Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 466 Mass. 594

Background

Doe (female) pleaded guilty in federal court (2006) to offenses including sex trafficking of a child and transporting a minor for prostitution arising from operation of an escort service that employed minors.
SORB recommended level two classification; after hearing, the hearing examiner classified Doe as level one (low risk).
Doe presented scientific studies at the SORB hearing suggesting female sex offenders have substantially lower sexual-recidivism rates and that male-derived risk tools may not apply to women.
Doe moved for SORB-funded expert witness fees to present testimony on female recidivism; the hearing examiner denied the motion and declined to give the female-recidivism studies weight.
Superior Court affirmed SORB; the Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded, holding SORB acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion in denying expert funds and failing to consider gender-recidivism evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SORB arbitrarily classified Doe without considering gender-specific recidivism evidence	Doe: SORB ignored substantial, authoritative studies showing women have much lower sexual-recidivism rates and that male-based tools may mispredict women	SORB: Guidelines apply equally to males and females; studies do not invalidate SORB factors or require guideline overhaul	Held: Arbitrary and capricious — SORB must consider the offered gender/recidivism evidence when it is substantial and relevant
Whether SORB abused discretion by denying funds for an expert witness	Doe: Expert funding was warranted because guideline literature is male-focused and expert would show limits/applicability for females	SORB: Doe showed only a generic need; no basis to grant funds	Held: Abuse of discretion — Doe identified a particularized need tied to gender and lack of competent evidence before the examiner
Whether SORB’s guidelines must be updated or supplemented when scientific consensus evolves	Doe: Growing literature (since 2002) requires consideration and may reduce predictive value of current factors for women	SORB: No obligation to update guidelines for each new study; regulators may rely on existing factors	Held: Cautionary — SORB should ensure guidelines incorporate current literature where relevant; hearing examiners may consider "any useful information" beyond listed factors
Whether application of "compulsive/repetitive" factor was appropriate for financially motivated, noncontact offenses	Doe: Running an escort service may be economically motivated and not evidence of sexual compulsion; expert could clarify	SORB: Sexual motivation need not be independently proven; offense itself suffices to apply factors	Held: Court observed it was unclear that escort-management implies the kind of compulsive sexual deviance contemplated by statute; expert evidence could be probative

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Attorney Gen., 426 Mass. 136 (recognizing liberty/privacy interests implicated by SORB)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 972 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 428 Mass. 90 (necessity of individualized classification and detailed findings)
Massachusetts Fed’n of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763 (agency regulations accorded deference)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612 (agency must consider relevant scientific evidence, e.g., age effect)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 941 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 460 Mass. 336 (burden on SORB to justify classification by preponderance and need for specific written findings)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 89230 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764 (standards for granting expert-witness funds to indigent offenders)
Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246 (rejection of evidence does not supply substantial contrary evidence)
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (scientific fields in rapid flux may require more frequent updates to standards)