RI- R.I. Supreme Court rejects sex offender’s risk challenge

Important to note, this decision pertains ONLY to Thopmas Germane. Within the court's decision is this comment "For the reasons set forth below, it is our view that a portion of chapter 37.1 of title 11, in some instances, could be irreconcilable with the constitutionally protected right to procedural due process. Nevertheless, in view of what actually transpired in this case, it is clear to us that Mr. Germane himself was not in fact deprived of that, or any other, constitutional right (Page 4)." Accordingly, others need to search for that "irreconcilable constitutionally protected right to procedural due process" and maybe win their case. Further, it is unknown whether RI has yet incorporated the Adam Walsh Act's (AWA) classification system. If so, the RI may be pointing to a hole in AWA.

6-2-2009 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Supreme Court (State -v- Thomas Germane)on Tuesday rejected a convicted sex offender’s challenge of his classification by the state as presenting the highest risk of committing such crimes again.

The state classifies offenders at three levels. Level III, for those considered posing the highest risk, requires a broad range of notifications to the public about the offender’s whereabouts after release from prison. Level II requires a narrower range of notifications, and Level I requires none.

Several years ago, a state review panel assigned a Level III classification to Thomas Germane, who had been convicted of several sexual assaults on adult women. Germane appealed that classification to the Superior Court, which after a hearing upheld the classification.

Germane, in appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court, contended among other things that he had not been afforded a thorough hearing before the lower court.

But the high court concluded that Germane “was afforded adequate due process.”

The court acknowledged that the state law governing such appeal hearings contained the potential for violating an offender’s constitutional rights. One provision, it said, grants the Superior Court the authority to limit testimony and cross examination in hearing appeals by offenders — and thus the appellant’s right to a “meaningful hearing.”

But, it said, this did not happen in Germane’s case.

In the same ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the state Sex Offender Board of Review for the sparse documentation of its decision classifying Germane as a Level III offender.

Still, the court said a “careful reading” shows the review board “did, at a basic level, consider all the factors” required in guidelines for determining an offender’s risk of committing such crimes again.

It noted that the board of review did not have the most up-to-date evaluations of Germane and included a statement by the victim of an assault for which Germane had not been charged.

The Superior Court, it said, “cured these deficiencies” by allowing Germane to introduce evidence that contested the review board’s conclusions. ..Source.. by Michael P. McKinney, Journal Staff Writer