Justices Say Megan's Law Bar to Juvenile Appeals Is Unconstitutional
The court, in a unanimous ruling released Tuesday, said permanently barring juvenile offenders from even seeking relief is punitive, especially since adult offenders may so petition a court after 15 years of a clean record.
April 25, 2018 at 06:06 PM
4 minute read
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin
The New Jersey Supreme Court has held unconstitutional a provision in Megan's Law that forever bars juveniles found delinquent from seeking to have themselves relieved of their community registration and notification requirements.
The court, in a unanimous ruling released Tuesday, said permanently barring juvenile offenders from even seeking relief is punitive, especially since adult offenders may so petition a court after 15 years of a clean record.
“This categorical bar cannot be lifted, even when the juvenile becomes an adult and poses no public safety risk, is fully rehabilitated, and is a fully productive member of society,” wrote Justice Barry Albin for the court in State in the Interest of C.K.
“Permanently barring juveniles who have committed certain sex offenses from petitioning for relief from the Megan's Law requirements bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government objective,” Albin said.
C.K.'s attorney, James Maynard, said the ruling is “well-crafted” and “reflects the scientific evidence” presented.
Juvenile offenders are the least likely to commit another sex offense if they have spent years undergoing rehabilitation, said Maynard, of Maynard & Sumner in Morristown. “Juveniles are highly amenable to rehabilitation,” he said.
Albin wrote, ”The record in this case reveals what is commonly known about juveniles—that their emotional, mental, and judgmental capacities are still developing and that their immaturity makes them more susceptible to act impulsively and rashly without consideration of the long-term consequences of their actions.
“The record also supports the conclusion that juveniles adjudicated delinquent of committing sex offenses, such as C.K., who have been offense-free for many years and assessed not likely to reoffend, pose little risk to the public,” Albin said.
According to the ruling, C.K. admitted that when he was 15 and living in Bergen County, he sexually assaulted his younger adopted brother. The victim told the police about the incidents when he turned 16, and C.K., when he was 23, was adjudicated delinquent, and in 2003 was sentenced to three years' probation.
C.K. was assessed a low risk to reoffend, but was still required to adhere to the lifetime requirements of community notification and registration, according to the court.
During the ensuing years, C.K. obtained a bachelor's degree in psychology from Catholic University and earned a master's degree in counseling from Montclair State University. He currently works at a counseling center for adults, according to the ruling.
The court noted that it has been 20 years since C.K. committed an offense, and that it has been nearly 15 years since he was adjudicated delinquent.
C.K. petitioned for relief, but a judge said because of the language of the statute, only the Supreme Court could determine whether he could be eligible for relief. That ruling was upheld by the Appellate Division, and the Supreme court agreed to hear the appeal.
Albin said that C.K. soon will be allowed to seek relief.
“At that time, he must be given the opportunity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he has not reoffended and that he no longer poses a threat to others and therefore has a right to be relieved of his Megan's Law obligations and his status as a sex-offender registrant,” Albin said.
C.K.'s appeal was opposed by the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, which did not respond to a request for comment. The Attorney General's Office, which participated as amicus, declined to 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 AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Trending Stories
- 1Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 2Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 3FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
- 4'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
- 5Court rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
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