Coppolino v. Noonan
102 A.3d 1254
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Coppolino was convicted in 2001 of multiple sexual offenses (including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) and, after resentencing in 2007, served time and three years’ probation; he timely registered under Megan’s Law III and verified annually thereafter.
- Megan’s Law IV (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10–9799.41) became effective December 20, 2012, after Coppolino completed his sentence and probation; it expanded registration requirements (tiering, quarterly in‑person verification for Tier III, broader data collection including Internet identifiers, palm prints and DNA, 21‑day foreign travel notice, and in‑person updates within three business days) and stiffer criminal penalties for noncompliance.
- Coppolino filed a mandamus petition seeking an order directing the PSP not to apply SORNA/Megan’s Law IV to him, arguing (1) retroactive application of certain provisions violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses and (2) the Internet‑identifier disclosure requirement is overbroad under the First Amendment.
- The Commissioner moved for summary judgment arguing Megan’s Law IV is civil, nonpunitive, applicable to Coppolino, and not overbroad; the Court applied the Smith v. Doe two‑prong (legislative intent then effect) and Mendoza‑Martinez factors to disputed provisions.
- The Court held most challenged provisions are nonpunitive and constitutional as applied to Coppolino, but found the requirement in §9799.15(g) that certain updates be made in person within three business days is punitive (imposes an affirmative restraint on travel and is disproportionate) and therefore violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses as applied retroactively; it severed the in‑person requirement for pre‑enactment offenders and denied relief on other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Megan’s Law IV is punitive (Ex Post Facto) as applied retroactively | Coppolino: expanded burdens (quarterly in‑person verification, broader data, palm prints/DNA, foreign travel notice, 3‑day in‑person updates) are sufficiently punitive to make retroactive application unconstitutional | Commissioner: statute is civil/regulatory, consistent with prior Megan’s Laws and legitimate public‑safety purposes; prior case law holds registration nonpunitive | Court: Applying Smith/Mendoza‑Martinez, all challenged provisions except the 3‑day in‑person update requirement (§9799.15(g)) are nonpunitive; §9799.15(g)’s in‑person update is punitive and ex post facto as applied retroactively |
| Whether the §9799.15(e)(3) quarterly in‑person verification is punitive | Coppolino: quarterly in‑person reporting resembles parole and is punitive | Commissioner: reporting is regulatory and serves public‑safety monitoring | Held: Not punitive — rationally related to public safety and not disproportionate |
| Whether expanded registry disclosures (including aliases, Internet identifiers, SSN, vehicle info) are punitive or disproportionate | Coppolino: breadth and invasiveness make them punitive and/or excessive | Commissioner: disclosure furthers nonpunitive public‑safety aims and aids law enforcement | Held: Not punitive — rational connection to public safety; not excessive as applied |
| Whether requirement to disclose Internet identifiers is overbroad under First Amendment | Coppolino: disclosure chills anonymous online speech, especially for stigmatized group; his offense did not involve the Internet or minors | Commissioner: argument not waived and statute targets public‑safety; PSP dissemination rules prevent public disclosure of Internet identifiers | Held: Not overbroad as applied — statute does not authorize public disclosure of Internet identifiers and the provision does not require identity disclosure as a precondition to speech |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (statutory intent/effect test for civil vs. punitive labeling)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (Mendoza‑Martinez factors for punitive effect)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 574 Pa. 487 (statutory registration/notification previously held nonpunitive)
- Commonwealth v. Gaffney, 557 Pa. 327 (earlier Megan’s Law and legislative intent analysis)
- Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 576 Pa. 365 (application of Smith test in Pennsylvania)
- Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir.: Internet‑identifier registration upheld where public disclosure was restricted)
- White v. Baker, 696 F.Supp.2d 1289 (D. Ga.: Internet‑identifier requirement unconstitutional where statute allowed broad public disclosure)