Posts tagged "326573"

Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 326573 v. Sex Offender Registry Board (and a consolidated case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-109-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12182   JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 326573  vs.  SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD (and a consolidated case[1]).       Suffolk.     February 7, 2017. – June 23, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.     Sex Offender.  Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act.  Internet.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2014.   A motion for preliminary injunction was heard by Gregg J. Pasquale, J., and the case was reported by him to the Appeals Court.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.   Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 22, 2015.   A motion for a preliminary injunction was heard by Heidi E. Brieger, J.   A proceeding for interlocutory review was allowed in the Appeals Court by Judd J. Carhart, J.  The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Andrew S. Crouch for John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 326573, & another. John P. Bossé for the defendant. Dana Goldblatt, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     GANTS, C.J.  In Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 467 Mass. 598, 616 (2014), we permanently enjoined the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) “from publishing on the Internet the registry information of any individual who was finally classified as a level two sex offender on or before July 12, 2013, unless the individual is subsequently reclassified a level two or level three sex offender.”  SORB contends in these two cases that, when it unsuccessfully seeks after July 12, 2013, to reclassify a level two sex offender as a level three sex offender, the individual is reclassified a level two sex offender for purposes of Moe, and SORB may therefore publish the individual’s registry information on the Internet.  We disagree.  We conclude that, under Moe, a sex offender is “reclassified” only where a hearing officer allows SORB’s motion to increase his or her classification based on new information indicating an increased risk of sexual recidivism, not, as here, where the hearing officer denied SORB’s motion for reclassification and retained the earlier level two classification.  We therefore remand these cases to the Superior Court for the issuance of a permanent injunction barring publication of each plaintiff’s registry […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,