Hearing called to halt Nevada sex offender notification change
CARSON CITY — A judge Thursday will consider an emergency motion filed by lawyers for 17 unnamed plaintiffs seeking an 11th-hour stay of a Nevada law implementing new sex offender registration requirements.
Clark County District Judge Douglas Smith scheduled the hearing Tuesday, a day after attorneys Maggie McLetchie and Alina Shell filed a 96-page motion arguing that the Department of Public Safety itself is confused by the law and has changed its own interpretation on how it should be applied to some offenders without explanation.
“This reflects that the state does not even understand the law and that it is necessarily too vague to expect persons who may be subject to the law to comply,” the motion states.
The law, Assembly Bill 579, was approved by the 2007 Legislature to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act but was put on hold during years of litigation.
Department of Public Safety officials Tuesday said Nevada is prepared to implement the law come Friday, barring any last-minute stays.
Under Nevada’s previous law, people convicted of sex crimes were assessed on their risk of reoffending. Thousands of offenders who were deemed low risk, or Tier 1, were not subject to community notification.
Under the new law, which applies to offenses dating to 1956, tier levels are based on the offense committed, regardless of circumstances. Many offenders previously deemed by a judge to be no threat to the community will have their names, photos and addresses available for public scrutiny.
Many previously classified as a low-risk, Tier 1 were reassessed as a Tier 3 and will be subject to lifetime reporting requirements. The number of offenders subject to lifetime reporting and community notification grows from a couple hundred to more than 3,000.
The plaintiffs fear they will lose their jobs or businesses, be forced from their homes or have the safety of their families jeopardized when their employers and neighbors discover their status.
Their lawsuit argues the new requirements violate their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection; amounts to double jeopardy; and violates separation of powers and contract provisions. It also asserts there is no process to correct any errors in classifications.
“Once an offender’s name is posted, errors are irreversible and negatively impact not only the persons listed, but their employers and their families as well,” the motion said.
The suit also maintains the law is not being applied uniformly because people convicted of offenses not previously considered a “sexual” offense will now fall under the definition of “sex offender.”
“However, the state has no plans in place to identify and enforce AB579 as to those individuals,” the motion said. “Instead, it is simply reclassifying persons already on the registry.”
Some plaintiffs further argue they’ve been released from registering obligations by a judge yet have received letters from the state reclassifying them and informing them of their new registry requirements.
Dave Gibson, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, said if a court grants relief, “it is up to the petitioner to provide notice to the sex offender registry.”
Further, Gibson, in response to an email query from the Review-Journal, said anyone whose duty to register has expired or been relieved by a court order before the law takes effect July 1 will not be required to register. The state estimates 62 people fit that category and they will be notified by mail.
The motion asks the court to stay implementation of the law “for a reasonable period of time” while factual and legal problems are resolved.
“In light of the threatened uneven application by the state of Nevada, people who should not actually be subjected to the law … will be forever labeled dangerous sex offenders,” it said.
It added that federal guidelines for implementing the law have changed since Nevada passed its legislation nearly a decade ago, and urged the court to consider giving the 2017 Legislature an opportunity to re-evaluate it when it convenes in February.
Senate Bill 99, passed by the 2015 Legislature, dealt mainly with juvenile offenders. It was vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval because of a drafting error that would have permitted sex offenders close to schools and other places frequented by children.
Contact Sandra Chereb at email@example.com or 775-461-3821. Find @SandraChereb on Twitter.
Preliminary Survey Results – Law Enforcement Perspectives on SORN Nevada Supreme Court stops sex offender law from being implemented
One thought on “Hearing called to halt Nevada sex offender notification change”
Leave a Reply
In this trying time we want to reiterate a few things for our registrants and families. We don't want there to be any confusion or penalties concerning registry requirements during the Coronavirus Pandemic.
Make sure you know current requirements. You can go to your Sheriff's Office website to see if there is new information there. If so, we suggest you do a screen print and save it. Call your registry office to get clarification on any questions you might have. Document the date, time, who you spoke with and their instructions regarding any address change, vehicle, employment, travel dates if required, etc.
Keep in mind if you are required to update your drivers license annually through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) you should contact them for their status. Some are limiting the number of people allowed inside and you have to wait to receive a call from them and then come back inside. Document any instructions.Be safe, be smart, stay healthy and know we will get through this.
All information is confidential and we do not distribute any data whatsoever.
The W.A.R. Support Line:
—–Here is the update on the case:
Judge rejects bid to block posting Nevada sex offender names
Posted: Jun 30, 2016 9:41 AM MST Updated: Jun 30, 2016 9:41 AM MST
LAS VEGAS (AP) – A Nevada judge didn’t put a last-minute stop on a state plan to begin posting the names of thousands of convicted sex offenders whose cases had previously been deemed low-risk.
Clark County District Court Judge Douglas Smith rejected an emergency request on Thursday from attorneys for 17 unnamed plaintiffs who argued that publishing the names will do significant irreparable harm to Tier 1 offenders.
The judge says there was plenty of time to challenge the measure, and an appeal for a delay should have been filed sooner.
But he did schedule a July 12 hearing on a challenge of the constitutionality of the law.
The postings due to start Friday were approved by the state Legislature in 2007 to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.