Doe v. Toelke
Citation | 389 S.W.3d 165 |
Decision Date | 18 December 2012 |
Docket Number | No. SC 92380.,SC 92380. |
Parties | John DOE, Respondent, v. Franklin County Sheriff Gary F. TOELKE, Defendant, Col. Ron Replogle, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
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.
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.
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, Missouri courts routinely interpret and apply federal law, including the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Hershberger, Misc. No. 1
...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
...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
...imposes an independent obligation requiring respondents to register as sex offenders in Missouri." Keathley, 290 S.W.3d at 720; Toelke, 389 S.W.3d at 167. "[MO-]SORA registration requirements apply to any person who 'has been' required to register as a sex offender pursuant to federal law."......
-
Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police
...argued that the new statute was unconstitutional as applied to him due to its retrospective operation. In addressing the offender's argument, Toelke initially noted that "[§] provides that the lifetime registration requirements of '[MO-SORA] shall apply to' any person who meets certain cond......