601 S.W.3d 146
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Gerald Stow pleaded guilty in Colorado in 1989 to aggravated incest; Colorado required lifetime sex-offender registration. He was discharged from parole on April 16, 1997.
- Stow moved to Baxter County, Arkansas, in 2002 and was required to register under Arkansas law.
- In March 2017 Stow sued the Baxter County sheriff for declaratory relief seeking removal from Arkansas’s sex-offender registry. He moved for summary judgment arguing Arkansas law did not apply to his 1989 conviction.
- Stow’s statutory argument relied on Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-905(a) (registration applies to convictions on or after Aug. 1, 1997, or to persons serving sentences for such convictions).
- The sheriff relied on § 12-12-906(a)(2), which requires persons who would be required to register in the jurisdiction of conviction to register in Arkansas.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding § 12-12-906(a)(2) unambiguously required Stow to register and rejecting his constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stow must register under Arkansas law | Stow: §12-12-905(a) limits registration to convictions on/after Aug. 1, 1997 or sentences served for such convictions; his 1989 conviction and 1997 discharge fall outside it | Sheriff: §12-12-906(a)(2) separately requires anyone who would be required to register in the convicting jurisdiction to register in Arkansas, regardless of conviction date | Stow must register; §12-12-906(a)(2) applies and is unambiguous |
| Due-process (vagueness/fair notice) challenge | Stow: statute is vague under Johnson v. United States and fails to give fair notice | Sheriff: §12-12-906(a)(2) is clear and definite; statute is regulatory/nonpunitive | Due-process challenge rejected; statute is not unconstitutionally vague |
| Equal-protection challenge | Stow: reading §§905 and 906 separately creates retroactive disparity between in-state and out-of-state offenders | Sheriff: classification is rationally related to public-safety objectives and prevents forum shopping | Equal-protection challenge rejected under rational-basis review |
| Right to travel | Stow: registration burdens travel and residence choices | Sheriff: registration does not prohibit travel or residency and is comparable to other registration regimes upheld by courts | Right-to-travel challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammock v. State, 322 S.W.3d 22 (2009) (§12-12-906(a)(2) requires out-of-state registrants to register in Arkansas)
- Ark. Dep’t of Corr. v. Bailey, 247 S.W.3d 851 (2007) (Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act is regulatory/nonpunitive)
- Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (recognizing sex offenders as a serious public-safety concern)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (void-for-vagueness/fair-notice standard)
- United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2009) (SORNA registration does not violate right to travel)
- Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (notification/registration requirements did not violate right to travel)
- Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, 931 S.W.2d 426 (1996) (order denying summary judgment generally not appealable)
- Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Dep’t, 5 S.W.3d 402 (1999) (courts generally uphold constitutionality of registration statutes)