Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Dept. of Correction

Dist. Ct. erred in granting motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs (individuals residing in Indiana, who were convicted of sexual offender crimes prior to passage of Indiana Sexual Offender Act (SORA), and who were required to register as sex offenders in another state), in action alleging that SORA’s requirement that they register as sex offenders after they moved to Indiana based upon out-of-state registration requirement was unconstitutional, since it violated their right to travel under Privileges or Immunities Clause, their right to equal protection under 14th Amendment, and Article I’s prohibition on ex post facto laws. While plaintiffs argued that SORA violated their right to travel by treating them differently based on their length of residency in Indiana, Ct. of Appeals found that SORA does not discriminate based on residency where SORA obligated all sex offenders, both old and new residents, to register based on their prior convictions. Fact that registration obligation came from different state did not require different result. Ct. also found that SORA did not violate federal Ex Post Facto Clause because SORA is not punitive in nature, where: (1) SORA does not actually inflict what is historically and traditionally considered as punishment; (2) restrictions/restraints on plaintiffs residing in certain areas under SORA was not tantamount to banishment; and (3) aim of SORA of advancing public safety has rational connection to non-punitive purpose. Ct. remanded matter back to Dist. Ct. for reconsideration of plaintiff’s equal protection claim under rational basis standard, where Dist. Ct.’s strict scrutiny standard did not apply, since SORA did not violate any fundamental right such as right to travel. (Dissent filed.)