Case%No.% %! IN%THE%UNITED%STATES%COURT%OF%APPEALS%% FOR%THE%TENTH%CIRCUIT%

Transcription

1 Case%No.% % IN%THE%UNITED%STATES%COURT%OF%APPEALS%% FOR%THE%TENTH%CIRCUIT% % % Juston%Shaw,Plaintiff/Appellant v. Robert%Patton,inhisofficialcapacityasDirectoroftheOklahoma DepartmentofCorrections,Defendant/Appellee OnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt forthewesterndistrictofoklahoma,civb14b124bw TheHonorableLeeWest,UnitedStatesDistrictJudge % APPELLANT S%PRINCIPLE%BRIEF%% BradyR.Henderson,OBA#21212 RyanKiesel,OBA#21254 AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofOklahomaFoundation 3000PaseoDrive OklahomaCity,OK73103 Counsel(for(Plaintiff/Appellant( ( ( ORAL%ARGUMENT%REQUESTED% % %

2 TABLE%OF%CONTENTS% TABLEOFAUTHORITIES.4 STATEMENTOFRELATEDAPPEALS...5 JURISDICTIONALSTATEMENT..5 ISSUESPRESENTEDFORREVIEW..6 GLOSSARY...7 STATEMENTOFTHECASE..8 SUMMARYOFARGUMENT...13 ARGUMENT...15 I. TheOklahomaSexOffenderRegistrationAct(OSORA)isapunitive measureunderfederalconstitutionallaw 15 a. OSORAfeaturespreciselythepunitivesanctionsthatareabsent in constitutionally permissible retroactive sex offender measures..16 b. TheKansas(v.(HendricksandMendoza;Martineztestsdemonstrate thatosoraispunitive.19 c. Punishmentneednotbeexcessiveorcatastrophictoviolatethe ExPostFactoClause..34 1

3 II. TofindOSORAtobenonBpunitiveisinconsistentwithOklahoma s interpretationandadministrationofitsownlaw...37 a. OSORA has been interpreted conclusively to be a punishment scheme and is treated as such by Oklahoma s highest state court..38 b. OSORA is administered and enforced as a creature of criminal, ratherthancivil,law...40 CONCLUSION 43 STATEMENTONORALARGUMENT..45 CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHFED.R.APP.P CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHLOCALRULES.47 CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE.48 ATTACHED ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT FROM WHICH APPEALISTAKEN.[49] 2

4 TABLE%OF%AUTHORITIES% % 21O.S O.S O.S O.S O.S O.S ( Allen(v.(Illinois,478U.S.364(1986)...39( ( Beazell(v.(Ohio,(269U.S.167(1925)....15( ( Bollin(v.(Jones,(349P.3d537(Okla.2013)..38 ( Burk(v.(State(ex(rel.(Department(of(Corrections,349P.3d545(Okla.2013).38( ( Cerniglia(v.(Okla.(Dept.(of(Corrections,349P.3d542(Okla.2013)...38 ( Collins(v.(Youngblood,(497U.S.37(1990)....15,16( ( Commonwealth(v.(Baker,(295S.W.3d437(Ky.2009)....22,23,28( ( Griffin(v.(Wisconsin,483U.S.868,874(1987)...24( ( Hendricks(v.(Jones,(349P.3d531((Okla.2013)...38 Hebert(v.(State(of(Louisiana,(272U.S.312(1926)...39 ( 3

5 Kansas(v.(Hendricks,(521U.S.346(1997)... 19,37,39( ( Kennedy(v.(Mendoza;Martinez,(372U.S.144(1963)..20 Lindsey(v.(Washington,301U.S.397(1937)...39 Luster(v.(State(ex(rel.(Department(of(Corrections,315P.3d386(Okla.2013)..38( Osborn(v.(Okla.(Department(of(Corrections,313P.3d926(Okla.2013)...38 ( Smith(v.(Doe,(538U.S.84(2003)...13,16,17,18,19,20,21,24,26,37 % Starkey(v.(Department(of(Corrections,305P.3d1004(Okla.2013)... 21,22,27,28,29,33,34,38 Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)....38, 39, 40( ( U.S.(v.(Knights,534U.S.112,(2001).. 24 Weaver(v.(Graham,450U.S.24(1981)

