Doe v. Keathley, No. SC 89727.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtRichard B. Teitelman
Citation290 S.W.3d 719
PartiesJohn DOE I, et al., Respondents, v. Major James KEATHLEY, Appellant, Thomas Phillips and James Kanatzar, Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. SC 89727.
Decision Date16 June 2009
290 S.W.3d 719
John DOE I, et al., Respondents,
v.
Major James KEATHLEY, Appellant,
Thomas Phillips and James Kanatzar, Defendants.
No. SC 89727.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
June 16, 2009.
Rehearing Denied September 1, 2009.

Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Jeremiah J. Morgan, Deputy Solicitor General, Michael Pritchett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.

Arthur A. Benson, Jamie K. Lansford, Kansas City, MO, for Respondents.

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Judge.


James F. Keathley, superintendent of the Missouri Highway Patrol (Appellant), appeals from a summary judgment in favor of several Missouri residents who claim that that requiring them to register as sex offenders under Missouri's Sex Offender Registration Act, sections 589.400 to 589.420,1 violates the state constitutional bar on the enactment of retrospective state laws set forth in article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. The judgment is reversed.

FACTS

Respondents are Missouri residents who allege they are required to register as sex offenders because they previously were convicted of crimes that make them subject to the sex offender registration provisions of sections 589.400 to 589.425.2 The

290 S.W.3d 720

registration requirements became effective January 1, 1995. On August 28, 2000, the registration scheme was amended to require registration for misdemeanor offenses under chapter 566.

Respondents I, II, III, IV, V, VIII and IX were convicted of sex crimes before January 1, 1995, in other states or in a military court. Respondents VII and XI pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sex offenses in Missouri prior to August 28, 2000. All respondents were required to register pursuant to section 589.400.1(7). Section 589.400.1(7) requires registration of Missouri residents: (1) who have been convicted of an offense in any other state, or foreign country or under federal or military law that is subject to sex offender registration under Missouri law; or (2) who are required to register as a sex offender in another state or under federal or military law.

Respondents filed a declaratory judgment action in which they asserted that section 589.400.1(7) violates the state constitutional bar on the enactment of laws that are retrospective in operation. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 13. The circuit court entered summary judgment for the respondents. Appellant argues that article I, section 13 does not apply and, alternatively, that respondents are required to register...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Doe v. Keathley, No. WD 72121.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 26, 2011
    ...date, and that the federal statute is not subject to the Missouri Constitution's prohibition on retrospective laws. Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. banc 2009). See also Droney v. Fitch, No. 4:10–CV–114 CAS, 2011 WL 890704, at *3–*4 (E.D.Mo. March 14, 2011). Doe filed a petition se......
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...has been enacted and may be subject to the [state constitutional] ban on the enactment of retrospective state laws." Doe I v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. 2009). The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently qualified its holding, noting that Missouri's registration statute specifically inc......
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. Nos. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...has been enacted and may be subject to the [state constitutional] ban on the enactment of retrospective state laws.” Doe I v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo.2009). The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently qualified its holding, noting that Missouri's registration statute specifically incl......
  • Bacon v. Neer, No. 10–1104.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 1, 2011
    ...under SORNA” are not “exempt from registration by virtue of article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution.” Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720–21 (Mo. banc 2009). Following this decision, the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department informed Bacon that he was required to register unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Doe v. Keathley, No. WD 72121.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 26, 2011
    ...date, and that the federal statute is not subject to the Missouri Constitution's prohibition on retrospective laws. Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. banc 2009). See also Droney v. Fitch, No. 4:10–CV–114 CAS, 2011 WL 890704, at *3–*4 (E.D.Mo. March 14, 2011). Doe filed a petition se......
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...has been enacted and may be subject to the [state constitutional] ban on the enactment of retrospective state laws." Doe I v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. 2009). The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently qualified its holding, noting that Missouri's registration statute specifically inc......
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. Nos. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...has been enacted and may be subject to the [state constitutional] ban on the enactment of retrospective state laws.” Doe I v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo.2009). The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently qualified its holding, noting that Missouri's registration statute specifically incl......
  • Bacon v. Neer, No. 10–1104.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 1, 2011
    ...under SORNA” are not “exempt from registration by virtue of article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution.” Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720–21 (Mo. banc 2009). Following this decision, the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department informed Bacon that he was required to register unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT