US Judge Halts Imposition of Registration Requirement on Parolee With No Sex-Offense Record
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan entered a preliminary injunction against sex-offender registration based on the challenger's due process claims.
January 15, 2019 at 02:04 PM
4 minute read
A man with no record of sexual misconduct who nevertheless had been required to register as a sex offender under New York state law has won a preliminary injunction from a Manhattan federal judge based on his substantive due process claim.
Equan Yunus Sr. has been forced to register since being released from state prison in 2016 under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act, even though his criminal record is devoid of sexually based offenses. As such, he's faced limitations on where he can live and travel, what he can do on the internet—even whether he can own a pet.
He has challenged the situation in federal court, arguing that the sex offender registration status is a violation of his constitutional rights. His legal battle, which began as a pro se application, cleared a major hurdle recently when U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan of the Southern District of New York imposed a preliminary injunction against application of SORA in Yunus' case.
“Labeling individuals as sex offenders when their crimes are not sexual actually risks undermining the usefulness of the registry created to effectuate SORA's purpose,” Nathan wrote. “These significant harms to plaintiff and the risk that labeling him as a sex offender actually undercuts public safety further support the conclusion that SORA as applied to plaintiff lacks rational basis.”
Yunus pleaded guilty in 2002 to two counts of kidnapping for ransom. It happened that one of the victims was a boy under 17 years of age, and was not his child. SOAR dictates that a conviction for kidnapping under the above conditions is designated as a sex offense—regardless of whether any sexual misconduct was alleged or proven.
Upon his release from prison, Yunus was forced to register at the lowest level. At the SORA hearing, the presiding just found there was virtually no likelihood he would ever commit a sex crime, the district court found.
Nathan referred motions by both sides to U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for a report and recommendation. Despite objections, the district court agreed with the most substantive portions of the report, which allows Yunus' constitutional claims to go forward.
While Nathan agreed with Moses that Yunus' procedural due process claim should be dismissed as a matter of precedent, the court also agreed with Moses that the legislative intent of SORA bore no rational relationship to designating Yunus as a sex offender. The state's argument that the designation was rational to prevent sex offenders from “slipping through the cracks” and protecting minors more generally also were unavailing.
Yunus is now represented by Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady name attorney Andrew Celli and associate David Berman. In a joint statement, the attorneys praised Nathan's decision as “just and fitting.”
“In upholding the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses, Judge Nathan applied the due process clause in this case faithfully and with rigor. Her ruling upholds the fundamental constitutional principle that the punishment must fit the crime,” the pair said. “Equan Yunus is, today, a law-abiding and productive member of society. It is our honor to represent him.”
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Letitia James, whose office is handling the case for the state defendants, did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 4Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 5'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250