6 STATEMENT%OF%RELATED%APPEALS% To Counsel s knowledge, there are no prior or related appeals beforethecourtdealingwiththeissuesorpartiesherein. JURISDICTIONAL%STATEMENT% % Thisactionarisesunder42U.S.C. 1983andArticle1,Section10of theunitedstatesconstitution.anadditionalclaimwasmadebeforethe District Court arising under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it is not at issue in the appeal at this time. The DistrictCourtexercisedjurisdictiononbothclaimspursuantto28U.S.C. 1331and28U.S.C ThisCourtpossessesjurisdictiontoreviewthe finaljudgmentofthedistrictcourt,pursuantto28u.s.c ThefinaljudgmentoftheDistrictCourtwasfiledonMay13,2015, disposingofallparties claimsinthecase.thenoticeofappealwasfiled andservedonjune8,2015,incompliancewithfed.r.app.p.4(a)(1)(a). 5

7 ISSUES%PRESENTED%FOR%REVIEW% % Whether the District Court erred in finding that the retroactive application of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registry Act (OSORA) to Juston Shaw does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause despitetheact s imposition of substantial affirmative restraints and significant governmentalsupervisionakintorestrictedprobationfortheremainder ofmr.shaw slife,asaresultsolelyofhispriorcriminalconvictionfora sexualoffense. 6

8 GLOSSARY% ASORA The Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act (examined by the U.S.SupremeCourtinSmith(v.(Doe). DOC OklahomaDepartmentofCorrections(ofwhichDefendantPatton isdirector) OCPD TheOklahomaCityPoliceDepartment OSORA The Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act (57 O.S. 581B 590.2) SORNA ThefederalSexOffenderRegistrationandNotificationAct(the constitutionalityofwhichisnotatissueinthepresentcase) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 7

9 STATEMENT%OF%THE%CASE% Thisappealpresentsprimarilyalegal,ratherthanfactual,dispute. The following statements are taken from the factual findings of the DistrictCourt,unlessnotedotherwise.ToAppellant sknowledge,noneof thefollowingisinsubstantialdispute. AppellantJustonShawsuedAppelleeRobertPattonfordeclaratory andinjunctiverelieffromaviolationofshaw srightsundertheexpost Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The relevant factual historyofthecasebeginsin1997,whenshawcommittedthecrimeofa felonysexualassaultintexas.onfebruary2,1998,shawpledguiltyand was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Following his release, Shaw lived successively in New Mexico, California, and Louisiana, before coming to Oklahoma with his common law wife, Diane MacFerren, between2008and2009. The couple took up residence first in Oklahoma City, then in Midwest City, Oklahoma. In 2012, following a dispute, a neighbor of Shaw schosetoinvestigateshaw shistoryviatheinternetanddiscovered 8

10 Shaw s sexual assault conviction in Texas from 14 years prior. The neighbor then contacted the Midwest City Police Department. Detective Tim Blanton verified Shaw s identity and criminal record, determining that Shaw s conviction likely placed him within the scope of the OklahomaSexOffenderRegistrationAct(OSORA).Blantonsentapacket of materials to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC), which comparedtheelementsofshaw soffenseunderthetexaspenalcodeto those in Oklahoma s criminal statutes. DOC determined that Shaw was subject to OSORA based solely and entirely on the elements of his 1998 criminalconviction,findingthesametobeequivalenttoafelonysexual offenseinoklahoma. Basedonthisconviction,Shawisnowsubjecttovarioussignificant restrictions on his freedom and affirmative performance requirements that he argues are punitive. These requirements are placed on him by virtue of retroactive application of state law enacted and amended after his conviction. These restrictions include, but are not limited to: that he maynotreside(eventemporarily)within2,000feetofanyschoolproperty 9

