MT- Court: Hearing required to classify sex offenders

Here the Montana Sup court in the Sample case, says, a hearing to allow the registrant to oppose the classification is required. Now this is based on Montana law which does not include any changes required by the Adam Walsh Act. Therefore, when Montana trys to enact provisions of AWA, namely the AWA classification method, there is a problem, AWA's classification method conflict with the Sample case. Hence, AWA classifcation method canniot be used. What will the Montana legislature do because without the AWA classification method Montana does not meet AWA compliance. AWA Sec. 125 explains what happens but it is up to the USAG to decide. (A copy of the Sample court decision is available in the SO-News-Group file area)

12-12-2008 Montana:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - The Montana Supreme Court says a convicted sex offender's due process rights were violated when the state Corrections Department classified him as a high-risk offender without giving him a chance to argue against the designation.

The department was following current law when it classified Stephen Samples as a Class 3 offender, considered the most likely to re-offend. The law gives the department administrative authority to make a classification if the trial judge has not done so at the time of sentencing.

But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling Thursday, said the defendant must be given a hearing to oppose the classification. A Class 3 offender must register with authorities every 90 days, while Class 1 and Class 2 offenders must do so only once a year. ..News Source.. by Montana News Station.com