| Sex Offenders Registration Act Litigation |
On June 30, 2006 the Missouri Supreme Court held that it violated the Missouri state constitution's prohibition on the retrospective application of the law to apply Missouri's sex offender registration act to Missouri convictions before the requirement for registrations went into effect, on January 1, 1995. Thus, persons convicted of sex offenses in Missouri before 1995 no longer have to register. The Supreme Court allowed sex registries to continue to post information from the criminal history or sentencing of persons before 1995 but current home address, vehicle identification and similar information may not be posted. There is a continuing legal dispute, described elsewhere on this page, over whether or not photographs provided during prior registrations may continue to be posted even though registrations are no longer required for pre-1995 convictions
On remand to the Circuit Court after the Supreme Court's opinion, Plaintiffs filed a motion to ask the court to remove all photos of former registrants who had registered because of Missouri convictions before 1995. On January 8, 2007, the Circuit Court entered a permanent injunction, amended on January 16 to correct minor typographical errors.
This injunction prohibits Defendant Keathley from publishing on the Internet, or otherwise disseminating to the public, photographs of those plaintiffs (and, effectively, any registrant) whose convictions or guilty pleas predated January 1, 1995.
Assistance is needed to help pay the fees and expenses of this effort because it is likely that the injunction will be appealed. If this affects you, consider helping the effort by emailing Arthur Benson: abenson (at) bensonlaw.com.
Follow the court filings including the injunction here.
A new lawsuit has been filed to challenge various continued retrospective applications of SORA. ; First, it challenges the Missouri requirement of life-time registrations for persons convicted in other states before 1995, urging the court to apply the same Retrospective Doctrine that the Missouri Supreme Court used to strike down Missouri convictions before 1995 as a basis for requiring registration. Second, it also seeks to apply that doctrine to invalidate the registration requirement for those whose military convictions or guilty pleas predate January 1, 1995 or August 28, 2000, depending upon which date actually was applied by authorities to require these persons to register. Third, the new lawsuit attempts to apply the same doctrine to invalidate the registration requirement for those who were required to register because of a misdemeanor conviction or plea predating August 28, 2002.
If you or someone you know would like to help fund this new lawsuit, contact Arthur Benson by email: abenson (at) bensonlaw.com. The name of the new lawsuit is Doe v. Keathley, and it is Case No. 0616-CV-35929, pending in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Division 18, Judge Jon R. Gray. ; Docket sheets, hearing dates, and other information about the case may be found on Missouri Case.Net. To read documents filed in the case, click here.
On June 12, 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Doe v. Blunt, et al., Case No. SC87786. Doe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of MO . REV . STAT . § 573.060, public display of explicit sexual material, in May, 2004, when registration was not required for those convicted of this offense. However, in August, 2004, the law changed to require those convicted of public display of explicit sexual material to register as a sex offender. When Doe did not register, a probation violation report was filed on him and so Doe commenced a declaratory judgment action to determine his obligation to register. He argued that applying the revised registration statute to him would violate the Missouri constitutional prohibition on retrospective laws. Relying on its decision in Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2006), the Missouri Supreme Court held that Doe had no obligation to register because the new law imposed a new duty, and, therefore, was an impermissible retrospective law. Read the opinion here. (pdf)
In 2006, the Missouri legislature approved a major overhaul of the
state's SORA....a senate substitute for HB1698 has been "truly agreed to" and
sent to the governor to sign. It had an emergency clause, giving it
immediate effect upon signing by the governor. Here is a link to
the text of the bill:
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/senate/4908S.10F.htm
Among other things, it allows for those convicted of some non-violent crimes to petition a court for removal after ten years; it removes all registration requirements for the offense of abuse of a child where the registrant was a parent of the child concerned; and it deals with the so-called Romeo and Juliet situation by ending registration requirements where sex was consensual and one partner was younger than 19 and the other was older than 13.
These are major improvements in Missouri's SORA although it does not address all of the issues presented by the litigation that resulted in the case that went before the Missouri Supreme Court. It is fair to say that Doe v. Phillips stirred a lot of media attention to Missouri's draconian registration requirements and their unfairness and policy-foolishness caught the attention of legislators who took some important steps to fix some, but not all, of the problems with SORA.
| Jane Doe I, et al. v. Phillips, et al. Case No. 03-CV-219085 Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jon R. Gray, Division 18 |
To view the Adobe Portable Document Format (pdf) files featured here and on other sites, get the free Adobe Reader here: