AK- Offender won't have to register

Old article but worth a read: This is a State Supreme Court decision based on state Constitution and therefore not precedent elsewhere; to our knowledge Alaska has not done anything about this, rightfully so.

7-28-2008 Alaska:

ALASKA SUPREME COURT: Convict argued law should not be applied retroactively.

An anonymous man who has been fighting Alaska's sex offender registration law since the mid-1990's when it was first enacted has finally won.

He doesn't have to register, but most others still do.

Known variously in federal and state lawsuits as James Rowe and John Doe, the unnamed man is a child molester who had been convicted, sentenced, done all his prison time and most of his probation by 1994 when Gov. Wally Hickel signed the registry into law. It was retroactive to 1984.

The law requires all convicted sex offenders to provide Alaska State Troopers with a current address and other identifying information, including updates from one to four times a year -- some for the rest of their lives. The information, along with the convict's record and physical description, are made accessible to the public, including online.

Doe-Rowe filed suit with others in federal court in Anchorage the day after Hickel signed the law. He argued it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it was unreasonable search and seizure, and that it violated his right to privacy.

But his main argument was that the law was not in effect when he committed his crimes, that it was punishment applied to him retroactively. In general, retroactive laws are called "ex post facto" and are barred by both the U.S. and the Alaska constitutions.

It took years, but the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Doe-Rowe lost.

Alaska and other states with similar laws argued that they were not punishment, but merely regulations used to keep track of sex offenders for the protection of the public.

Each federal court that ruled on the case reversed the ruling of the previous court, an indication of how contentious the issue is. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the states, concluding the registration requirement was not an "ex post facto" punishment.

So Doe-Rowe started over. In 2005 he filed suit in state court, arguing that the Alaska Constitution offers stronger protection of individual liberties than the federal constitution.

Doe-Rowe lost in Anchorage Superior Court and appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

In a 52-page split decision issued Friday, the court voted 2-1 that forced public registration is punishment as well as regulation, and cannot be added retroactively to the sentence of someone who committed their crime before the law existed. Two justices did not participate in the case and Chief Justice Dana Fabe disagreed with the conclusion.

Justices Warren Matthews and Robert Estaugh particularly faulted the sweeping effect of the law, noting that it applies equally to all people convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the severity of the crime, the success of their rehabilitation, or their continuing danger to the public.

Ex-offenders lose jobs and housing because of the registry, the justices noted. There is no way to petition to be allowed to stop registering, or to limit registration information to legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Even someone who becomes physically incapacitated and therefore incapable of committing another offense must keep signing up, they said.

Although the aims of the registration law are "undeniably legitimate and important," Estaugh wrote, "Alaska's statute is excessive in relation to the state's interest in public safety."

In her dissent, Fabe said her colleagues did not offer convincing reasons for coming to a different conclusion than the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friday's decision relieves Doe-Rowe of the obligation to register, but the law remains in effect for those convicted of covered crimes committed after August 1994, when the law took effect. ..Source.. by SHEILA TOOMEY