“Challenging the Punitiveness of ‘New-Generation’ SORN Laws“

Wayne Logan has a terrific new article on the recent challenges to sex offender registration and notification laws, forthcoming in the New Criminal Law Review.  Here is the abstract:

Sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws have been in effect nationwide since the 1990s, and publicly available registries today contain information on hundreds of thousands of individuals. To date, most courts, including the Supreme Court in 2003, have concluded that the laws are regulatory, not punitive, in nature, allowing them to be applied retroactively consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause. Recently, however, several state supreme courts, as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing challenges lodged against new-generation SORN laws of a considerably more onerous and expansive character, have granted relief, concluding that the laws are punitive in effect. This symposium contribution examines these decisions, which are distinct not only for their results, but also for the courts’ decidedly more critical scrutiny of the justifications, purposes, and efficacy of SORN laws. The implications of the latter development in particular could well lay the groundwork for a broader challenge against the laws, including one sounding in substantive due process, which unlike ex post facto-based litigation would affect the viability of SORN vis-à-vis current and future potential registrants.

Civil death lives!

The first and foremost collateral consequence in Colonial America was civil death; based on the grim fact that felonies were punished by execution, upon conviction, the law began to wrap up the convict’s affairs.  As the law developed, capital punishment ceased to be the default punishment, and civil death was seen as too harsh for a felon who might serve a probationary sentence instead of being executed or even going to prison at all.  The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently issued an opinion demonstrating that this ancient doctrine is not entirely obsolete.

In Gallup v. Adult Correctional Institutions, the court upheld dismissal of a complaint alleging that the state negligently allowed the plaintiff, a prisoner serving life, to be assaulted by another inmate.  The court pointed to the state’s civil death statute, which applies to prisoners serving life in an adult correctional institution. Such persons “shall, with respect to all rights of property, to the bond of matrimony and to all civil rights and relations of any nature whatsoever, be deemed to be dead in all respects, as if his or her natural death had taken place at the time of conviction.”  Of U.S. jurisdictions, only Rhode Island, New York, and the Virgin Islands maintain civil death, and New York’s statute has many exceptions.  There is, accordingly, not much modern law on the scope of civil death statutes.

One wonders whether the Rhode Island statute could really extend to the full scope of its language; could a lifer be denied, for example, freedom of religion and speech under the U.S. and/or Rhode Island constitutions?  Suggesting that the answer is “no” is the fact that the court granted the plaintiff leave to plead a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based on the same underlying facts; the court recognized that a state statute cannot eliminate federal rights.

That acknowledgement raises the hard question of the extent to which the federal Constitution protects the property, right to marry, and “civil rights and relations” of even a person serving a life sentence.

NJ high court bars retroactive application of Megan’s Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday held 2014 amendments to Megan’s Law enhancing certain penalties for sex offenders who violate parole requirements unenforceable against four defendants based on the ex post facto clauses of both the state and federal constitutions. The court, in a unanimous ruling, vacated the convictions and sentences of four paroled sex offenders who committed minor violations of their parole conditions and mounted a challenge to the laws. The ruling vacates the individuals’ third-degree convictions for the parole violations.
“A law that retroactively increases or makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime is an ex post facto law,” wrote Justice Barry Albin for the court. “The Amendment, therefore, is an ex post facto law that violates our Federal and State Constitutions as applied to defendants.”  The four sex offenders—Melvin Hester, Mark Warner, Linwood Roundtree and Anthony McKinney—after completing their sentences for the original crimes, were placed on community supervision for life, according to the decision. That means that they must register their addresses with local law enforcement, and inform law enforcement if they change their addresses.  Those registration requirements were enacted by the state Legislature in 1994 after a 7-year-old Hamilton Township girl, Megan Kanka, was sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted sex offender, Jesse Timmendequas, who was living in her neighborhood. The requirements that paroled sex offenders register their whereabouts later became federal law.

Read more

President Trump supports opportunities for people with a criminal record

In an editorial published on May 21, the New York Times commended President Trump for remarks at a White House conference on prison reform last week, in which he expressed support for improved employment opportunities for people with a criminal record:

“A friend of mine told me that when people get out of prison, they’re all excited.” Mr. Trump said. “And then they go and they have that stigma; they can’t get a job. People don’t want to hire them. They can’t get that chance. When we talk about our national program to hire American, this must include helping millions of former inmates get back into the work force as gainfully employed citizens.”
It appears that most of the relevant discussion at the conference last week was about a House bill aimed at preparing federal prisoners for reentry, addressing such issues as good time credit and halfway house placement.  It also appears that the prospects for federal prison reform this year are dim, given the wide gulf between the pending House bill and the insistence of Senate leadership on including provisions for sentencing reform.  Nonetheless, the President’s words will be very useful for those working in state legislatures to restore rights and status.  Already in 2018, at least 13 states have enacted laws either reforming occupational licensure or extending record-clearing laws, and bills are awaiting the governor’s signature in another five.  We are already starting work on a report summarizing legislative accomplishments in 2018 that will be modeled on “Second Chance Reforms in 2017” published last fall.

