In the Interest of Justin B.
747 S.E.2d 774
S.C.2013Background
- Appellant Justin B., a minor under seventeen, challenges lifetime electronic monitoring under S.C. Code § 23-3-540 for CSC-First.
- Section 23-3-540 requires electronic monitoring for the duration of time an offender remains on the sex offender registry; CSC-First offenders register for life.
- The statute allows a petition for release from monitoring after ten years, but it excludes CSC-First offenders from that review.
- Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for CSC-First in family court and ordered to register and comply with electronic monitoring.
- The issue is whether lifetime electronic monitoring for a juvenile violates the Eight Amendment or state Const. protections, given the juvenile status.
- The court ultimately finds the monitoring regime non-punitive and civil, but requires judicial review of continued monitoring under existing framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is lifetime electronic monitoring for a juvenile a punishment? | B. argues monitoring is punishment. | State contends monitoring is civil/regulatory. | Monitoring is civil, not punishment. |
| Does the regime violate the Eighth Amendment or SC Const. by applying to a juvenile? | B. cites cruel/unusual punishment for juveniles. | Regulatory scheme serves public safety. | Not unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. |
| Must Appellant have a periodic judicial review of ongoing monitoring? | Judicial review is required for continued monitoring. | Review provisions exist for other offenses; Dykes controls. | Appellant entitled to judicial review after ten years under Dykes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (civil, non-punitive purpose of sex offender registration upheld; non-punitive effects)
- Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6th Cir. 2007) (registration/electronic monitoring not punitive; ex post facto discussed)
- United States v. Under Seal, 709 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2013) (juvenile SORNA context; non-punitive regulatory framework)
- State v. Dykes, 403 S.C. 499 (S.C. 2013) (upheld judicial review for monitoring; cure for lifelong electronic monitoring issue)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (recognition of sex offender threat; relevance to civil/regulatory analysis)
- Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1963) (factors for punishing vs. civil regulatory schemes)
- Smith v. Doe (not to be confused with Smith v. Doe above), 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (see above for identical citation referenced in analysis)
- State v. Walls, 348 S.C. 26 (S.C. 2002) (sex offender registration non-punitive)