« Sentencing chapter of balloon boy hoax | Main | Second Circuit amends Stewart sentencing ruling to suggest need for longer sentence »

December 23, 2009

Maine's high court finds part of sex offender registration law unconstitutional

As detailed in this local press report, the "Maine Supreme Judicial Court has found some of the provisions of Maine's sex offender registry law are unconstitutional." Here are more details:

Attorney General Janet Mills says the court upheld most of the sex offender registry law, but found that some specific retroactive provisions violated both state and federal constitutional provisions that severely limit what are called ex post facto laws.  "Those parts that they found extra burdensome in retroactive application are the lifetime registration and the 90 day in-person registration, absent some kind of waiver provision that used to be in the law. Absent some remedy for the individual to say, 'I no longer should have to register.'"

Mills says she's pleased that the court found that the state has the authority to require sex offenders to register with the state and that the public should have the ability to see who is on that list.  She believes the Legislature can fix the law to meet the objections of the court and says she will work with lawmakers to craft a measure that will meet constitutional muster.

The full 54-page ruling in Maine v. Letalien is available here.

December 23, 2009 at 05:07 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20128767a79dc970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Maine's high court finds part of sex offender registration law unconstitutional:

Comments

shouldn't be too hard to fix even for a politician. Will take a simple sentence!

"Law applies only to those convictions that occure AFTER it's PASSAGE!"

fixed

Posted by: rodsmith3510 | Dec 23, 2009 9:40:34 PM

Is there any principled way to bring this to the Supreme Court's attention, regarding your amicus brief in Carr v. United States?

Posted by: Greg Jones | Dec 24, 2009 9:11:09 AM

I agree!

Posted by: Los Angeles Paralegal | Dec 28, 2009 10:27:07 PM

State vs. Letalien is a vindication of my personal experience, personally held beliefs and the opinions of some at the Lincoln County Sheriff's Department, where I have had to register quarterly for the past decade. A Lieutenant detective, who is a co-resident of my town, expressed the wish that the State get some people, "like yourself, who shouldn't even be on this list" off the list.

4 February 2010, I am on trial for charges of failure to comply with the registry. Yes, I was late in the 90 day verification process, yet, I believed I was still registered. We will sort that out, probably with a $200 fine, as I am guilty of overschduling my life and procrastinating.

There is the opportunity to get off the list, as I was convicted in New Hampshire, 2 June 1992.
I will pursue this avenue.

I hadn't realized that Letalien was decided. Thanks for posting it. If I can be of assistance in this matter to you, I would be pleased. As far as character involving offender accountability, recovery and return to a responsible life, I am considered a good example.

Regards,
Colin S. Caissie

Posted by: Colin Caissie | Jan 9, 2010 10:31:23 AM

Hi Colin,

You deserve to stay on the list for sending people you don't know messages and creeping on their profiles. Watch your activity because you don't know who you are dealing with...

Posted by: Deborah | Jan 17, 2013 1:01:39 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB