Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board
82 Mass. App. Ct. 67
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Doe challenges a level three classification imposed by the Sex Offender Registry Board after a 2008 de novo hearing conducted while incarcerated.
- Board recommended level three based on initial 2005 finding and the hearing occurred July 22, 2008.
- Doe sought a rescheduled hearing due to incarceration and pending parole, which was denied.
- Hearing proceeded; Board’s burden to prove duty to register and appropriate level applied at de novo hearing.
- Superior Court affirmed the board’s final classification; Doe appealed, claiming the timing was unreasonable and prejudicial.
- Court vacated the classification and remanded for a new final classification evidentiary hearing, emphasizing the need for timely consideration before release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether holding the final classification hearing four years before release was reasonable | Doe argues premature, stale information undermines current-risk assessment | Board asserts administrative necessity to classify before release | Remanded for new hearing; premature timing not justified by statute/regulations |
| Whether the board violated due process by proceeding without adequate justification for early hearing | Doe alleges procedural due process violation; inappropriate timing deprives evidence of rehabilitation | Board contends process complies with statutory framework and de novo hearing rights | Remanded; no adequate administrative justification found in record |
| Whether the evidence at the 2008 hearing was sufficient to sustain a level three designation | Doe contends evidence would differ if hearing were closer to release | Evidence supported high risk and dangerousness under statutory factors | On remand, new evidentiary hearing to reassess based on current conditions; existing record not final on sufficiency |
| Whether the board failed to account for time-related mitigating factors (treatment, rehabilitation) | Unclear if treatment participation reduces risk at time of release | Regulatory factors allow consideration of mitigating evidence but do not mandate override of aggravators | Remand to consider treatment and other changes since initial classification |
| Whether the board properly applied reclassification rules and timing provisions (e.g., five-year liberty requirement) | Premature to apply five-year liberty-based reclassification constraint before release | Statutory/regulatory framework governs timing and modalities of reclassification | Remand; proper timing to be determined in new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3844 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 768 (2006) (de novo review and classification framework; early final classifications questioned)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3974 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 457 Mass. 53 (2010) (two-step process; substantive review of risk and dangerousness)
- Doe, No. 1 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 683 (2011) (due process considerations for incarcerated offenders; not pursued on appeal)
- Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418 (2001) (permission for individualized hearing to determine current risk of reoffense)
- Doe, No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603 (2011) (constitutional questions on broad scheme; proper forum for challenge)