Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Board
298 Ga. 675
| Ga. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Scott Gregory was convicted of obscene Internet contact with a child (a "dangerous sexual offense" under Georgia law) and thus became a sexual offender required to register and comply with related restrictions.
- In 2013 the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board (the Board) classified Gregory as a "sexually dangerous predator" based principally on written clinical evaluations and documentary records; Gregory was never given an administrative evidentiary hearing.
- Gregory timely sought administrative reevaluation (submitting extensive treatment and evaluative records) and, after denial, petitioned the Fulton County Superior Court for judicial review; he submitted additional documentary evidence and requested an evidentiary hearing, which the court denied.
- The sexually dangerous predator classification carries enhanced burdens: lifetime electronic monitoring and GPS tracking (charged to the offender), more frequent registration, and broader employment/residency restrictions, plus stigmatic harms.
- Gregory sued, arguing that classification without an evidentiary hearing deprived him of liberty without due process. The Georgia Supreme Court granted review and considered whether due process requires an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether classification as a "sexually dangerous predator" implicates a protected liberty interest | Gregory: classification imposes stigma, employment/residency limits, increased reporting, and lifetime electronic monitoring — a serious liberty restraint | Board: stigma/reputational harm alone insufficient to create a liberty interest; classification is administrative | Court: Implicates a liberty interest given the combination of stigma, added restrictions, and lifetime bodily-attached electronic monitoring and tracking |
| Whether due process requires an evidentiary hearing before imposing the sexually dangerous predator classification | Gregory: deprivation (lifetime monitoring, restrictions) requires opportunity to present and confront evidence at an evidentiary hearing | Board: existing written-submission procedures and permissive judicial hearing suffice; burden/cost of hearings weigh against entitlement | Court: Mathews balancing requires an evidentiary hearing on request (administrative or judicial) because private interests are substantial and risk of erroneous classification is high |
| Whether a hearing must be provided at both administrative and judicial stages | Gregory: seeks hearing as part of administrative and judicial review | Board: court hearings are permissive; administrative process enough | Court: Only one meaningful evidentiary hearing is required; need not be both administrative and judicial — either suffices if meaningful |
| Remedy where no hearing was held | Gregory: remand for hearing | Board: defend prior process and classification | Court: Reversed superior court; remanded for an evidentiary hearing (trial court may conduct it or Board may adopt administrative hearing procedures) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due-process balancing test for required procedures)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (due process requires hearing where liberty and stigmatizing or invasive consequences follow)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (parole-revocation procedural protections; hearings and confrontation)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (stigma alone insufficient to create protected liberty interest)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (distinguishing interests that warrant due-process protections)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (limits on applying standard civil procedures in prison disciplinary contexts)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (procedural protections depend on nature of interests at stake)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (procedural-due-process violation is not complete until state fails to provide required process)