11 or educational institution, public park, playground, or child care establishment; that he may not work on any school premises or for any businessthatcontractsforworkperformedonaschoolpremises;thathe maynotworkwith,orprovideanyservicesto,children;andthathemay not loiter within 500 feet of any school, park, playground, or child care center.inadditiontotheserestrictions,shawisalsorequiredtoreportin person to a police registration office weekly in a manner resembling reporting to a traditional probation office.mr.shawisrequiredtoobey theserestrictionsfortheremainderofhislife,underpenaltyofprison. Duetotheresidencyrestrictionabove,DetectiveBlantoninformed Mr. Shaw that he and Ms. MacFerren were required to vacate their residenceinmidwestcitysinceitwaswithinanareainwhichosora registrants are not allowed to reside. They complied with Detective Blanton s directive and moved their home, under threat of prosecution andimprisonmentifmr.shawrefusedtodoso.thecouplehassincemet withmixedresultsinattemptingtofindresidencesthatfitintothelimited complaintspacesremaininginpopulatedareas. 10

12 ThecoupleisnowattemptingtoresideinahomeinOklahomaCity, Oklahoma,thatisbarredbyOSORA s2,000bfootresidencyrestriction.mr. Shawandhiswifeareundercontracttobuythehomeandstandtolose financiallyiftheycannotgothroughwithtakingownershipandmakingit their residence. Mr. Shaw has to sleep in his vehicle and park it in the limited, 2,000Bfoot compliant green zones where sex offenders are allowed to stay overnight. Because Mr. Shaw cannot use the couple s address as his official residence, he is considered transient under OSORA and is thus subject to an enhanced weekly inbperson reporting requirement, rather than the every 90Bday inbperson requirement he wouldotherwisetowhichhewouldotherwisebesubject. Due to the significant hardship created by Appellee Patton s execution of OSORA s sanctions, Mr. Shaw sought relief through the filing of a civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. His suit survived both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment filed by Appellee Patton, before proceedingtotrial. 11

13 FollowinganonBjurytrialonApril30,2015,theDistrictCourtfound that Director Patton was applying OSORA to Shaw retroactively. However, the District Court also found OSORA to constitute a civil regulatoryscheme,andthusnotsubjecttoexpostfactolimitations.as such, the Court entered judgment for Defendant/Appellee Patton. From this judgment, Plaintiff/Appellant Shaw now appeals, requesting this Court reverse the District Court s determination that OSORA is a nonb punitivestatuteandholdthatthelawmaynotbeenforcedretroactively. 12

14 SUMMARY%OF%ARGUMENT% While purportedly a nonbpunitive civil regulatory scheme, the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act (OSORA) has become the proverbial wolf in sheep s clothing. In the years since Juston Shaw was convictedofsexualassaultin1998,osorahasstrayedfromitsoriginal statedpurposeofprovidingpublicdisseminationoftruthfulinformation about former offenders. Instead, the OSORA scheme now directly and substantiallyrestrictswheremr.shawandotherformeroffenderscanlive andwork,creatingsignificantaffirmativerestraintsonpersonalfreedoms and a requirement of government law enforcement supervision with a seriesofmandatoryconditionstraditionallyfoundincriminalprobations. The retroactive Alaska sex offender registration scheme upheld in Smith( v.( Doe focused on providing for the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public. Smith( v.( Doe,( 538 U.S. 84, 98 (2003). On the other hand, OSORA moves beyond focusing on information about an offender and instead seeks to limit that offender s actions and choices in affirmative ways. Examining 13

15 both laws through the Smith( v.( Doe lens, the Oklahoma statute is everything the Alaska system is not, and vice versa. The District Court erredinfailingtodistinguishosora sclearlypunitiveimpactfromthe nonbpunitiveregulationanalyzedinsmith.thedistrictcourt sholdingis inconsistent with federal jurisprudence, state law and practice, and the letterandspiritoftheunitedstatesconstitution. 14

16 ARGUMENT% I. The% Oklahoma% Sex% Offender% Registration% Act% (OSORA)% is% a% % punitive%measure%under%federal%constitutional%law.% Following the District Court s proper determination that Appellee Patton is applying OSORA to Mr. Shaw retroactively, the remaining dispositive question is whether OSORA is within the scope of statutes prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The federal courts have long interpretedthisconstitutionalprohibitiontostrikeat: anystatutewhichpunishesasacrimeanactpreviouslycommitted, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome thepunishmentforacrime,afteritscommission,orwhichdeprives onechargedwithcrimeofanydefenseavailableaccordingtolawat thetimewhentheactwascommitted.beazell(v.(ohio,269u.s.167, 169(1925). As the Supreme Court s holding in Beazell suggests, the Ex Post Facto bar applies to statutes dealing with criminal, rather than civil matters laws that sentence or sanction, rather than merely regulate. Within this sphere, it is undisputed that legislatures may not retroactivelyalterthedefinitionofcrimesorincreasethepunishmentfor 15

