David Lusik v. Pennsylvania State Police

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied David Lusik’s application for partial summary relief challenging the application of Act 29’s sexual-offender registration requirements to him. Relying on Commonwealth v. Lacombe and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in T.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police, the court held that subchapter I of Act 29 is nonpunitive and does not violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

Holdings

1. Under Commonwealth v. Lacombe, subchapter I of Act 29 is nonpunitive and does not violate the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws, even when applied to a petitioner whose conviction predates any sexual-offender registration scheme.
2. Lusik was not entitled to partial summary relief because the controlling precedent foreclosed his ex post facto claim and his related due process and reputation-based claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether application of subchapter I of Act 29 to a person whose conviction predates all sexual-offender registration schemes violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
2. Whether Act 29's registration and internet-notification requirements violate due process or the petitioner's asserted fundamental right to reputation.
3. Whether Lusik was entitled to partial summary relief on his constitutional claims.

Disposition

other