Summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a sex offender registrant cannot be convicted under Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6) for failing to report a residence address when the registrant reasonably attempted to obtain housing but the required address did not exist. The court rejected the State’s argument that a registrant could satisfy the statute by listing a park bench or other on-the-street location, and affirmed the court of appeals on a different rationale.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a homeless sex-offender registrant is exempt from Wisconsin's registration requirements.
- Whether homelessness is a defense to a charge under Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6) for knowingly failing to provide the address at which the registrant will reside.
- Whether a registrant who cannot find housing despite a reasonable attempt can be convicted for failing to report an address that does not exist.
- Whether a registrant may satisfy the statute by listing a park bench or other on-the-street location as the residence address.
Holdings
- Homeless registrants are not exempt from the sex-offender registration requirements, and homelessness alone is not a defense to noncompliance.
- A registrant cannot be convicted under Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6) for failing to report the address at which the registrant will reside when the registrant is unable to provide that information because the address does not exist, despite the registrant's reasonable attempt to provide it.
- A registrant cannot satisfy the statutory requirement to provide the address at which the registrant will reside by listing a park bench or other on-the-street location when that location is merely an uninformed or uncertain guess.
Key quotations
“By applying well-settled principles of statutory construction, we conclude that a registrant cannot be convicted of violating Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6) for failing to report the address at which he will be residing when he was unable to provide this information.” (at 97)
“Accordingly, albeit upon a different rationale, we affirm the court of appeals.” (at 101)
Factual background
Dinkins was required to register as a sex offender before his maximum discharge from prison and to provide the Department of Corrections with the address where he would reside at least ten days before release. He attempted to secure housing with his daughter and other relatives, but those efforts were unsuccessful, and the Department of Corrections did not find him a residence before his release date. The circuit court found that he had attempted to comply but could not find housing, yet convicted him of knowingly failing to provide the required address.
Procedural history
The Dodge County Circuit Court denied Dinkins's motions to dismiss, found probable cause, and later found him guilty of knowingly failing to provide a residence address required by Wis. Stat. § 301.45. The court withheld sentence and imposed probation with a jail condition. After the circuit court denied postconviction relief, Dinkins appealed. The court of appeals reversed, and the State sought review. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' disposition, concluding that Dinkins could not be convicted because he was unable to provide an address that did not exist despite a reasonable effort to obtain housing.