George C. Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board (069327)
219 N.J. 270
| N.J. | 2014Background
- In 1986 George Riley was convicted of attempted sexual assault (second-degree), received a 20-year extended term and completed his sentence in 2009; at release he was not on parole but was subject to Megan’s Law registration.
- In July 2009 a Megan’s Law hearing placed Riley in Tier 3 (highest risk) based primarily on his prior convictions.
- Under the 2007 Sex Offender Monitoring Act (SOMA), the Parole Board ordered Riley to wear a 24/7 GPS ankle monitor for life, report to a monitoring parole officer, permit home access for maintenance/investigation, charge the device daily, and face criminal penalties for noncompliance.
- Riley challenged SOMA’s retroactive application as an ex post facto violation; the Parole Board contended SOMA was triggered by his 2009 Tier 3 designation (a present-danger assessment), not his 1986 conviction.
- The Appellate Division (2–1) invalidated retroactive application; the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, holding SOMA’s effects were punitive and thus unconstitutional when applied to Riley.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SOMA was applied retroactively | Riley: SOMA is triggered by his 1986 convictions; applying SOMA after sentence completion is retroactive and raises ex post facto concerns | Parole Board: SOMA was triggered by 2009 Tier 3 designation (present-danger finding), so application is prospective | Court: SOMA’s application relates to Riley’s 1986 offense and is retroactive; Tier 3 derived from prior convictions, so retroactivity analysis applies |
| Whether legislature intended SOMA to be punitive | Riley: Real-world effects (24/7 monitoring, criminal penalties, travel/home intrusions) show punitive effect | Parole Board: Legislature’s stated intent was civil/regulatory; SOMA serves public-safety purpose and is nonpunitive | Court: Accepts legislative remedial intent but proceeds to effects analysis (intent alone insufficient) |
| Whether SOMA’s effects are punitive under Mendoza‑Martinez factors | Riley: Device and supervision are tantamount to parole/supervised release—historically punitive—imposing affirmative restraints and stigma | Parole Board: Effects are less onerous than confinement or civil commitment and have a nonpunitive public-safety rationale | Court: Applying Smith factors, SOMA’s continuous GPS monitoring is sufficiently like parole; it imposes affirmative restraints and is punitive in effect |
| Whether retroactive application to someone who completed sentence violates Ex Post Facto Clause | Riley: Retroactive imposition of SOMA increases punishment after sentence completion and thus violates Ex Post Facto Clauses | Parole Board: No ex post facto violation because scheme is civil and was triggered after sentencing by Tier designation | Court: Retroactive application to Riley violates both federal and state Ex Post Facto Clauses; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (upheld civil sex‑offender registry; set Mendoza‑Martinez framework for ex post facto "effects" analysis)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (articulated factors for determining whether civil measures are punitive)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (upheld civil commitment scheme; distinguished confinement for mental illness from punitive measures)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (treated extensions of supervised‑release penalties as relating to the original offense for retroactivity analysis)
- Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6th Cir. decision upholding GPS monitoring as condition of ongoing probation)
- Commonwealth v. Cory, 911 N.E.2d 187 (Mass. S.J. Ct. decision finding mandatory GPS monitoring punitive in effect)
- State v. Schubert, 212 N.J. 295 (N.J. Supreme Court: community supervision for life is punitive)
- Poritz v. [State], 142 N.J. 1 (New Jersey decision analyzing retroactivity under Megan’s Law and using offense date as trigger)