Reimers v. State Ex Rel. Department of Corrections
2011 OK CIV APP 83
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Erick L. Reimers was convicted in 1992 of indecent exposure (suspended sentence of five years) and completed DOC supervision in 1997, registering for two additional years and then ceasing registration in 1999.
- OSORA amendments in 1997 increased initial registration to 10 years with DOC and 5 years with local agency for certain offenders; later amendments created 15-year registration periods based on offender levels.
- Plaintiff moved to Bethany near a school; amendments restricting residence within 2,000 feet of a school affected him.
- Defendants attempted to enforce amendments in 2008–2009, resulting in charges for failure to register; Plaintiff challenged the amendments as unconstitutional ex post facto and sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
- Trial court dismissed the first suit and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the second suit; Plaintiff appealed in two companion cases; the court treats these together and reverses the trial court's rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reimers must comply with OSORA amendments enacted after his sentence | Reimers argues amendments are retroactive and apply to him | DOC/COB contend amendments may be applied to enforcement | Amendments are substantive and not retroactive; do not apply to Plaintiff |
| Whether DOC and COB are proper parties to compel action | Names individuals or other entities; improper parties? | DOC and COB are proper parties to seek relief against enforcement | DOC and COB are proper parties; suit may proceed |
| Effect of the trial court’s 2008 order Clarifying Sex Offender Status | Order is final and binding, shielding him from registration | Order was void for lack of jurisdiction and not binding | Order not binding; cannot rely on it to avoid registration; relief based on current law warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Board Of County Commissioners, 952 P.2d 492 (Okla. 1997) (prudential restraint; avoid addressing constitutional issues when relief is available on other grounds)
- State v. Smith, unpublished summary opinion (Oct. 28, 2010) (Okla. Crim. App.) (persuasive analysis on retroactivity of statutes; not official reporter)
- CNA Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 148 P.3d 874 (Okla. 2006) (retroactivity requires clear legislative intent; substantive changes not retroactive without express intent)
- Welch v. Armer, 776 P.2d 847 (Okla. 1989) (distinguishes substantive vs. remedial changes for retroactivity)
- Sudbury v. Deterding, 19 P.3d 856 (Okla. 2001) (recognizes substantive changes require retroactive express legislative intent)
- Frazier v. Bryan Mem'l Hosp. Auth., 775 P.2d 281 (Okla. 1989) (standard for dismissal; de novo review of legal sufficiency)