NARSOL in Action wrap-up: Colorado deregistration

By Grant Miller . . . Attorney Colleen Kelley was our special guest on our most recent NARSOL In Action held August 15th. We focused on the section of Colorado law that permits a person to petition for deregistration and the case of Millard v. Rankin which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Deregistration Highlights

Anyone convicted of more than one count is ineligible, regardless of whether it’s two or more misdemeanor or felony convictions, or a combination of the two, from the same case. In addition, certain convictions will exclude a person from eligibility. These include incest, aggravated incest, and being convicted as an adult of sexual assault of a child while in a position of trust, such as having a familial relationship or a doctor-patient relationship. A sexually violent predator (SVP) designation will also make it impossible to deregister.

Once eligibility is established, a specified amount of time must be spent on the registry before a petition can be filed. Individuals with a Class 1, 2, or 3 felony are required to be on the registry for 20 years. Those with a Class 4, 5, or 6 felony or a Class 1 misdemeanor must register for 10 years, and those with any other misdemeanor have a mandated 5-year registration period. Keep in mind that the proscribed waiting period begins after the sentence has been served, including parole and probation. If the sentence was deferred, one can apply immediately after successful completion and dismissal of the case. If the person was under 18 years of age at the time of adjudication, he or she can also apply after successful completion and discharge from the sentence. However, there is an exception. If a person is convicted of human trafficking and can prove that he or she was also being trafficked, he/she is immediately eligible for deregistration without waiting the specified time.

If the conviction occurred in Colorado, petitions are filed in the court of conviction. The same judge will oversee the deregistration petition if he/she is still on the bench. For out-of-state, federal, and military convictions, the petition is filed in the county of residence. Colorado considers eligibility by comparing the out-of-state offense to Colorado’s statutes to find the one that is the most similar. Once that analysis is complete, a determination can be made in terms of eligibility to petition. Generally speaking, any time that was spent on the registry in the other state(s) will be recognized by Colorado.

If you think you are eligible, NARSOL strongly urges that you proceed with the advice and assistance of an attorney such as Ms. Kelley. This is especially critical for out-of-state petitioners because the task of comparing statutes can be extremely complicated. While you can represent yourself, it is not recommended because pro se litigants will be held to the same standards as an attorney and be expected to produce all the necessary paperwork. Keep in mind that most judges are not eager to grant deregistration, so they will search for any mistake, such as procedural or technical ones. An added benefit of hiring an attorney is that the attorney can more effectively communicate with the prosecutor and others involved in the case, which is important in learning how they feel towards your petition. If the petition is denied, a person can file another petition literally the next day. Of course, the same judge will oversee the proceedings, which means the result is unlikely to change. If the petition is denied because you have not waited the necessary amount of time, simply wait until you are eligible. If the petition is denied for a more substantive reason, consider filing an appeal or find new supporting documents or testimonies, including that from the victim.

According to Ms. Kelley, the cost for an attorney can range between $3,000 to $5,000, and the average cost of receiving a psycho-sexual evaluation is about $2,500. A favorable psycho-sexual evaluation will be extremely beneficial in the deregistration process. One of the criteria used in the evaluation of the petition is the amount of risk one poses to the community. Other criteria include alcohol and drug abuse – treatment records are presented either by the petitioner or the prosecuting attorney — and completion of the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP).

Millard v. Rankin Highlights

The Millard v. Rankin case was a civil case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs alleged that the registry violated the 8th and 14th Amendments as it applied to them. Judge Richard Matsch, the presiding district judge, found that the registry is indeed punitive, that it ostracizes registered citizens and causes harassment. Currently, the case is on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the10th Circuit. This is the last level of appellate review before the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Kelley expects that Colorado will ask the Supreme Court to grant review if Judge Matsch’s decision is affirmed. The plaintiffs are still required to register today but they can come back and asked for supplemental relief if the 10th Circuit affirms Judge Matsch because no injunctive relief was granted.


Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    • #46049 Reply
      Timothy D A Lawver

      Anyone who claims success via deregistration claims an empty win. There are at least 100 private sex offender databases owned by firms like offender watch.
      Anyone deregistered will remain on state systems aswell, but not suffer public display on state’s Sorna sites. One may claim the 5k a worthwhile investment but if a kid comes up missing near you, expect LEO to visit you anyway.

      @Tiered system, Tyranny V Tierany same same. No one can be sure how the 10th will rule, but I think the 10th may affirm part and reject in part. Either way SCOTUS will decline as in Michigan. Our FED has no reason to restrict and\or limit database use by states to protect the public. To do so would impact the federal ‘s basis for USE.

      • #46193 Reply
        Larry Neely

        You are correct and I agree with you that there are other databases that would still have a person’s name, photo, and conviction information after a successful petition for deregistration. I totally disagree with you in terms of your position regarding the value of deregistration. You also stated that “Anyone deregistered will remain on state systems as well, but not suffer public display on state’s SORNA sites. One may claim the 5k a worthwhile investment but if a kid comes up missing near you, expect LEO to visit you anyway.” You are correct on both points. A person deregistered in Colorado will remain in the state’s criminal repository and law enforcement may still visit him/her during a criminal investigation. But that does not diminish the overall value of deregistration. Once a person is no longer required to register, he/she will not be subject to: (1) prosecution for failure to comply with registration which can lead to a substantial term of imprisonment and habitual enhancement in Colorado; (2) banishment from living within an exclusion zone; (3) having their passports stamped because the State Department is only marking current registrants; and (4) banishment from participation in their children’s lives due school policies that prohibit anyone registered from attending school activities or being on campus. I could go on with the advantages in not being subject to registration. This does not mean that the private listings are not a problem. They are. The question is what can be done to curtail their existence in a free society?

        • #46233 Reply

          I prefer the term indenture. Administrative sure but that is work too when you sit on a bench or do para work. You describe affirmative disabilities but that purpose is disavowed by state as intent by preamble. You claim legal threat from FTR will not insue, I agree but that ignores travel demands. Facial recognition will alert the authorities or wannabes, and naturally stops to question will occur. HOAs will make their own rules and registrants will rejected under the table. The people pay for IDENTITY PROTECTION and BACKGROUND checks. I plead not guilty in every case and aspect!
          Wisconsin Law on its face 301.45 (1g)a. rules me out by date but here I am.
          ILL defies walking your dog in a PARK.
          YOU THINK WE have a constitutional republic?
          Being on probation for FTR made it unnecessary for me to register for life in IL.
          I technically would have been forced to by IL law if I’d not been on WI probation.

          Ironically some years ago by Wisconsin law SORAGENT would be the one on trial for DOCs disclosure. This is an absolute fact. Why? Constanteneau! You ever consider using states database to defend yourself by demanding trial in such a case? Why would I be afraid to? All state does or try is redact information, I want more or all as possible! I fired one lawyer for refusing to make a potential jury member the Forman, because she was admittedly a victim of sex assault. The court rejected her not me. She walked off humiliated and I felt terrible. So sick the debate concerning human sexuality and innuendo. Every Wisconsin election is impacted by the sex issue even supreme court. Walker V Evers a prime current example. Mean and nasty as our lewdership. A man knows what he prefers and she ain’t it! Even if it pisses her off! Don’t blame I’m only the messenger. Yes I’d call her to the stand again if necessary.

    • #46181 Reply

      Im not convinced the case out of Colorado is headed to the Supreme Court even if the 10th Circuit upholds Judge Matsch’s decision. SCOTUS may decline cert just as they did in Michigans case. At some point, I do believe SCOTUS will have to revisit the constitutionality of the registry and its ever growing restrictions but I’m not sure this is the case they will accept.

