A Minnesota man must register as a sex offender even though he has not been convicted of a sex crime, the federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled yesterday. That ruling "turns reason and fairness on its head," wrote Judge C. Arlen Beam, who nonetheless concurred in the unanimous decision of the three-judge panel of the court.
The case arose from an encounter in a bar in 1998. Brian Gunderson went home with a woman he met there and, according to her, assaulted and raped her. He was charged two days later with sexual assault.
But the physical evidence collected by the police did not support the woman's accusation of rape. Judge Beam wrote, "The police investigation clearly established a lack of sexual contact between Mr. Gunderson and the complaining woman."
The original criminal complaint was dropped, and Mr. Gunderson pleaded guilty to a new one charging him with assault. He received a 15-month suspended sentence and three years of probation.
State officials later told Mr. Gunderson that he must register as a sex offender under a state law that requires it whenever someone is convicted of a sexual offense "or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances."
Mr. Gunderson complied, providing the state with fingerprints, a photograph and information about his residence, employer and car. He also sued, saying that making him register violated his constitutional rights. Lower courts ruled against him, and yesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed.
The Eighth Circuit said it was bound by a 1999 decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in which a defendant charged with a sex crime was required to register after pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The federal court also held that including people who are not sexual predators in a registry of sex offenders does not violate their fundamental constitutional rights.
Yesterday's decision also discounted the harm registration would cause to Mr. Gunderson's reputation, noting that the Minnesota registry is used for law enforcement purposes and is typically not available to the public. But if Mr. Gunderson does not update his address in the registry, information about him may be released to the public.
Bradford Colbert, Mr. Gunderson's lawyer, said yesterday's decision was troubling.
"It flies in the face of everything we believe in: the presumption of innocence, the right to trial by jury," Mr. Colbert said.
Mr. Colbert added that his client had no way to clear his name, saying, "He's had no chance to prove his innocence, much less to have the state prove his guilt."
The appeals court judges appeared sympathetic to Mr. Gunderson even as they ruled against him.
"We acknowledge the statute may lead to unfair results in some cases," Judge Kermit E. Bye wrote. "We note, for example, the statute would require registration of a person accused of both a predatory offense and a nonpredatory offense arising out of the same set of circumstances who exercised his right to a trial and was acquitted of the predatory offense but convicted on the nonpredatory one."
"While perhaps unfair," Judge Bye added, "under the precedents we must apply, we discern no constitutional impediment to the Legislature's decision." ..News Source.. by NY Times
No comments:
Post a Comment