Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 7083 v. Sex Offender Registry Board
472 Mass. 475
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff John Doe (SORB No. 7083) was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and incarcerated at the Massachusetts Treatment Center when SORB recommended he be a Level 3 sex offender in Sept. 2009; Doe requested a de novo hearing.
- The SORB hearing was held in Feb. 2012; at that time Doe’s earliest parole eligibility was ~10 months away and his §123A petition for discharge trial was scheduled ~18 months later.
- Doe asked the hearing examiner to continue the classification or to leave the proceeding open so that fresh evidence could be introduced near his actual release; the examiner denied the request and issued a final Level 3 classification in March 2012.
- Doe challenged the final classification on due process grounds, arguing that a classification made long before actual release will be stale and harmful (public dissemination, stigma), and that SORB’s three‑year reclassification procedure is inadequate.
- SORB argued early classification was justified because release could occur earlier (expedited discharge by CAB or qualified examiners) and because reclassification remedies any error.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held the final 2012 Level 3 classification invalid as premature, vacated it, and ordered that the 2012 hearing be left open for a continuation reasonably close to Doe’s actual release; SORB must bear the burden at that final hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORB may make a final classification long before an SDP’s actual release when release is only a potential future date | Early final classification risks relying on stale evidence; due process requires a final determination based on current risk near release | Early classification is necessary because release might occur sooner (CAB action or expedited trial) and reclassification corrects errors | Final classification was premature and violated due process; vacated and must be left open until a hearing reasonably close to actual release |
| Whether SORB’s reclassification procedure (3 years) cures premature classification | Reclassification wait period and burden-shifting make the remedy inadequate — confined SDPs cannot meet community‑based reclassification criteria | Reclassification is an available remedy to correct any premature decision | Reclassification procedure is inadequate to protect due process here; burden must remain on SORB at the final hearing |
| Whether public dissemination of Level 3 status while confined can be undone by later reclassification | Dissemination inflicts irreversible stigma and harms that cannot be fully undone by reclassification | Early dissemination is justified by public‑protection goals and can be remedied by later procedural mechanisms | Irreversible harms from premature public dissemination support requiring final classification near actual release |
| Who bears the burden of proof at re-opened final hearing | SORB must bear burden to prove current risk at final determination | Reclassification regime places burden on offender to show reduced risk | Court: at the final hearing SORB must bear the burden of showing the offender’s then-current risk of reoffense |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Attorney Gen., 426 Mass. 136 (recognizing sex offenders’ liberty and privacy interests and due process protections)
- Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418 (applying Mathews balancing to procedural due process in sex offender context)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 205614 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 594 (risk‑factor application and need for current assessment)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 6904 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 67 (setting aside final classification based on hearing held years before release)
- Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 467 Mass. 598 (discussing harms from public dissemination of sex‑offender information)