Kansas most recent state to revise occupational licensing law

On May 10, Governor Brownback of Kansas signed into law the most recent entrant in the occupational licensing reform sweepstakes, making his state the seventh in the past six weeks to enact substantial progressive legislation.  The new law borrows a number of features from the Institute of Justice‘s model occupational licensing law, including prohibiting consideration of non-conviction records, and convictions not “directly related to protecting the general welfare,” and affording aspiring applicants an opportunity for a  preliminary assessment of their eligibility and an “informal, written advisory opinion.”  It adds a feature from the recently enacted Indiana licensing law that bars consideration of most convictions after five years.  The new law also addresses health care licensure and employment.  Here’s a description of the new law that we just posted in the Restoration of Rights Project.

Occupational and professional licensing

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120, originally enacted in 1972, provides as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person, board, commission or similar body who determines the qualifications of individuals for licensure, certification or registration may consider any felony conviction of the applicant, but such a conviction shall not operate as a bar to licensure, certification or registration.

In May 2018 this general licensing statute was amended to add several additional provisions. See HB 2386, available here: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/documents/hb2386_enrolled.pdf. The 2018 amendments require licensing boards to “list the specific civil and criminal records that could disqualify an applicant from receiving a license, certification or registration.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120(b)(1). Importantly, boards “may only list any disqualifying criminal records or civil court records that are directly related to protecting the general welfare and the duties and responsibilities for such entities.”  Moreover, ”in no case shall non-specific terms, such as moral turpitude or good character, or any arrests that do not result in a conviction be used to disqualify an individual’s application for licensure, certification, or registration.” Id.

Licensing boards are prohibited from considering an otherwise disqualifying criminal record or civil court record if five years have passed since the individual satisfied the sentence imposed and the individual has had no other convictions during that time. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120(b)(2). However, boards may consider felony convictions, Class A misdemeanor convictions, and any conviction for which licensure could conflict with federal law, regardless of the time passed since the conviction. Id.

The amendments also provide individuals the opportunity to petition a licensing board at any time for a preliminary “informal, written advisory opinion concerning whether the individual’s civil or criminal records will disqualify the individual from obtaining such license, certification or registration.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-120(b)(3). The board must respond to the petition within 120 days of receipt, and may not charge more than $50 for the response; however, the advisory opinion is not binding. Id.

Read more

Appreciating the full consequences of a misdemeanor

Misdemeanor punishment is often deemed lenient, especially in the shadow of mass incarceration’s long prison sentences.  A typical sentence for a misdemeanor commonly consists of probation and a fine.  The full collateral and informal consequences of that misdemeanor, however, will often be far more punitive.  Those consequences can include months in jail, either pretrial or as a consequence of failing to pay fines and fees; reduced employment and earning capacity triggered by arrest and conviction records; the loss of housing, public benefits, financial aid, and immigration status.  In other words, the full punitive consequences of a misdemeanor are far from lenient, and the extra-judicial consequences can so far outweigh the legal sentence that it hardly makes sense to refer to them as “collateral.”

Misdemeanors have traditionally received short shrift in the legal scholarship and in the public debate over criminal justice.  But this inattention is a mistake.  Misdemeanors make up 80 percent of U.S. criminal dockets.  Most convictions in this country are for misdemeanors—this is what our criminal system does most of the time to the most people.  For a brief overview of major issues and misdemeanor scholarship, you can take a look at this survey, Misdemeanors, 11 Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci. 255 (2015).

Read more

New expungement legislation: Maryland and Oklahoma

The trend toward expanding expungement and sealing laws is continuing.  In the last week of April, the governors of Maryland and Oklahoma signed bills enlarging eligibility criteria and reducing waiting periods, joining Florida and Utah with new record-sealing enactments in 2018.  The provisions of these two newest laws are described below.  Similar legislation is well along in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Vermont.  Vermont S 173, enrolled and awaiting the governor’s signature, is of particular interest since it makes expungement automatic in some categories without the requirement of a petition or filing fee (“unless either party objects in the interest of justice”).   We are tracking these pending bills and will add them to the Restoration of Rights Project if and when they are enacted.