17 criminalacts. Collins(v.(Youngblood,497U.S.37,43(1990).Inthepresent case, Mr. Shaw sought relief for the latter Oklahoma s retroactive increase of the punishment for Shaw s 1997 sexual assault. The District Court rejected this claim, erroneously determining that the restrictions and sanctions retroactively imposed on Mr. Shaw are nonbpunitive and thusoutsidethescopeoftheexpostfactoclause. a. OSORA%features%precisely%the%punitive%sanctions%that%are%absent% in%constitutionally%permissible%retroactive%sex%offender%measures.% A dividing line between punitive and nonbpunitive sex offender measurescanbefoundintheunitedstatessupremecourt sdecisionin Smith( v.( Doe. In Smith, Alaska s sex offender registry system survived a constitutional challenge on Ex Post Facto Clause grounds despite its retroactiveapplicationtooffenders.smith(v.(doe,538u.s.84(2003). The Smith( Court( noted that the Alaska law contain[ed] two components:aregistrationrequirementandanotificationsystem. Id.(at 90. Oklahoma s scheme also contains both of these, but adds a third a systemofdirectrestrictionsandprobationaryperformancerequirements to segregate sex offenders from other citizens and regulat[e] offenders 16

18 interaction with society. Appellant s Appendix, at 68. It is this third componentthatdrasticallychangesosora simpactonoffendersandby sodoingseparatesosorafromtheconstitutionallypermissibleschemes suchasthealaskasystemupheldinsmith(v.(doe.itisalsotheimpactof this third, and decidedly punitive, component that was erroneously neglectedinthedistrictcourt sdecision. InupholdingtheAlaskastatuteatissueinSmith,(theU.S.Supreme Court focused as much on what was absent in ASORA as what was present. In doing so, the majority made the following important observations concerning the Alaska statute, NONE of which are true of Oklahoma sscheme: The [Alaska] Act does not restrain activities sex offenders may pursuebutleavesthemfreetochangejobsorresidences.smith,538 U.S.,at100. The record in this case contains no evidence that the [Alaska] Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred through the use of routine background checks by employers and landlords.id.( 17

19 offenders subject to the Alaska statute are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.id.(at101. OSORA s sanctions are not merely inconsistent with what is described above, but opposite. The Oklahoma system directly and substantiallyrestrainsanoffender schoicesofresidenceandemployment. Itmakesthefindingofhousingandworkmoredifficultfortheoffender notduetohypotheticalridiculeorbackgroundchecks,butduetodirect state action declaring substantial tracts of housing and industries to be illegalforoffenders.seeappellant sappendix,at17b18. These opposing features of the two state statutes are joined by further distinction. Except for a special class of aggravated offenders, Alaska slawcarriesamaximumregistrationlengthof15years.smith,538 U.S.,at90.TheSupremeCourtcitedthislengthapprovingly,findingthat reboffenseamongsexoffenders mayoccur aslateas20yearsfollowing release. Id.( at 104 (internal citation omitted). Oklahoma s system requiresmr.shawandmanyothernonbaggravatedoffenderstoregister notfor15or20years,butforlife.moreover,ratherthanalaska sannual 18

20 requirement merely to update information (by mail, rather than in person), Mr. Shaw is required to report to a police registration office in personeachandeveryweek.suchsanctionsradicallychangetheimpact ofaretroactiveregistrationschemeontheoffender,aswillbediscussedin greaterdetailbelow. b. The% Kansas% v.% Hendricks% and% Mendoza2Martinez% tests% demonstrate%that%osora%is%punitive.% The Smith( majority adopted the twobpart test from Kansas( v.( Hendricks to determine if Alaska s retroactive sex offender registration statute is punitive so as to fall under the purview of the Ex Post Facto Clause.See(Smith,538U.S.,at92(citingKansas(v.(Hendricks,521U.S.346, 361 (1997)). The applicability of this test is not at issue in the present appeal,withboththepartiesandthedistrictcourtbeinginagreementas to its use. What is at issue is what results it generates. The test itself provides two avenues for determining a statute to be punitive, looking eithertointentionoreffect.asthesmith(opinionnotes: We must ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings. Iftheintentionofthelegislaturewas 19

21 to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory schemeis sopunitiveeitherinpurposeoreffectastonegate[the Stateps] intention to deem it civil. Id. at 92 (internal citations omitted). In the present case, Mr. Shaw has not attempted to prove that OSORA s stated legislative intention was punitive, due to ambivalent evidence.sinceintentionisinconclusive,mr.shawfocusedhisclaimon thesecondprongofthehendrickstest,showingthattheimpactofosora demonstratespunitivecharacterregardlessofwhetheritwassubjectively intended by the legislators who created it. See Appellant s Appendix, at 10B11. To determine whether the effects of the statute are punitive, the District Court employed a sevenbfactor test taken from Kennedy( v.( Mendoza;Martinez. This same test was proposed by both parties in the present case and was utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith. The Smith(majorityholdsthatthesefactorsare usefulguideposts ratherthan necessarilybeingexhaustiveofallanalysis.smith,538u.s.,at97. 20

22 Both Smith and the District Court focused on five of the seven factorsfrommendoza;martinezasbeingthemostrelevant,asking, whether,initsnecessaryoperation,theregulatoryscheme:hasbeen regardedinourhistoryandtraditionsasapunishment;imposesan affirmative disability or restraint; promotes the traditional aims of punishment;hasarationalconnectiontoanonpunitivepurpose;or isexcessivewithrespecttothispurpose. (Smith,538U.S.,at97 As before, Appellant does not take issue with the District Court s employment of the test, but with the execution and result reached. The DistrictCourt sownfindingssupportappellant scontentionthatosora isclearlypunitiveunderthemendoza;martinez(test. Resemblance(to(traditional(forms(of(punishment( OSORA creates a scheme resembling at least three specific traditional forms of punishment; shaming, banishment, and probation. Shaming is achieved not just by placing the offender s misdeeds on a publicallyavailabledatabaseandtheinternet,butbyadditionalburdens on some offenders. These include the requirement to surrender one s driver s license, to be replaced with a license containing SEX OFFENDER inlargeredlettersontheface.(see Starkey(v.(Department(of( 21

23 Corrections,305P.3d1004(Okla.2013).AsTheOklahomaSupremeCourt notesconcerningthisparticularsanction: ShowingonepsdriverpslicenseisfrequentlynecessaryinfaceBtoBface encounterswhencashingacheck,usingacreditcard,applyingfor credit, obtaining a job, entering some public buildings, and in air travelasafewexamples.thissubjectsanoffendertounnecessary publichumiliationandshameandisessentiallyalabelnotunlikea scarletletter. (Starkey,305P.3d,at1025. The shaming of offenders under OSORA is matched with the traditionalpunishmentofbanishment.osora sprohibitiononresiding within 2,000 feet of a school, park, playground, campsite, or child care centerseverallyrestrictsanoffender sabilityinremaininthecommunity in which he or she lives. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found this requirement to be analogous to banishment. Id. at Other state supreme courts have found the same to be true in their respective jurisdictions. For example, in striking down retroactive application of Kentucky s sex offender residency restrictions, the Kentucky Supreme found that such restrictions, while not identical to banishment, nonetheless prevent the registrant from residing in large area of the 22

24 community, as well as expel registrants from their own homes. Commonwealth(v.(Baker,295S.W.3d437(Ky.2009).Thisdeterminationis particularly noteworthy because Kentucky s is far less restrictive than OSORA, barring registrants only from residing within 1,000 feet of schools or childcare centers. OSORA s restriction doubles this distance andaddsallpublicparksandplaygroundstothepropertiestriggeringit. While OSORA s residency sanction does not explicitly require Mr. Shawtoleaveentirelythecityorstateinwhichhelives,ithasforcedhim outofhishome mandatingthathebeconvictedofafelonyandsentto prison should he choose to commit the otherwise legal, common, and intrinsicallyamericanactofsimplybuyingahouseandlivinginitasa freeman.duetothevastspacesdeclaredofflimits,shawhasnotmerely been exiled from his current home (and his home in Midwest City) but fromwholeneighborhoods.seeappellant sappendix,at98,270. Moreover,registrants must report in person at least every 90 days (weeklyformr.shaw)toapolicesupervisionoffice,providesupervision officers with personal information, vehicle information, movements, 23

