Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 152

Plaintiff was classified as a level two sex offender in 2003 after a 2002 offense.
In 2009 the board sought to reclassify him to level three based on new charges, though those charges were later nolle prossed.
A December 2009 hearing concerned increasing his classification without a new qualifying offense.
Evidence included a police report containing a rape victim’s statements admitted over objection as basis for reclassification.
The examiner found the plaintiff posed a high risk to reoffend and ordered level three; the decision became final.
Plaintiff challenged the board’s authority to upwardly reclassify absent a new qualifying conviction and sought judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the regulation authorizing upward reclassification without a new conviction exceeds the board’s authority.	Doe argued regulation exceeds statutory authority.	Maker/board argued regulation is within power to review information indicating risk.	Regulation invalid; board lacks authority absent a new convicting offense.

Commonwealth v. Maker, 459 Mass. 46 (Mass. 2011) (regulation review outside statutory authority invalidates regulation)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603 (Mass. 2011) (regulation constitutionality review points; board lacks inherent authority to strike regulations)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 941 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 460 Mass. 336 (Mass. 2011) (review of regulations tied to final order of classification; authority limits)
Doe v. Attorney Gen., 426 Mass. 136 (Mass. 1997) (due process rights of registrants; fair implementation requirements)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 1211 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 750 (Mass. 2006) (registration must be implemented in a fair manner)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3844 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 768 (Mass. 2006) (two-step classification process; review rights)