799 S.E.2d 675
S.C.2017Background
- Justin B., age 15, was adjudicated delinquent for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a five-year-old; he admitted to multiple sexual acts.
- Family court ordered mandatory lifetime sex-offender registration and lifetime electronic monitoring under South Carolina law.
- Justin B. challenged the mandatory lifetime registration and monitoring for juveniles as unconstitutional; family court overruled and imposed the statutory requirements.
- The State certified the appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which affirmed the family court’s ruling.
- The Court treated the registry and monitoring statutes as civil, non-punitive measures aimed at public safety and aiding law enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roper v. Simmons requires rethinking juvenile treatment under the registry | Roper’s recognition of juveniles’ diminished culpability and transience of character supports distinguishing juveniles from adults for lifetime registration | Registry is non-punitive and serves public-safety/law-enforcement purposes; Roper (death-penalty context) does not change rational-basis analysis | Rejected — Roper does not alter prior holdings that lifetime registration/monitoring is rationally related to non-punitive legislative goals |
| Whether parens patriae bars mandatory lifetime registration/monitoring | Mandatory lifetime requirements conflict with the State’s duty to protect children as parens patriae | Parens patriae is a legislative policy; how to implement it is for the Legislature; registry also protects children as victims | Rejected — parens patriae is not a constitutional basis to strike the statutes; legislature’s policy choices control |
| Whether the Children’s Code purpose conflicts with mandatory juvenile registration | The Children’s Code’s rehabilitative/protective purposes conflict with treating juveniles like adults for lifetime registration | Statute expressly applies to persons regardless of age; Legislature may rationally treat juveniles differently in different contexts | Rejected — no constitutional conflict; statute’s age-neutral language and rational relation suffice |
| Whether public availability of Justin B.’s registry entry (unlike Ronnie A.) changes due-process analysis | Public listing increases reputational harm and supports recognizing a liberty interest for juveniles | Reputation is not a constitutionally protected liberty interest; balancing of interests is for the Legislature | Rejected — public availability does not create a protected liberty interest; Paul v. Davis controls |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walls, 348 S.C. 26, 558 S.E.2d 524 (2002) (registry is non-punitive and intended to protect public and aid law enforcement)
- Hendrix v. Taylor, 353 S.C. 542, 579 S.E.2d 320 (2003) (applies rational-basis review to registry classifications; registry non-punitive)
- In re Ronnie A., 355 S.C. 407, 585 S.E.2d 311 (2003) (juvenile lifetime registration held non-punitive; no liberty interest implicated)
- In re Justin B., 405 S.C. 391, 747 S.E.2d 774 (2013) (electronic monitoring scheme is civil and rationally related to public-safety objectives; judicial review available)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles have diminished culpability for Eighth Amendment capital-punishment analysis)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputation alone is not a constitutionally protected liberty interest)