender," Harrell wrote, adding that he found the majority opinion "faulty."
Harrell wrote that "a correct reading of [the Declaration of Rights] and the most relevant cases leads to the conclusion that Doe is not entitled to the relief he seeks on the constitutional arguments he makes."
Harrell said he would order the Washington County Circuit Court to enforce the plea bargain as it was agreed to, which did not include a requirement to register.
In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Mary Ellen Barbera wrote that adding the registration requirement more than a decade later was not a violation of state law.
"The state and the court made no promises in the plea agreement or during the plea hearing that Petitioner would not have to register as a sex offender," Barbera wrote. "Indeed, the plea agreement is silent on the matter, which was acceptable under the law, given the collateral nature of the registration requirement. Because there was no agreement with petitioner that he would not be subject to the collateral consequence of registration as a sex offender, either at the time of the plea or at some future time, it follows that there was no “breach” of the agreement entitling him to the relief he now seeks."
DB
10:17 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
You can always count on the liberal idiots of the appeals court of Maryland appointed by OweMalley and other worthless liberal Governors to make rulings that protect the criminals( ie good democratic voters) and punish or endanger honest taxpaying citizens.
K Blue
11:23 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
DB, I have no sympathy for sex offenders, especially not sex offenders who prey on minors, but there is something wrong when the state legislature can pass amendments to a law after an individual has been convicted (in this case, under a binding guilty plea) and sentenced and have them apply retroactively in a manner that imposes conditions upon them well after the fact. I am interested to see, what if anything, will be done during the current legislative session to conform the current laws to the Maryland Declaration of Rights as stated in this opinion.
Tim
1:28 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
So funny, Mr. Conservative DB. Here's why:
If anything, the court has erred on the side of the US Constitution. Yes, I understand they are not ruling specifically by this - that's not my point.
My point is, the court's overruled retroactively punishing folks for crimes.
This (the rights of the individual) is a classicly conservative concept and part of our Constitution, especially when it comes to punishment.
You can't just pick and choose how it gets applied.
Well I mean, you CAN, but you'll continue to look foolish doing so.
icetrout
7:49 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Insanity...way too many perverts posing as lawmakers... time to go back to the old ways of "Tar &Feathering" scum politicians...
Baltimore Matt
11:48 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I would like to see those offenders be on the list but we run into the issue that the sex offender list was created after they were sentenced. In America it's unconstitutional to govern someones actions by laws that are not yet created (post facto). Eventually everyone dies, so eventually as long as the sex offender list stays law, this list will eventually (at least in theory) include all the convicted sex offenders...it will just take awhile.
melissa yelton
12:04 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
there is a difference between sex offenders and preators on children. But all people look in the same for both. I don't feel people should have to be on a list, for a couple of years or life time. Do they put killers on a list. Unfair court systems anyway.
K Blue
12:38 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
melissa, I agree that there can be a difference between sex offenders and predators on children, but that does not seem to be the case here. The defendant was a junior high school teacher who committed a sexual offense against a 13-year old. I think that qualifies him as both.
BSB
1:46 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
There are many people judges put on this list after plea agreements. Many cases it is ruining their lives.
BSB
1:48 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I know a man who when he was 19 slept with a girl who lied and said she was 17 and was 15 (and looked like she was 25 and dressed like it too) He found out how old she was and broke up with her. She was so mad she told her mother. He was charged with concensual sex with a minor, which he admitted too. He had just gotten out of the ARMY and was introduced to her by a friend of an old school mate. The states attorney knowing the facts, SEEING the "young lady" agreed to unsupervised probation. He stated himself he would not have guessed she was a minor. The JUDGE added to the already agreed upon plea he be put on THE LIST. He now has a beautiful wife and children who suffer because of the one day this man made a horrible mistake. He cannot go to school functions, be around their sporting events, and much more. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT.... so you see this is a case where LIFE on the list is truly wrong. All those who made the same one time mistake. Go now and put yourself on THE LIST.
CP
1:58 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I for one would like to know if there is a sick, freak in my neighborhood. These people are the lowest of the low. They should be locked away for life since most repeat.
Baltimore Matt
2:11 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
CP, we can just get rid of that pesky post facto clause in the constitution so they can be rounded up and locked away for the rest of their lives...we can do it with all kinds of groups of people that the general public fears or does not want in their neighborhoods...
CP
2:47 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
You're sticking up for these creeps? Increase the penalty. Mandatory sentences. Anything. Neuter!
