Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court considered whether the Alaska Sexual Offender Registration Act (ASORA) may constitutionally be applied to a person convicted of a sex offense in another state who later moved to Alaska. The court held that Alaska was not barred by lack of jurisdiction from requiring such an offender to register. It also held that ASORA violated substantive due process because it provided no procedure for an offender to establish that he was not dangerous, but concluded that the defect could be cured by providing such a procedure.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Alaska may constitutionally impose ASORA registration requirements on an out-of-state sex offender who moves to and is present in Alaska.
- Whether ASORA violates the Alaska Constitution's due process and privacy protections by requiring registration and public disclosure based solely on conviction without an individualized hearing to establish that the offender does not pose a sufficient risk of reoffending.
- What remedy is appropriate for ASORA's failure to provide an individualized risk-assessment hearing.
Holdings
- Alaska is not barred by lack of jurisdiction from requiring an out-of-state offender who is present in Alaska to register under ASORA. ASORA's requirements may be imposed on such offenders even though the underlying offense occurred and was prosecuted elsewhere.
- ASORA's internet dissemination of sex-offender registration information substantially infringes a fundamental privacy interest protected by article I, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution, so strict scrutiny applies to the substantive due process challenge.
- ASORA violates substantive due process because it applies registration and disclosure requirements to all persons convicted of designated offenses without providing an individualized hearing at which an offender may attempt to prove that the offender is not likely to reoffend and therefore does not pose a risk justifying continued registration.
Key quotations
“We conclude that Alaska is not barred by lack of jurisdiction from requiring out-of-state offenders who are present in the state from registering under ASORA.” (124)
“Internet publication of sex offender registration information potentially inflicts grievous harms on sex offenders ranging from public scorn and ostracism to harassment, to difficulty in finding and maintaining employment, to threats of violence and actual violence.” (130-31)
“ASORA is overbroad because it imposes its requirements on all persons convicted of designated offenses without affording them a hearing at which they might show that they are not dangerous.” (135)
“If Doe can show at a hearing that he does not pose a risk requiring registration, then there is no compelling reason requiring him to register, and the fact that ASORA does not provide for such a hearing means that the statute is unnecessarily broad.” (139)
Factual background
Doe was convicted of aggravated sexual battery in Virginia in 2000 and was required under Virginia law to register as a sex offender. After moving to Alaska in January 2003, he initially registered annually, but the Department of Public Safety later determined that his conviction was sufficiently similar to an aggravated Alaska sex offense and required quarterly, lifetime registration. Doe stopped registering after January 2005 and was convicted in 2007 of failing to register. He challenged ASORA in 2016, arguing that Alaska could not impose the statute on an out-of-state offender and that the statute violated due process because it provided no individualized procedure to establish that he was not dangerous.
Procedural history
Doe was convicted in Virginia in 2000 of aggravated sexual battery and moved to Alaska in 2003. After he stopped complying with Alaska's quarterly registration requirement, he was convicted in 2007 of second-degree failure to register. In 2016 he filed a declaratory and injunctive action challenging Alaska's authority to impose ASORA on him and asserting substantive and procedural due process violations. The superior court granted summary judgment to the State, denied Doe's motion, and entered final judgment. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The superior court must permit Doe to pursue a civil action or amend the existing action to seek an individualized hearing at which he may attempt to prove that he no longer poses a risk to the public sufficient to justify continued registration. If he prevails, he must be relieved of ASORA's registration requirements; if he does not, he must comply with ASORA. After a reasonable time, he may seek renewed relief based on changed circumstances. The superior court must determine the details of the hearing after briefing and argument.