Erroneous Sex Registration

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Paul Murphy v. Deborah Rychlowski, et al.

Case No.: 16-1662

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and WILLIAMS, Cir‐ cuit Judges.

Focus: Erroneous Sex Registration

One cannot deny the stigmatizing effect of being erroneously placed on a registry. See Schepers, 691 F.3d at 914. Nonetheless, the second and third factors weigh in favor of our conclusion that the process that Murphy received was sufficient. The risk of erroneous registration is low—the statute is based upon one’s registration status, a status which re‐ quires a criminal conviction. While Murphy argues that the fact that the Department has reversed itself twice is evidence that the statute’s application is not straightforward, he misses the point. Mistakes can happen in any process. But under Wisconsin law, individuals who are placed on the registry have already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest their status, thereby protecting against an erroneous deprivation. And, this is not a case in which there is no process at all to challenge an erroneous listing on the registry. Rather, Murphy was able to do so by contacting the Department, whose address and phone number were clearly listed at the top of the notification letter he received in February 2009.

Furthermore, the government’s interest here cannot be understated, an assertion that Murphy seems to concede. See Appellant’s Br. at 40 (“The district court said, no doubt correctly, that the state interest behind sex offender registration pro‐ grams like Wisconsin’s was to protect people, especially children, from sex offenders.”). “Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation,” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32 (2002), and registration programs, such as the one Wisconsin has enacted, are aimed at protecting the public. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, about 12 to 24% of sex offenders reoffend. Center for Effective Public Policy, Fact Sheet: What You Need to Know, CENTER FOR SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT, http://www.csom.org/pubs/needtoknow_fs.pdf (last visited July 31 2017). Therefore, the government has a real and justified interest in ensuring that the public has the ability to access this registry information. This interest, coupled with the low probability of erroneous deprivation, lead us to conclude that the process Murphy received was constitutionally adequate.

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.