NV- Sex offender ruling challenged

5-6-2008 Nevada:

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — A lower court ruling that part of a new law on sex offenders is unconstitutional will be appealed by Clark County prosecutors to the Nevada Supreme Court — and a public defender plans a cross-appeal aimed at keeping the law off the books.

Deputy Clark County District Attorney Jonathan Vanboskerck said he filed a notice of appeal after Clark County Family Court Judge William Voy’s recent decision against part of the law passed by the 2007 Legislature.

Deputy Clark County Public Defender Susan Roske said Tuesday she’s cross-appealing even though Voy’s decision was one she sought. Roske said part of her argument on the constitutionality of the law was rejected, and her cross-appeal preserves that argument for future litigation in the event the Supreme Court overturns Voy.

The 2007 law, AB579, based on the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed in 2006, included many teenage sex offenders 14 and older with adults under requirements for sex offender registration and community notification.

The federal law, named for a six-year-old who was abducted from a Florida shopping mall in 1981 and later found slain, cut off certain grant funds to states unless they included in their registries juveniles who committed sex offenses when they were as young as 14.

The registration provision has been criticized by Human Rights Watch, a leading human rights group, which says no juveniles — and no other offenders considered to pose low future risk — should be registered.

Lawyers for the public defender’s office and for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada sought the ruling from Voy, arguing that the new state law is unconstitutional. It’s supposed to take effect starting July 1, but is likely to be delayed as a result of the ruling.

Voy held that the law section dealing with juvenile offenders violates constitutional due process guarantees because it lacks a rational basis for extending to 14-year-olds but not to someone who may be younger but more dangerous.

--This is the key point in Voy's ruling, in essence, why chose the age of 14 as a cutoff point? Voy is not saying it should be extended to those under 14, instead, what is the magic about 14 years old?

That age was not chosen by state lawmakers but is written into the Adam Walsh Act by Congress. On appeal this could focus on the age of reason which nrings in the whole frontal lobe issue. It will be interesting to see how the Nevada Supreme court rules.

Now, since the appeal will be a ruling by the state's highest court, it will effect whether or not the state loses funding if the state does not comply with the Adam Walsh Act, also written into that Act.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has said she anticipates the 2007 law will be revised during the 2009 legislative session. ..more.. by Valley News Staff