Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Dept. of Correction

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in action that challenged constitutionality of Indiana’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requirement that plaintiffs (individuals who relocated to Indiana from other states) register as sex offenders, where: (1) plaintiffs were registered as sex offenders under other states’ SORAs; and (2) State of Indiana would not require that its own citizens with similar criminal histories register as sex offenders. Ct. of Appeals found that Indiana’s SORA, as applied to plaintiffs, violated their right to travel between states, where Indiana placed exclusive reliance upon another state’s decision to require plaintiffs to register under that state’s SORA, and where Indiana necessarily uses plaintiffs’ travel to Indiana as trigger for its own registration requirement. Moreover, Indiana’s SORA also imposes obligations on plaintiffs that are not imposed on individuals who committed their crimes as residents of Indiana prior to enactment of relevant portions of Indiana’s SORA, and who had maintained citizenship in Indiana. (Dissent filed.)