Read more

Wisconsin joins crowd of states regulating occupational licensure

On April 16, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law Act 278, making his state the sixth in the past two months to establish new rules on consideration of criminal record in the context of occupational and professional licensure.  Effective August 1, 2018, licensing boards in Wisconsin will be prohibited in most cases from denying or revoking a license based on arrests or pending charges, and required to justify in writing any adverse action based on conviction.  Boards will also be required to give applicants a preliminary determination as to whether a particular conviction will be disqualifying.

Indiana, Arizona, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Tennessee have all recently enacted laws regulating how licensing boards treat arrests and convictions, in some cases with strikingly similar features, as described in recent posts here and here.  The conviction-related provisions of the model occupational licensing law proposed by the Institute for Justice are reflected in almost all of these new laws, though many of them go even farther to discourage unwarranted discrimination affecting as much as 25% of the U.S. workforce.   

   Read more

Two more states regulate consideration of conviction in occupational licensing

Tennessee and Nebraska are the two most recent states to enact laws regulating how a criminal record will be considered in occupational licensing.  Nebraska’s Occupational Board Reform Act (LB 299) was approved by Governor Pete Ricketts on Appril 23, and Tennessee’s Fresh Start Act (SB 2465) was signed into law by Governor Bill Haslam on the same day.

The Nebraska law (which does not take effect until July 2019) is a general deregulation of licensing that includes a provision whereby individuals with a criminal record may obtain a preliminary determination of their eligibility from the relevant licensing board, even before they have obtained the necessary training and qualification.  The board must issue a written determination within 90 days giving its “findings of fact and conclusions of law,” and the fee for this determination may not exceed $100.  The individual may include with the preliminary application “additional information about the individual’s current circumstances, including the time since the offense, completion of the criminal sentence, other evidence of rehabilitation, testimonials, employment history, and employment aspirations.”  The board’s decision may be appealed under the state’s administrative procedure act.

Tennessee’s new law (which is effective July 1, 2018) provides for a preliminary determination of eligibility by a licensing board and written reasons for denial. However, unlike the Nebraska law, it also contains a more detailed set of standards and procedures that apply to a board’s consideration whether a conviction is “directly related” to the license, and it also contains a presumption in favor of issuing a license (with certain exceptions). Among other things, the licensing authority “must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that [the applicant’s conviction] is related to the applicable occupation, profession, business, or trade.”

Additional bills laws regulating consideration of conviction in licensing are well along in the legislative process in Kansas and Louisiana, and an enrolled bill is awaiting the governor’s signature in Maryland. We have revised the Tennessee and Nebraska profiles and 50-state charts from the Restoration of Rights Project to reflect the new licensing laws.

 

Bail or (collateral) consequences

April Camara of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) writes as a guest blogger about how the availability of bail may determine whether an individual is adversely affected by collateral consequences:

The Prison Policy Initiative recently reported that the explosive growth in jail populations since the 1980s is predominantly the result of jailing people who are accused of crimes and awaiting trial.[1] This is especially true for the past 15 years, in which time 99% of jail growth has been comprised of people who are detained pretrial and legally presumed innocent.[2] To curb this growth, the MacArthur Foundation has invested more than $100 million dollars into reducing jail incarceration and racial disparities in America through the Safety and Justice Challenge (“SJC”).  NLADA serves as a strategic ally in the SJC, and we are making the case to show investing in public defense yields system-wide benefits to pre-trial reform.  We understand that a person’s likelihood to be released on bail while pending trial is significantly increased when they are represented by counsel, and defense advocacy minimizes the harm that incarceration does to a person’s life.  Research shows that people who are in jail before trial have worse outcomes in their criminal cases and in their lives.[3] As a result of pretrial detention, they are:

  • More likely to fail to appear for court.
  • More likely to lose connections to employment, housing, and family.
  • More likely to be convicted.
  • More likely to have a longer prison sentence.
  • More likely to be rearrested for new crimes. [4]

These long-term collateral consequences destabilize not just the accused and their families, but their wider communities. Criminal justice stakeholders involved in the Challenge understand these implications, and defenders are collaborating with local stakeholders to reduce the overall number of people who are presumed innocent and are in jail while awaiting trial.

 

________________

[1] Joshua Aiken, Era of Mass Expansion: Why State Officials Should Fight Jail Growth, Prison Policy Initiative,(2017).

[2] Peter Wagner, Jails matter. But who is listening?, Prison Policy Initiative (Aug. 14, 2015). .

[3]See Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America, Vera Institute (2015).

[4] Aiken, supra note 1; Laura & John Arnold Found., Pretrial Criminal Justice Research (2013); Megan Stevenson, Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes (2017).

 

1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 57