Hendricks v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
349 P.3d 531
Okla.2013Background
- Plaintiff Joseph W. Hendricks was convicted in California in 1982 of the Oklahoma-equivalent offense of lewd or indecent acts to a child and moved to Oklahoma in August 2009.
- Oklahoma's Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), enacted 1989 and amended repeatedly, requires registration for various sex offenders; some provisions distinguish between convictions occurring in Oklahoma and convictions in other jurisdictions.
- Under SORA as interpreted, persons convicted in another jurisdiction before November 1, 1989, must register upon residing in Oklahoma, whereas persons convicted in Oklahoma before that date need not register unless they were still serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole on November 1, 2005.
- Hendricks was informed he must register under SORA, filed for injunctive relief challenging SORA on multiple constitutional grounds (including ex post facto, due process, privileges/immunities, and equal protection), and registered but denied being subject to SORA.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Department; the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed application but limited applicable amendments; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed de novo.
- The Supreme Court found the dispositive issue was equal protection: treating pre-SORA out-of-state convictions differently than pre-SORA in-state convictions lacks a rational basis and may violate equal protection; the case was remanded to determine whether Hendricks was serving a sentence or on probation/parole on November 1, 2005.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying SORA to pre-1989 out-of-state convictions but not to pre-1989 in-state convictions violates Equal Protection | Hendricks: treating him differently solely because his conviction was out-of-state lacks any rational basis and denies equal protection | Department: SORA validly applies to out-of-state pre-SORA convictions to protect public safety and to implement registration uniformly | Court: Classification fails rational-basis review; unequal treatment based solely on conviction jurisdiction is not rationally related to protecting the public and violates Equal Protection (unless Hendricks was still serving sentence/probation/parole on 11/1/2005) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 513 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 2008) (held differing treatment of out-of-state sex offenders without equivalent procedures failed rational-basis review)
- American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 137 P.3d 1215 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (city ordinance treating nonresident sex offenders differently violated equal protection)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (background on state sex offender registration laws and federal standards)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (explains equal protection levels of scrutiny and rational-basis test)