J. Taylor v. The PSP of the Commonwealth of PA
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 49
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Jeremy Taylor pled guilty in 1994 to three counts of IDSI and began registering as a sexual offender in 2004 under Megan’s Law II; SORNA requires lifetime registration for Tier III offenses.
- Taylor alleges SORNA’s registration and internet notification requirements are unconstitutional ex post facto and violate reputation due process without due process.
- PSP argues Mandamus/Statute of Limitations bar relief and that SORNA’s provisions are non-punitive.
- Petitioner amended petition seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not mandamus, but original jurisdiction remains.
- Court analyzes SORNA’s registration and internet notification provisions, and whether the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protections than the federal constitution.
- Panel sustains some preliminary objections and overrules others, allowing certain claims to proceed while dismissing others with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto challenge to SORNA’s internet notification provision | Taylor argues internet notification is punitive and ex post facto under PA Constitution. | PSP argues SORNA’s requirements are non-punitive and US Supreme Court precedent supports non-punitive nature. | Internet notification not ex post facto under US Constitution; Pennsylvania claim partially unresolved. |
| Procedural due process regarding irrebuttable presumption of risk | irrebuttable presumption violates due process by depriving chance to prove reform. | Court should defer to existing precedent; presumption valid. | Overruled; petitioner may prove universality challenge and entitlement to process. |
| Substantive due process challenge to SORNA | Registration/notification infringe reputation without necessary narrowly tailored means. | Regulatory measures serve public safety; likely narrowly tailored. | Overruled; substantive due process claim survives to be developed. |
| Whether Petitioner states a claim properly under SORNA classification | Petitioner disputes lifetime Tier III classification and breadth of requirements. | classification supported by statute; demurrer appropriate. | Overruled; Petitioner properly pled and may challenge classification. |
| Mandamus vs declaratory relief posture | Petitioner seeks declaratory/injunctive relief though labeled mandamus. | Writ of mandamus not applicable; relief appropriate as declaratory/injunctive. | Petition treated as declaratory judgment/injunctive relief; mandamus defenses overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (internet notification not punitive under US Constitution)
- Coppolino v. Noman, 102 A.3d 1254 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2014) (non-punitive registration requirements; helps define ex post facto scope)
- J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (juvenile due process/reputation; irrebuttable presumption analysis guidance)
- Gaffney, 733 A.2d 616 (Pa. 1999) (Megan’s Law II; broad due process considerations)
- Ackley, 58 A.3d 1284 (Pa.Super. 2012) (internet notification; statutory context for due process)