Court challenge to juvenile sex offender registration laws fails

Juveniles who are convicted of a sex crime in California and are sentenced to state custody can be required to register with police as sex offenders for life, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty and mandatory life sentencing laws cannot be applied to juveniles because of their lesser mental and emotional development. But the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said the same rationale does not apply to state sex offender registration laws, which are meant to protect the public rather than to punish the offender.

The laws are “intended to assist law enforcement to maintain surveillance of (repeat) sex offenders, and have no purpose to punish for past misconduct,” the court said, quoting a 2004 California Supreme Court decision in an adult registration case.

The case involved a Sacramento County youth, identified as J.C., who was placed in foster homes after being abused as a child. At age 12, the court said, he sodomized a 5-year-old boy. He was then placed on probation, was returned to his mother’s custody and was enrolled in a sex offender treatment program.

He was placed in a group home at age 15 after inappropriately touching his sister, committed another sex offense at 17, then was found in violation of probation and sent to state Division of Juvenile Justice custody, the court said. He is now 20 years old and could be held until age 23, the maximum for a juvenile court sentence.

Under California law, youths sent to state confinement for rape, sodomy, forcible oral copulation or molestation are subject after their release to the same registration requirements as adults who’ve committed the same crimes. They must report to police once a year for life and report each time they change their address. Registration is not required for youths placed in county juvenile halls or local treatment programs.

J.C. challenged the future registration requirement through his lawyer, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive punishment. He contended juveniles are less likely to re-offend than adults and that registration could actually lessen public safety by limiting opportunities to pursue a normal life.

But the court said J.C.’s lawyer had not presented convincing evidence that juveniles were less likely to re-offend — the youth’s “own record of multiple offenses is not particularly supportive of this claim”— and the arguments about public safety “are properly addressed to the Legislature.”

J.C. also contended registration was punitive because police can publicly disclose sex offender status, even though juvenile court records are normally confidential. The court disagreed.

While state law allows police to disclose information about a registered sex offender “when necessary to ensure the public safety,” that law may not apply to juveniles, the court said — and, even if it did, it wouldn’t be punitive. Another statute known as Megan’s Law displays information about sex offenders on a public website, but the state attorney general’s office has interpreted it as not applying to juveniles.

“J.C. has failed to establish that juvenile sex offender registration is punishment,” Justice Elena Duarte said in the 3-0 ruling.