State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Story County, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 13

Buchwald, age 18, pled guilty in 2002 to lascivious acts with a child and was tried as an adult.
Upon release in 2004, he registered as a sex offender for the statutory period and remained on the registry without incident until February 2011.
In 2009 Iowa amended the registry statute to add an modification provision, Iowa Code § 692A.128, with prerequisites including risk assessment and supervision status.
Buchwald petitioned for modification in 2011, alleging he met the prerequisites and requested a risk assessment; the district court ordered the assessment.
The State argued subsection 6 applies only to juveniles; the district court initially granted modification under subsection 1, then the State sought certiorari.
The supreme court ultimately held subsection 6 governs eligibility for modification for those not under supervision, and that Buchwald could be eligible, though the district court’s reasoning under subsection 6 was incorrect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether modification is available under subsection 1 for someone no longer under supervision	Buchwald should be eligible because subsection 1 is permissive and applies to those no longer needing supervision.	Subsection 1 requires current supervision; Buchwald is not under supervision at filing.	Subsection 1 does not govern Buchwald's case; court adopts interpretation under subsection 6.
Whether subsection 6 permits modification for offenders not under juvenile or correctional supervision	Adjudication in subsection 6 includes both adult and juvenile adjudications, broadening eligibility.	Adjudication in subsection 6 is limited to juvenile adjudications.	Subsection 6 grants modification eligibility to those no longer under supervision with prerequisites fulfilled.
Interpretation of 'adjudication' in subsection 6	Adjudication should be read broadly to include both adult convictions and juvenile adjudications.	Adjudication should be read narrowly to refer to juvenile adjudications.	Adjudication in subsection 6 is broad enough to include adult convictions for purposes of modification.
Constitutional challenges to the statutory interpretation	Restrictive reading would violate due process and equal protection.	Constitutional challenges are foreclosed by precedent and statutory structure.	Constitutional challenges are addressed and the statutory interpretation avoids constitutional concerns; Buchwald is eligible under the correct reading.

State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 812 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012) (certiorari standard in reviewing district court actions)
State v. Willard, 756 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 2008) (registry-related public health and safety considerations)
Seering, 701 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2005) (protective purpose of registry and related precedent)
S.M.M., 558 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1997) (statutory interpretation in registry context)
Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa 2012) (interpretation and statutory reading principles)