Doe v. Toelke, No. SC 92380.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtRICHARD B. TEITELMAN
Citation389 S.W.3d 165
PartiesJohn DOE, Respondent, v. Franklin County Sheriff Gary F. TOELKE, Defendant, Col. Ron Replogle, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant.
Decision Date18 December 2012
Docket NumberNo. SC 92380.

389 S.W.3d 165

John DOE, Respondent,
v.
Franklin County Sheriff Gary F. TOELKE, Defendant,
Col. Ron Replogle, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant.

No. SC 92380.

Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.

Dec. 18, 2012.



Deputy Solicitor General Jeremiah J. Morgan and Mary D. Delworth, both of the attorney general's office, Jefferson City, for the State.

[389 S.W.3d 166]

Matthew A. Radefeld and Tory D. Bernsen of Frank, Juengel & Radefeld PC, St. Louis, for Doe.


RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Chief Justice.

Col. Ronald K. Replogle, superintendent of the state highway patrol, appeals from a declaratory judgment in favor of John Doe, a Missouri resident. The trial court entered a declaratory judgment finding that, as applied to Doe, Missouri's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), sections 589.400 to 589.420, RSMo Supp.2011, violates the bar against the enactment of retrospective state laws set forth in article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. The court declined to address the applicability of the federal Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. section 16901, and, therefore, declined to order the defendants to remove Doe's name from the registry and to destroy all registration records.

The judgment is reversed to the extent it holds that the trial court was without authority to address the applicability of SORNA and that the SORA registration requirements violate article I, section 13 as applied to Doe. The judgment is affirmed to the extent that it does not order the defendants to destroy the registration records.

FACTS

In 1983, Doe pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree sexual assault in violation of section 566.040, RSMo Supp.1979. In 1995, SORA became effective, and Doe was required to register as a sex offender. In 2010, Doe filed a declaratory judgment action in which he asserted that SORA violates article I, section 13 and that he was not required to register pursuant to SORNA. Doe also asserted that the defendants were required to remove his name from the registry and to destroy all registration records.

The case was tried on a stipulated record. The circuit court entered a judgment declaring section 589.400 unconstitutional as applied to Doe. The court declined to address the applicability of SORNA and also declined Doe's request for the destruction of records because Doe may be required to register under federal law.

ANALYSIS

Article V, section 14 of the Missouri Constitution provides that Missouri's circuit courts have original jurisdiction over all cases and matters, civil and criminal. When exercising this jurisdiction,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...includes and "appl[ies] to any person who 'has been' required to register as a sex offender pursuant to federal law." Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo. 2012) (emphasis added). Thus, Missouri courts have concluded that "SORNA imposes an independent, federally mandated registration requ......
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. Nos. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...includes and “appl[ies] to any person who ‘has been’ required to register as a sex offender pursuant to federal law.” Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo.2012) (emphasis added). Thus, Missouri courts have concluded that “SORNA imposes an independent, federally mandated registration requi......
  • Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police, ED109734
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 7, 2022
    ...holding that they were not exempt from registration under MO-SORA. Id. at 720-21. Next, the Supreme Court of Missouri in Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. banc 2012), addressed the similar claim of a sex offender who was convicted prior to the enactment of MO-SORA, as he also argued that t......
  • Roe v. Replogle, No. SC 92978.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 1, 2013
    ...right to substantive due process.Standard of Review This Court reviews the constitutional validity of a statute de novo. Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 166 (Mo. banc 2012). A statute is presumed valid and will not be held unconstitutional unless it clearly contravenes a constitutional provi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...includes and "appl[ies] to any person who 'has been' required to register as a sex offender pursuant to federal law." Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo. 2012) (emphasis added). Thus, Missouri courts have concluded that "SORNA imposes an independent, federally mandated registration requ......
  • Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. Nos. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 30, 2014
    ...includes and “appl[ies] to any person who ‘has been’ required to register as a sex offender pursuant to federal law.” Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo.2012) (emphasis added). Thus, Missouri courts have concluded that “SORNA imposes an independent, federally mandated registration requi......
  • Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police, ED109734
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 7, 2022
    ...holding that they were not exempt from registration under MO-SORA. Id. at 720-21. Next, the Supreme Court of Missouri in Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. banc 2012), addressed the similar claim of a sex offender who was convicted prior to the enactment of MO-SORA, as he also argued that t......
  • Roe v. Replogle, No. SC 92978.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 1, 2013
    ...right to substantive due process.Standard of Review This Court reviews the constitutional validity of a statute de novo. Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 166 (Mo. banc 2012). A statute is presumed valid and will not be held unconstitutional unless it clearly contravenes a constitutional provi......
  • 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