Baltimore Matt
3:04 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
CP I'm not saying that we shouldn't increase penalties but we can only do this to people who have not yet committed the crime. If the law changes, it affects those who break it after the law takes effect. If you don’t like that you should move to Burma. It's like taking everyone that admitted to texting while driving before the new law took effect all the sudden receive a fine for their actions prior to the law.
Furthermore CP, the sex offender registry has people on it who are not rapists or child molesters...they could be someone who had a mental episode where they exposed themselves in public, statutory rape among with young adults and teenager (a 19 year old has sex with a 15 year old), and other crimes that don't exactly make them sexual predators.
JB
7:32 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
CP - the official recidivism rate for sex offenders is slightly under 3.5% nationally, making sex offenders the LEAST likely except for murderers to repeat an offense. Think about it - every time a registered sex offender does ANYTHING, it is national news. Considering that there are approximately 1.2 million registered sex offenders nationally, could the statistics that politicians use (70% recidivism, 95% recidivism) be truly accurate? Remember, politicians use sex offender laws for votes. That's it. If they really cared about making kids safer, there would be seat belts on school buses and a registry for domestic abusers and gang members. Most kids killed every year by violence are victims of domestic abuse or gangs. That's where the real danger lies. But sex sells better than violence, so we have sex crime obsession. America is truly the land of idiots, and sex obsessed idiots at that.
Kraken Attack
2:48 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
No, I don't think people should be retroactively put on the sex-offender registry unless it be based on a case by case examination. Sex offender doesn't always mean pedophile, doesn't always mean they've raped someone, if you are convicted of being involved in an act of prostitution you're put on the sex offender registry, "Misleading Domain Names on the Internet", "Misleading Words or Digital Images on the Internet". Those on Teir 3 of the registry are the convicted who you would clearly want to be put retro-actively on the sex offender list. Here's a helpful link: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/onlineservs/sor/frequently_asked_questions.shtml
Marty Warren
3:55 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
IMO, Children's safety first. This put's children at risk
JB
7:38 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Children are less safe when laws like the Adam Walsh Act effectively prohibit sex offenders from working, stable living arrangements, having money for treatment and counseling and having social accountability circles. The AWA effectively makes all these essential reentry keys impossible. Your comment makes it look like AWA protects children. In fact, it does the opposite. Most former offender try to be compliant. They come out of prison positive and ready to try to be good citizens (the total opposite of gang bangers). Yet no company will hire them, social circles ostracize them, and they don't have money for counseling or treatment. As a result, they get harassed, mocked and excluded. That makes people scared, hopeless and angry. That leads to higher rates of reoffense, absconding or acting out in other unlawful ways. Yet we have laws like the AWA because they satisfy the blood lust for revenge on sex offenders (replace sex offender with Jew and you have the same policies of Nazi Germany in the 1930's). If you want safer children, fight against laws like the AWA. Support what every other nation with a sex offender registry does - private, non-public. Every study shows that those registries make the recidivism rate drop. Plus, good behavior in those nations gets you OFF the list, not punished years later with more and more laws against you. We do things backwards in America.
Sam Battle
4:53 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
First of all Let me say that the md sex offenders list is a total waste of state taxes and federal taxes and it has never been proven to stop NO crime and the list grows everyday and is getting out of control even for law enforcement to deal with.
KRAKEN : Most sex offenders was put into tier 3 when the laws changed in 2010 to allow the state to get federal funds and many was forced into tier 3 status for no good reason other than to get the grant money. Many of the laws we have today dealing with the issue was put into placed for grabbing votes as getting tough on crime and has done very little to stop anything and now is a growing tax burden that has proven to have done nothing it was suppose to solve and in many issue has caused other issues in courts that has now and will continue to cost taxpayers tons of money to fight these laws that has really no teeth to them as most if not all of these cases ends in plea deals. Tons of studies have been done over the years that has proven that that a registry is a waste and solves nothing and the cost of it is raising to new levels and MOST states will not accept the Adam Walsh Act as the cost of it and the little that states gets for it is not worth it in the long haul and has no effect on the crime of sex offenses and only costs the taxpayers more for nothing. Here are some links to prove how uneffective the sex offender laws and registry is in america and it needs to be torn down and revamped.
Sam Battle
5:01 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Here are some links to read about how uneffective the registry and laws are
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830165016.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100313115336.htm
I will continue to say that the current sex offender registry needs to be torn apart and redone in a manner that resolves issues and not cause more issues as the current one does at this time and in many states the laws are being overturned as we speak and Md. is now in line to watch these laws to be overturned as this case as mentioned is just a test case from what I hear. It angers me to think all these fools in annapolis pushed for the Laws to try to show get tough on crime and grab for votes and not read them and see they was illegal and try to push the right laws in the first place. And now with the Federal Budget problems ALL Law Enforcement grant from what i hear has been stopped so the money Md was getting in grants to help maintain a federal approved adam walsh law is no longer flowing in and is now costing Md. more to make up for lack of funding when the state itself is in trouble of going broke.
