Ohio High Court Rules Third Piece of Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional

June 22, 2012 (Press-News.org) In February of 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court held that particular application of a federal sex offender law is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court determined that the law cannot retroactively apply to sex offenders who completed their sentences prior to July 1, 1997.

Brief History of Ohio Sex Offender Registry Law

Two laws were considered in the Ohio Supreme Court's recent ruling. Megan's Law is state legislation which established a statewide sex offender registry; it was enacted July 1, 1997. As written, Megan's Law requires nearly all persons convicted of sex crimes who had not completed their sentences by that date to register on the state list once they have been released.

In 2006, President Bush signed a federal sex offender registry into law. Known as the Adam Walsh Act, the legislation requires all sex offenders, regardless of the date of their crimes and whether or not they had completed their sentences prior to the enactment of the legislation, to register under a new classification system. States risked losing federal funding if the law was not enacted by 2008. Ohio was the first state to adopt the new law in 2008. Practically, the federal law has replaced the state language of Megan's Law.

The Recent Supreme Court Ruling

The unanimous ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court declares retroactive punishment of criminals who have served their sentences unconstitutional. The case which inspired the court's ruling involved a man who was convicted of a sex crime in 1995 and served his entire sentence before Megan's Law became active on July 1, 1997.

The man was thus not required, under Ohio's version of Megan's Law, to register with the state or disclose his sex offense to his community. When the Adam Walsh Act came into effect in 2008, he was reclassified as a Tier III sex offender under the new system, and was thus required to register for the crime he committed and completed his time for over a decade earlier. He petitioned for a challenge to the reclassification in the courts.

While his petition was pending, he was indicted for failing to register as a sex offender. This indictment was dismissed in 2009 when his petition was reviewed in trial court, which determined that the new law could not compel him to register. The state appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. He then appealed this decision and the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court used its former ruling in State v. Williams as support for its decision in this case. The court had already rendered two parts of the Adam Walsh Act unconstitutional and in April ruled yet another piece illegal, which had compelled juvenile sex offenders to register for the duration of their lives. The Court classifies this requirement as cruel and unusual punishment and violation of due process.

Implications for Defendants

The recent ruling that tossed out the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act's registry requirement for all offenders will exempt individuals who served their time prior to July 1, 1997 from registering on sex offender lists. The ruling helps protect offenders who have served their time from retroactive punishment.

The Supreme Court has already found a few issues with the Adam Walsh Act and those convicted or suspected of a sex crime should pay strict attention to how the constitutionality of the law is determined by the court. If you or a loved one has been accused of a sex offense or you have questions about how evolving laws may affect you, please consult an experienced criminal law attorney to better ensure that your rights are protected.

Article provided by Scott Law Firm, LPA
Visit us at www.ohiocrimelaw.com