Comments (20) | Add a comment
Court upholds Nevada's sex offender law
Tools
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
A federal appeals court Friday upheld a Nevada law requiring sex offenders to be retroactively classified by their crimes instead of their risk of reoffending.
In the same decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down part of another state law that would have retroactively applied residency and travel restrictions on some convicted sex offenders.
The decision overturned a U.S. District Court injunction that had stalled implementation of the laws for more than three years.
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, whose office appealed the injunction, hailed the appeals court's decision.
"It has been a long but necessary fight," Masto said in a statement. "It creates a system that requires sex offenders to be subject to rigorous reporting requirements. We owe it to our community to do our best to protect our citizens -- particularly those most vulnerable --from adult sex offenders."
Maggie McLetchie, who represents sex offenders fighting the laws, called the ruling a "mixed victory."
The case arises from two state laws passed in the 2007 Legislature to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act passed by Congress in 2006.
A key part of one law, Assembly Bill 579, reclassified sex offenders based on their original crimes, not their likelihood to reoffend. The appeals court upheld that law. The second law, Senate Bill 471, imposes stricter travel and residency requirements on the most serious Tier 3 offenders. For example, they would be barred from knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop. Both laws were written to apply retroactively to sex offenders convicted as far back as 1956.
The appeals court upheld the retroactive requirement for reclassification, but it threw out that requirement for the travel and residency restrictions after a deputy attorney general said during oral arguments in December that the state did not intend to apply those requirements retroactively.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and lawyer Robert Langford had filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of sex offenders to stop the laws from taking effect in June 2008. They argued that the laws unconstitutionally re-punished sex offenders for years, and in some cases decades, after they had completed their sentences and probation.
The laws would reclassify many Tier 1 offenders as Tier 3 offenders, subjecting them to stricter registration and living requirements. And the extreme residency requirements would make "it impossible for offenders to live or go anywhere," they said in the lawsuit.
In October 2008 U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued an injunction to stop the new laws from taking effect, saying the retroactive requirements were equivalent to "a new punishment tacked on to the original sentence."
ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said his organization and the other lawyers involved were evaluating the decision and looking at what their next legal step might be.
In the meantime, he said, state authorities who track sex offenders will be overwhelmed by a flood of new cases in which lower-level sex offenders are reclassified as more serious risks, even if they committed their crimes decades ago.
Contact reporter Brian Haynes at bhaynes@review journal.com or 702-383-0281.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I would rather know what the sex offenders did, than someone’s opinion on whether they would do it again.
@vote them out....Your lack of critical thinking skills is why you don't understand that just because a person opposes an unconstitutional law, it DOES NOT mean they engage in or endorse criminal behavior. Fear mongering is something people like you respond to and therefore you don't understand that it is a TOOL used to MANIPULATE the public into IRRATIONAL fear in order to gain control over them. As I stated before, SMART people don't fall for it. Unfortunately, people like you only need hear the term "sex offender" and instead of intelligently questioning what they are told, they use their feelings to guide them. This is to be expected in children but adults should have developed beyond such primal behavior. It is troubling that you have not.
@vote them out...Okay this one bramblebush of logic that I am dying to see you untangle. Exactly how did you get from 'smart people shouldn't fall for fear mongering' to 'you're defending sex offenders.' I realize your moral compass has no true north, but that doesn't explain how you made such a unimaginable journey. If you can take time from the intimate relations you have with farm animals (something you have never denied) please share the architecture of the twisted network of misfiring synapse that so often derail your attempts at rational thought
Preachersdaughter, Your entire comment attempted to deflect the actions of those convicted of sex offenses, "This is fear mongering and smart people shouldn't fall for it." Thats your comment. It is also very telling that you didnt deny being a sex offender. How long have you been out of prison?
@vote them out...I have to assume that you are either 8 years old or you have "special needs" because of the primitive black and white thought process. Please point out where I defended sex offenders. Also, when you describe comments that criticize bad cops as "tearing up police" you show just how thin-skinned and weak you are. Btw, police officers are far more likely to commit a sex crime than the general public, especially against children.
This is a surprising ruling. I think I'd rather know who was a real threat in my neighborhood, than a list of guys who had sex with their underage girlfriends in 1956. Who wants to bet that this ruling is just a stepping stone to giving the state the ability to "re-sentence" any crimes from DUI to shoplifting - even after the perp has finished his sentence. I predict that anyone who took a plea bargain on any of the charges affected by this ruling that relied on "the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance" of the state will probably be filing suit. This ruling could be the end of plea bargains in general.
Cherokee, you're on the right track but need to hone your statistics a bit. Almost all child molesters choose victims from within their families or close circle of friends. This type of offender, especially the cases of incest, once caught and put through the system, has an extremely low recidivism rate. No category has one anywhere near what you posit, but those with the highest are those who choose strangers as victims and use violence. Fortunately, these make up only a tiny percentage of all registrants.
It is very unfortunate that those with limited imaginations can conceive of no reason why the opposition of unconstitutional laws equals the desire to break a law or the reality of already having done so.
I like the law, I just wish we could retroactively castrate them also.
This is a real letter from a real person; multiply him by many, many thousands and ask yourself if there isn't a better way. And remember that 95% or higher of registrants will not commit another offense.
I was unconditionally discharged from my misdemeanor probation in 1988 and was leading a very productive life.
In 2007 the retroactive law went into effect here [name of state removed]. These laws are far worse than my probation ever thought of being. I have lost my job soley because I was on the registry, and after 2 and half years I am still unemployed. I have been subjected to searches of my home against my consent [ I was told because I am on the registry I have no rights and they can enter my home without a warrant because I am on the registry]. I have missed milestones in my children's life.
This is where i get so frustrated with the judges who say these laws are not punitive. Just what do they consider punitive?