Doe, SORB No. 380316 v. Sex Offender Registry Board
473 Mass. 297
| Mass. | 2015Background
- John Doe (No. 380316) was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child and required to register under G. L. c. 6; SORB initially recommended level 3 but a hearing examiner classified him as level 2 (moderate risk) using a preponderance standard.
- The examiner found aggravating factors (abused an "extra‑vulnerable" six‑year‑old, lack of full admission, ongoing victim trauma) and some mitigating factors (no disciplinary reports in prison, AA attendance, likely stable housing).
- Doe sought judicial review in Superior Court; the court affirmed SORB and Doe appealed to the SJC, arguing that due process requires proof by clear and convincing evidence and that Internet publication of level 2 data under the 2013 amendment was not retroactive as applied to him.
- Since the court’s prior decision in Doe (No. 972), the statutory scheme has changed: more offenses require registration, reporting and monitoring burdens increased, penalties for failure to register grew, and level 2 and 3 data are now posted on the Internet.
- The SJC concluded that those changes materially increased the private interests at stake and the risk of serious, lasting harm from misclassification, warranting reexamination of the proof standard and relief for Doe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of proof for SORB risk classifications | Due process (U.S. Const. & Mass. Decl. of Rights) requires clear and convincing evidence | Preponderance of the evidence is sufficient (Doe No. 972; statutory codification) | Rejected Doe No. 972; SJC holds clear and convincing evidence is required for all risk levels |
| Whether Doe was misclassified under preponderance standard | SORB failed to prove he was level 2 even by preponderance | Hearing examiner’s findings were supported by substantial evidence | Court found the original level 2 decision was supported by preponderance but vacated it to require a new hearing under the higher standard |
| Internet publication of level 2 information (2013 amendment) — retroactivity as applied to Doe | Publication of his level 2 data on the Internet is unconstitutional if applied retroactively | 2013 amendment applies to final classifications after effective date; Moe indicates some nonretroactivity | SJC holds Moe controls: Internet posting for Doe was permissible because his final classification was after July 12, 2013, but orders SORB to cease Internet dissemination pending de novo hearing under the new standard |
| Remedy and scope of rehearing | Seek vacatur and de novo hearing under clear and convincing standard; stop online dissemination during proceedings | Maintain final classification | Court vacated Superior Court affirmance, remanded for SORB evidentiary de novo hearing under clear and convincing standard and enjoined Internet dissemination while proceedings are pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 972 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 428 Mass. 90 (1998) (earlier SJC holding that preponderance satisfied due process for SORB classifications)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Mathews balancing test for procedural due process)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (clear and convincing evidence standard required where important individual interests at stake)
- Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 467 Mass. 598 (2014) (addressing Internet dissemination and retroactivity of publication rules)
- Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 7083 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 472 Mass. 475 (2015) (treatment of vacated SORB classifications and evidentiary considerations on remand)