887 F.3d 737
6th Cir.2018Background
- Julie Hautzenroeder, a former high‑school teacher, was convicted in Ohio of sexual battery and classified as a Tier III sex offender with lifetime registration and notification duties under Ohio law.
- Most of her two‑year prison sentence was suspended; she was released and completed community control, but the Tier III registration obligations continued indefinitely.
- She filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition arguing her conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence and challenging the ongoing registration regime as custodial for habeas jurisdiction purposes.
- The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting Hautzenroeder was not “in custody” when she filed because her sentence and supervision had fully expired.
- The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; Hautzenroeder appealed and a certificate of appealability was granted on the custody question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner was “in custody” under § 2254 when her sentence and supervision had ended but SORNA obligations remained | Hautzenroeder: lifetime Tier III registration, public dissemination, residency limits, and criminal penalties for noncompliance impose severe restraints comparable to parole and therefore constitute custody | State: those requirements are collateral consequences, not severe restraints; petitioner’s sentence and supervision expired so federal habeas jurisdiction is lacking | Held: Not in custody; § 2254 jurisdiction absent because SORNA obligations are collateral consequences rather than custody |
| Whether expanded reporting and update duties under Ohio’s SORNA materially differ from prior law to create custody | Hautzenroeder: SORNA’s broader and deeper reporting requirements chill movement and daily life | State: SORNA increases are quantitative, not qualitative; no restriction on movement or lawful activity | Held: Reporting increases are not qualitatively different; do not create custody |
| Whether public dissemination and online database create punitive, liberty‑depriving consequences amounting to custody | Hautzenroeder: publicity stigmatizes, harms employment and parenting, exposes to harassment, producing custody‑level restraint | State: dissemination serves public safety and is a collateral consequence; humiliation alone is insufficient | Held: Publicization is nonpunitive collateral consequence; not custody |
| Whether residency restrictions and criminal penalties for noncompliance create continuous supervisory control akin to parole | Hautzenroeder: 1,000‑foot residency restriction and felonious penalty for failure to register force constant fear and restrict habitation | State: residency limits affect only portions of areas and do not confine to a particular house or community; criminal penalties arise from a new offense, not the original conviction | Held: Residency limits and potential future prosecution do not amount to present custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (custody exists where supervision places severe restraints on liberty)
- Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973) (habeas remedy reserved for severe restraints on individual liberty)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (once sentence expired, collateral consequences do not create custody)
- Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) (collateral consequences include loss of civil rights and reputational injuries)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (internet publication of registration information is nonpunitive when designed to protect public safety)
- Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (reputation injuries alone do not constitute deprivation of a liberty interest)
- Leslie v. Randle, 296 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2002) (Ohio sex‑offender registration pre‑2007 did not render petitioner in custody)
- Does #1–5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) (Ex Post Facto analysis: retroactive application of SORNA may be punitive)
- Steverson v. Summers, 258 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2001) (de novo review applies to subject‑matter jurisdiction in habeas context)
- Brott v. United States, 858 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2017) (burden on party opposing dismissal to establish jurisdiction)
- Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1987) (loss of professional license and other collateral consequences do not create custody)
- Wilson v. Flaherty, 689 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012) (sex‑offender registration requirements are not custody)
- Calhoun v. Attorney General of Colo., 745 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014) (registration requirements are remedial and noncustodial)