ME- Trial of offender registry likely

11-20-2008 Maine:

AUGUSTA -- A trial is likely in a case where 30 Maine people convicted of sex offenses decades ago seek to keep their pictures, addresses, educational sites, and workplaces off the Internet.

Justice Michaela Murphy said Wednesday in Kennebec County Superior Court that she expects the challenge to the state's Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act to go to trial.

"The law court seemed to require this court to look at each individual plaintiff and make a decision on each individual plaintiff," Murphy told the 16 attorneys in the court room. Each attorney represented anywhere from one to 14 sex offenders known publicly as John Does 1 through 30, and four more lawyers represented the defendants -- state, county and municipal officials.

The John Does have sued the state, district attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs, seeking to remain relatively anonymous. The criminal convictions are public record. Most of those convictions, however, predate the state registration law, which has raised ex post facto questions.

The complex civil case has already seen two rulings from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and more are anticipated. The issue of reconfiguring the registry also is being looked at by a legislative committee.

Maine's law says people sentenced for most sex offenses on or after Jan. 1, 1982, must register as 10-year registrants or lifetime registrants. Previously, registration was required of those sentenced on or after June 29, 1992.

The John Does say registration and the subsequent public posting of their personal information and convictions on the Internet will subject them to irreparable harm, public disdain, possible job loss and certain business loss.

Several say they would be prohibited under local ordinances from attending events at schools their children attend.

Murphy heard arguments Wednesday in eight cases where the John Does want to remain off the registry while the court proceedings are under way. She has granted that request in some cases so far. She also set up a schedule to handle for future proceedings.

She postponed arguments in one case where the plaintiff, who is suing without a lawyer, did not appear.

"This is a bit unusual because he is appearing under a pseudonym," Murphy told the two women there on his behalf. "He defaults if he's not here."

Attorney Leonard Sharon, representing three men asking for temporary relief from the registration requirement, said his clients were convicted after 1982, and "have had no subsequent conduct that would place them on the sex offender registry."

He said two of them have young children and all three men work in the community. "The harm they would suffer would be irreparable," he said.

Attorney Ronald Bourget said his client, who was convicted 18 years ago of attempted gross sexual assault, has custody of his young daughter, an arrangement approved by state officials, and attends various school events.

Bourget asked Murphy to consider the interest and impact on the girl if her father appears on the registry.

Bourget told the judge the man would have to tell everyone in at a youth basketball event he was on the registry.

"It would be terrible for the child," Bourget said.

Laura Yustak Smith, an assistant attorney general who argued on behalf of all the defendants, told the judge the John Does focus on one aspect of the registry law.

"What they complain about most is Internet posting," Yustak Smith said. She said it remains unclear about whether the posting causes the difficulty or the fact that the person has been convicted of a sex crime.

"Registration itself should be OK under this court's decision and others across the country," she said. Yustak Smith said the registration law is designed to "protect the public from potential danger" and that the posting enhances public access to the information.

Attorney Gary Prolman said his client, who was sentenced in 1994 for a sex offense committed two years earlier, has no other criminal record and does not pose a danger to the public. If registration was a requirement in 1994, he said his client might have opted to go to trial rather than plead to a sex offense.

"People who entered agreements back then may not have if they thought they would have to register down the road," said Prolman. "Maybe he would have been acquitted." ..News Source.. by BETTY ADAMS