Full 7th Circuit Court Hears Challenge to Indiana Registry Law

By David Wells . . .

CHICAGO (CN) — Indiana argued before the full Seventh Circuit on Thursday that state law does not place unfair registration requirements on sex offenders moving to the Hoosier State.

At issue is a provision of the Indiana Sex Offender Registry Act requiring people convicted of sex offenses who relocate to Indiana to register as sex offenders, even if the crime was committed before the law was passed. The plaintiffs are challenging its retroactive application.

The requirement creates a situation where an Indiana resident who was not required register as a sex offender would have to register if they moved out of state and then chose to move back because they had a past conviction.

In January, a split three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling that upheld a lower court ruling and found that the registry requirement is unconstitutional because it creates two classes of citizens upon which it imposes a different set of rules.

However, the state disagreed with the split panel’s decision and asked for the case to be heard in front of the en banc Seventh Circuit.

During Thursday’s virtual hearing, Indiana Deputy Solicitor General Kian Hudson told the judges that the provision can be applied retroactively to certain individuals because the “marginal effects” are not punitive.

Attorney Gavin Rose of the Indiana ACLU argued on behalf of lead plaintiff Brian Hope and five other individuals who claim they were adversely affected by Indiana’s registration requirements.

“Everyone agrees that if Brian Hope had remained in Indiana after his Indiana conviction, he would be relieved of registration requirements entirely,” Rose said. “Everyone agrees that if any of the other plaintiffs had moved to Indiana sooner or if they had moved from different states, they would be relieved of their registration requirements entirely.”

Rose went on to argue that the state is using its law to potentially force people to register as a sex offender for a lifetime, even if that was not part of their original sentence.

Read full article

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

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #83885 Reply

      mut

      wasnt indianna a state that absolutely forbade servitude, even contracted servitude?

    • #83893 Reply

      Tim in WI

      A clear example of how the database registry broadcast overruns jurisdictional boundary by default, and the promulgation is presumed and without basic due process. The ruling in Connecticut Dept Pub Safety said complainants the &similar situated” had all signed the standard plea waiver form thus granting state’s Congress vast xpost efforts within their he bounds of procedural issues. The right to be present at all judgement is but one of the many rights given up by entering the standard plea.. Obviously the new state has no such paperwork waiving right. This is the issue here AND at my 7 FTR cases. Im 6-1. Nevertheless my beef AND yours is the people’s use of the database.

    • #83930 Reply

      mut

      seems to me all ex-felon registration laws are non-consensual exploitation, not just sex offender registration laws, which is human trafficking.

      government (once again) built an industry upon the involuntary backs of a disenfranchised subclass and will not or cannot afford to pay its targets the fair market value of the services extracted which echoes ideals of white supremacy.

    • #83948 Reply

      mut

      marginal? if roles were reversed i would already be in prison doin 20 to life for kidnaping and involuntary servitude. so, to say the effects are “marginal” and therefore not “punitive” is a slap in crime victims faces everywhere. 20 to life for a ‘frivolous’ infringement of … anothers personal liberty??? that spokesperson is a moron!

    • #83952 Reply

      mut

      subornation. forcing one to perform a service is subornation. non-reimbursement of out of pocket expenses or refusing to pay the fair market value of the services extracted is subornation. that is a clear intent to injure.

Viewing 4 reply threads
Reply To: Full 7th Circuit Court Hears Challenge to Indiana Registry Law
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.

  • *DO NOT POST 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="">