Sex-offender registry laws withstand privacy challenges

From the Winter 2000 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 14.

State laws requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies when they move into a new community are constitutional, courts in two states recently ruled.

The laws survived challenges that the registries they require are a form of cruel and unusual punishment, that they further punish criminals who already have served their sentences, and that they violate the privacy rights of released sex offenders. One case upheld posting the names on the Internet.

*

Under a 1994 federal law, states are required to establish sex-offender registries and community notification programs or risk losing federal money for crime prevention programs. But many states already had passed sex-offender registry laws, commonly known as a "Megan's Laws," in response to the rape and murder of Megan Kanka by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street from the 7-year-old New Jersey girl.

In early January, the South Dakota Supreme Court in Pierre upheld that state's registry law, saying it is not an additional punishment and does not conflict with the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The South Dakota law, which requires sex offenders to register with local police within 10 days of moving into a community, was challenged by James Meinders, who is serving a 15-year sentence for the statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl when he was 19. Although the law does not require police to notify residents when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood, the registry is accessible under the state's open records law.

Meinders had argued that requiring him to register as a sex offender is an additional punishment being applied retroactively, something the federal and state constitutions prohibit. He also argued that the law, which requires him to admit that he was a sex offender, violates a constitutional protection against self incrimination.

The Supreme Court primarily looked to the issue of whether requiring sex offenders to register is in fact an additional form of punishment. It ruled that while the law may impose an additional burden on those people who must register as sex offenders, the law was designed to protect the public from sexual predators, and not to further punish people who already have served their jail time and have been released.

The court also disputed the charge that releasing the registry exposes the people on it to harassment, threats, and possible violence from people who do not want convicted sex offenders living in their neighborhoods. Laws are on the books to protect against acts of vigilante justice, the court said.

"Public access to registrant information is a logical extension of the registration process," Justice John Konenkamp wrote for the court. "When the public is not allowed access to the information collected to promote public safety, or if the information is unreasonably restricted, then the registration and notification system is purposeless." (Meinders v. Weber)

Similarly, in November 1999, a Kansas appeals court in Topeka found the state's registry law does not violate the privacy rights of released sex offenders.

Thomas Stevens, who pleaded no contest to a charge of indecent liberties with a child, challenged a 1998 law that requires the disclosure of sex offenders' identities under the open records law.

Stevens had argued before the Court of Appeals that disclosure of the registry names in general -- and the publishing of the registry on the Internet in particular -- are unconstitutional invasions of his personal privacy.

Stevens "is claiming a privacy interest in his reputation and his personal information," Judge Bob Gernon wrote for the court. "Kansas has not previously determined whether an individual has a constitutional privacy interest in his or her reputation and personal information. Kansas, however, has determined that an individual does not have a protected privacy interest in his or her arrest and conviction record."

The court said it would defer to the state legislature's judgment that whatever privacy invasion may occur by releasing the sex-offender registry on the Internet is outweighed by the public interest in knowing who has been a sex offender and where that person lives. (Kansas v. Stevens)