      • #46192 Reply
        Larry Neely

        We here at NARSOL agree that the Supreme Court may decline the state of Colorado’s petition for certiorari should the 10th Circuit affirm Judge Matsch. The question posed to Ms. Kelley was whether or not she would expect the state to seek review by the Supreme Court if Judge Matsch’s decision is affirmed. Her answer was that she would expect that they would seek review. She did not opine on whether the court would grant review. She offered that opinion based on the previous behavior by the Colorado AG and that review was sought in both the Michigan and the Pennsylvania case. Both were denied.

      • #46225 Reply

        What Mr. Roberts labeled as “registration” was in fact plain indenture. It also collateralized, by civil declaration in Smith V Doe, certain other gov uses of the device, THE DATABASE(S) as ‘civil.’

        The first massive infrastructure was built where? Not in D.C., Arlington, or Manassas. ANGEL WATCH is housed where? Grady 1 SBM a search, Grady II SBM are continuous electronic searches. DUH!

        Scapegoats for Surveillance Saints. Opting for electronic convenience has intrinsic negative consequences. Online bankers risk period. The two parties will continue to blame foreign influence for their failures.

        That’s what happens when you buy your friends and make promises you cannot keep. 24.5 Trillion (1T = 1,000B)÷ 50.
        20B per annum paid in interest by each state to maintain that debt. Inflation is coming. FUBAR!

      • #46234 Reply
        James Coghill

        Revisiting the registry is coming. The success or failure will be determined by the case they decide to hear. SCOTUS is entirely discretionary so they are cherry picking the cases as well as the attorneys bringing the cases before them. It’s a matter of the right case at the right time and will depend on the amount of damage suffered as a direct provable result of being on the registry. Dying from a registry website vigilante would be the most likely type of successful case because nothing else so clearly demonstrates the problem of keeping this information and making it available to the public. If you know someone who meets this criteria I strongly urge you to get them to see an attorney and file a claim in federal court. If you do nothing, nothing will happen. And as Solomon Burke says, “If you don’t say it’s wrong then that says it’s right.” None Of Us Are Free If One Of Us Is Chained.

        • #46342 Reply
          Timothy D.A. Lawver

          @Mr. James Coghill,
          You got that right. Consider how Mr. J. Roberts chose not to inform the Rehnquist panel that 49 states intention to compel by law Free men to “show up in perspn”. Instead, he brought Alaska. A state with a huge geographical area making it unworkable to demand registered persons to ” Show up in person. ” Mr. Roberts also withheld scientific evidence about recidivism rates.
          States databases are properties. The maintenance of data is first submitted by registrants, then carried to market via the infrastructure and world wide web by SORNA agents. If it we’re a cotton field, SOR agents would most resemble wagon master’s who then carried the commodity to the processors. Essentially The Misters are responsible for setting our nation back to a time when indentured servitude was common place AND not seen as punishment! The database was a game changer indeed. Especially to the political decorum and discourses in our nation.
          I would be very difficult for anyone to convince me that these mega databases will not be used to maintain a non free Democratic Republic. Political security over individual liberty while the needs of machine outweighs, by law, the needs of man.
          This is an electronic bridge to nowhere.

    • #46544 Reply

      Thank you for posting this August NARSOL in Action write up and look forward to the September version as well. I listened to them both with great interest, found them to be informative, and applicable. Ms. Kelly was a great guest to have both times.

      One thing, not all non-Colorado area codes mean that those who hold those numbers are actually non-Colorado residents considering cellphone numbers do go people wherever they live, even if it is not the state where the area code is listed.

    • #46627 Reply
      Timothy DA Lawver


      Wisconsin, stat. 301.45(g)a “Is convicted of judged delinquent on or after Dec 23, 1993. ” See NARSOL wiki.
      My NOC (5\20\1992.) This law on its face rules me out! Can a jury read the law in an FTR case? I’d love to put this law in front of my jury! BTW the doc form also states “an indeterminate term not to exceed sixty months consecutively.”
      Its marked with my plea NOT GUILTY trial by jury. DOCSOR SITE makes no reference to my demand for trial. N or my not guilty position.

Viewing 3 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL in Action wrap-up: Colorado deregisgration
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">