Mike Mcm
8:51 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Well stated Sam Battle. IF registries actually did protect children I'd be ok with sex offenders being registered. But the “stranger danger” that the media loves to talk about is very overblown. When a child is hurt there’s a 90% chance it’s someone they KNOW instead of somebody on a stupid list somewhere. So sex offender registries are worthless and some would say even harmful to the public because of the false sense of security it provides. I applaud the ruling today because a free society just cannot allow their law makers to arbitrarily single out a particular group of citizens and exempt that group from post-facto laws so they can be punished again for something they already paid for. Child sex offenders are an easy group to target though and that’s Adam Walsh act passed with ease. Now to all of you out there who are not a member of this targeted group, what are you going to do if they come after YOUR group someday? You don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Once the retro-active sex offender registry precedent is allowed to stand then any social, economical, religious, or people with red hair could be targeted to have their legal rights suspended.
melissa yelton
9:40 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
In reguards to sex offenders. First off teenagers can be charged as them for having sex with others, in the way the court just wants to listen to the girls side anyway. Second it is a waste of time. You may want to know if you have a offender in your neighborhood. Although they may be in your neighborhood, they have rights to just like you do. There can be a preditor in the neighborhood and you don't know it as they have not gotten caught. There are different meanings of a sex offender. All people just want to look in the bad way that they should just be locked up. May be people have issues, but in jail they are not getting the help to get them through the issue. You want them locked up for life, but its ok that oh your father killed someone with a gun and is a murder and he is out and not on a list. I would rather live next door to someone and not know there business unless I or a family member was having a issue. They don't know your life and you shouldn't know theres. Life is life don't put people down cause alot of them, just made a mistake but then there are others, that didn't. They have a hard life in jail, and even harder to get back out in the public with their daily life livings. Why just target them, when all the others that come from jail get a easy life. Think about all the murders that get off day after day. And we are all paying for their ASSES to sit in jail as we are their bread and water.
Chuck Burton
10:21 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Good point!! Killers are treated as though it's perfectly natural and forgiveable. People doing sexual things are treated as pariahs, even though sex is one of the most basic facts of life, along with eating, drinking and seeking shelter from the elements. Certainly seems like one of the most idiotic social behaviors of all.
Just my opinion
10:13 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Maryland Court of Appeals---shame on you. Let's start by making sure there is no one on that court who may have been previously convicted of sex crimes prior to 2009. Now let's try to understand why such a court would protect people convicted of sex crimes. This type of criminal does not get rehabilitated. This type of criminal steals the sanctity of a person's emotional, psychological and physical well being. I feel parents should know if this criminal is in the neighborhood, driving the school bus, working at camp, teaching, preaching...Make the list public. Once convicted of a sex crime that criminal should wear the stench of his/her actions.
JB
7:41 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
JMO - those jobs take background checks. That's how you know. Your "stench" comment demonstrates your willingness to violate the Constitution by revealing your desire for a punitive registry. That's the very reason that these laws are being torn down. The question is, do you want a punitive registry that really doesn't protect children or a smart approach that protects kids but might not assuage your blood lust? Are you really about protecting children, or are you about revenge?
ltm
11:35 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Ex post facto and retro active law is illegal in the United States Constitution and is generally the same for most State Constitutions. AWA should never have passed into law and especially SORNA.
Sam Battle
6:08 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
"BUZZ" where u at..lets hear your thoughts as a x-law enforcement person ??? Do registries work or are they just a waste of taypayers money and a TRUE false sense of security and nothing more than a Political / Media over hype attention grabber ?? As my feelings is if these people are this violent maybe they need to be in jail and not on a registry and if they are in fact so great maybe we need more of them for Violent Gun Offenders / Repeat Drug Dealer - Abusers / Violent Spousal Abusers // Repeat Drunk Drivers ???
Frank Plummer
10:14 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
And very soon these child predators will have an easier time of creeping into your child's window without your ability to stop them thanks to the new O'Malley gun bills aimed at the law abiding citizens versus punishment of criminals.
Evets
10:28 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Not much of a gun control advocate myself, but I fail to see how any part of O'Malley's gun bill would stop me from keeping someone from "creeping" into my house.
BTW, very few sex crimes against children are perpetrated by people creeping through a window. A fairly high percentage are committed by people the family knows, such as coaches, neighbors, and relatives.
JB
7:42 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Less than .001% of cases involve any "window creeping". Stop watching Lifetime Movie Network.
Chuck Burton
11:21 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I know this will outrage conservatives, and even most liberals, who are really more conservative than they want to admit; but sex is a natural function of the human body, and as long as it is engaged in WILLINGLY, people should be free to make their own choices, especially after the age of puberty. Assault, of course, should be prosecuted, whatever its form. Children, until the age of majority, are considered the property of their parents, under law, and if they are "damaged", the damager must pay a consequence. That is the true basis of most juvenile sex laws, including the current one of making him or her an outcast of society. In Nazi Germany, Jews were required to wear a yellow star of david to distinguish them. Maybe some such symbol should be required wear for child sex offenders, hmmm ?
Joe Galvagna
11:46 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Yes donor make those low life sex offenders register but make sure we violate our second amendment rights. Some more of left way of thinking. The criminals sex offenders have more rights than the offended. Please publish the full list one more time alone with the low life lawyers name address who defendended this piece of trash. Why don't we just say anybody who committed murder or a crime before 2009 is no longer guilty. Thanks OMalley and the rest of you Lowlife left wing trash.
Joe McCarthy
6:25 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Still living in your own little made up world joey?If its sooo bad joey leave,we wont miss ya!
BIman
8:21 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
A study done back in the early 2000's by the state of Maryland came up with the figures that 85% of sex offenders were of the one-time, domestic offender, with a very low rate of re-offending. The top 15% had anger management issues and needed closer, longer term supervision. The very top 5% had serious psychological problems and these are the ones who the media picks up and makes it sound like that 5% is much larger and prevaling in our neighborhoods. These facts were corroberated by a woman psychologist in Wisconsin several years later. A former Maryland governor wanted to have ALL sex offenders civily incarcerated until the state decided to release them. Many Doctors, legal people, clinicians, social workers and the like worked for a couple years on the data to try and "tabularize" sex offenders. But the legislature, in their wisdom, wiped out all the data, wiped out all sentencing guidelines back to the '50's and put almost ALL sex offenders on the top tier of the registry, effectively accomplishing what the governor wanted; life imprisonment for sex offenders. But the other data has slowly come to light and combined with the Constitutional ex-post facto article, people are realizing that most offenders ARE of the low recidivism rate; (once scorned they turn a new leaf). Most only have one major conviction, that being the one for their sexual misconduct. Also, Adam Walsh was not sexually molested. Neither was the girl in Wicomico County 2 Christmas' ago.
JB
7:45 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Good points. Plus, John Walsh, the big advocate for this law, admitted to having a relationship with an underage girl himself. Plus the sponsor of this law in Congress, Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) was caught sexting 16 year old boys in the Congressional Page Program and resigned in lieu of prosecution. Neither of these guys are subject to the AWA. Big surprise.
So, in order to deflect from their own criminal actions, these jerks pushed laws like these to make them look like heroes. Yeah, heroes in the bedrooms of underage kids more like it. Never trust a politician, and never trust a politician who states "I want to pass a law to protect kids". That just means that they need votes.
S
11:00 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
You've got to be kidding? A sex crime/offense should be on permanent record. So what are we going to hide these files just like The Boy Scouts Perv files?
JB
7:46 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
They are permanent records. However, why do only sex offenders have registries? Not gang members or domestic abusers who kill hundreds of kids annually?
melissa yelton
7:41 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Ok so what if a person was arrested say in 2008, but waited over a year for the actual charges which would take you into 2009 to be convicted of the charges, would that person still have to register. If that is the case that would be wrong, as that person was arrested before 2009, but the courts piddle around getting you in, but mean while your making your time, towards your sentence. The courts are so screwed up with issues, but we americans on the out side are paying for their food and water. I agree that people should not have to register, as you make a ruling over years of their conviction, when they have already been out of the system for years.
G
10:05 am on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Laws should never be applied retroactively against anyone or anything. I personally would like to see a registry of violent offenders, thieves, murders and violent rapists. I would worry about a murderer being next door just as much as a violent rapist.
Chuck Burton
9:02 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
It's all part of the fascizification of America. We are already about a hair away from full dictatorship. All Obama, or any president has to do is declare a national emergency for any reason, and take over. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but it's his choice and no one's else. The sheeple will go along with the herd leader. Anyone who resists will go into the concentration camps.
Steve
10:41 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Ha Ha Ha Chuck if you don't like it maybe you should move somewhere else.
Chuck Burton
10:24 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
If I had the wherewithall, and were a bit younger, I probably would. The trouble is just about every nation today is fascist or socialist to some degree. There is no libertarian country to my knowlege.