Breaking News

Kansas will appeal sex offender ruling in case of Johnson County man

Updated: 2013-07-19T00:07:58Z

By ROXANA HEGEMAN

The Associated Press

— Kansas will appeal a state district court judge’s decision that orders a child molester’s name to be removed from its offender registry.

At issue is Tuesday’s decision in which Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks found that Kansas law ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary, thereby violating the U.S. constitution.

But his ruling applied only to the 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County sheriff’s office seeking to end his registration requirement.

“After carefully reviewing the district court’s ruling, we do not think it is legally correct,” Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said Thursday in a statement.

Kirk Ridgway, the attorney representing the Johnson County sheriff’s office, said one of the department’s concerns when considering whether to appeal was that any Kansas Supreme Court ruling would apply to others now on the registry.

Schmidt said the state would fight for the integrity of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, as well as for continued compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act, which is designed to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders.

“Having complete and accurate information about registered sex offenders available to the public through the online registry is a central public safety purpose of the federal law, which Kansas has implemented, and the district court’s ruling runs counter to that purpose,” Schmidt said.

The Kansas offender registry law requires sex, drug and violent offenders to register with law enforcement. It applies retroactively and offenders must register for 15 years to life, depending on the severity of the crime.

Nearly 11,600 persons are on the registry, according to the KBI – 7,417 for sex crimes, 2,283 for drug offenses and 1,899 for violent crimes.

Kansas also will appeal the lower court’s decision that allowed the plaintiff to proceed anonymously in the case. The plaintiff’s attorney has said his client is fearful of retribution if he is identified.

“The public has a right to know when a convicted sex offender challenges the very law that is designed to protect the public,” Schmidt said. “This cloak of anonymity does not serve the public interest or advance public safety.”

The plaintiff pleaded guilty in 2003 to having taken indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years. But in 2011, the Legislature amended the law, extending the length of time offenders must be registered to 25 years.

The state told the plaintiff he had to remain registered until 2028.

His lawsuit argued the law is unconstitutional because it was applied retroactively.

Attorney Chris Joseph, who represented the plaintiff, argued several state supreme courts have found provisions in registry laws as excessive in relation to public safety objectives. He cited registry provisions struck down by state supreme courts in Alaska, Indiana, and Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 rejected a similar retroactive challenge to Alaska’s registration lawme. But the nation’s highest court also said that if a retroactive law is punitive, then it would be unconstitutional.

Judge Hendricks ruled the 2011 Kansas law was effectively punitive, noting its requirements have become increasingly severe and social media creates a virtual forum for “shaming.”

Deal Saver Subscribe today!

Comments

The Kansas City Star is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Kansas City Star uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here