25 identifying information about everyone with whom they reside, information about their internet and usage, potentially a DNA sample, and fingerprints, and submit to verifications.( See 57 O.S Theserequirements,oratleastasubstantialportionofthem,arereadily familiar to probationers. It is well settled law that probation, like incarceration,is aformofcriminalsanctionimposedbyacourtuponan offenderafterverdict,finding,orpleaofguilty. U.S.(v.(Knights,534U.S. 112,119(2001)(quotingGriffin(v.(Wisconsin,483U.S.868,874(1987)).No furthercaseneedbemadefortheresemblanceofsuchsupervisiontothat whichisunequivocallyregardedaspunishment. Affirmative(Disability(or(Restraint( Unlike the Alaska law upheld in Smith( v.( Doe, OSORA imposes multiple significant disabilities and restraints on offenders, including stringentrestrictionsmandatingwheretolive,withwhomtolive,where towork,andwherenottogo. The2,000Bfootresidencyrestrictionissostringentthatvastareasof theoklahomacitymetropolitanareaareofflimitstomr.shawandother 24

26 offenders seeking housing. See( Appellant s Appendix, at 270. According totheprimaryoklahomacitypolicewitnessinmr.shaw snonbjurytrial, more than half the residential addresses in Oklahoma City are nonb compliantwithosora srestriction.id.at166.mr.shawhimselftestified thatsincemovingtooklahomacityhehadturnedinatotalof30to40 prospectiveresidencesforapproval,onlytohaveallofthembedenied.id. at94. Reducing an offender s choice of housing within his or her community by over 50% is a significant restraint of his or her liberty relative to other citizens. OSORA also now prohibits an offender from residingwithanothersexoffender,furtherreducingoptions.see57o.s In addition to the residency sanctions, OSORA affirmatively and directlyrestrainsoffenders choicesofwhereandforwhomtowork.mr. Shaw,asacarpenterandcontractor,legallycannotpracticehistradeon anyschoolpremisesorforanycompanythatworksonschools without beingguiltyofafelony.see(57o.s. 589(A);(Appellant sappendix,at62. 25

27 As the District Court further noted, Mr. Shaw testified that this prohibition impedes his ability to work on residential, not just commercial,jobsites,andcouldpreventhimfromresortingtohis second trade asachef.appellant sappendix,at62b63. In addition to restraining Mr. Shaw s choices of where to live and where to work, OSORA also directly restrains his available options of where to physically go in his daybtobday life. Any OSORA registrant whosecrimeinvolvedavictimlessthan16yearsold(whichincludesmr. Shaw)isprohibitedfromloiteringwithin500feetofanyschool,childcare center, playground, or park, under penalty of a felony conviction and a yearinjail.see21o.s. 1125(A);Appellant sappendix,at60.mr.shawis thuslegallyrestrainedfromenjoyingactivitiesascommonplaceasgoing toahighschoolfootballgameorenjoyingasunnydayattheparkwith hisfamily.shouldhewish to go to a church on Sunday, he may doso, providedhehaspreviouslyobtainedthepastor swrittenpermission.21 O.S. 1125(E). 26

28 OSORA srestrictionshaverenderedjustonshawamanwithfewer choices and freedoms than other citizens, and at times more burdens requiredbeforeexercisingthosechoices.suchistheessenceofaffirmative restraint. Promotion(of(the(Traditional(Aims(of(Punishment( Oklahoma s statutory scheme promotes two traditional aims of punishment deterrenceandretribution.thefirstofthese,deterrence,is admittedlylessprobativeforthemendoza;martinez(analysisbecauseitis not unique to punitive law, but rather can be a feature of civil or regulatoryschemes.seesmith,538u.s.,at102. The second aim, retribution, weighs heavily toward the punitive. OSORA mandates the length of registration and restriction (15 years, 25 years, or life) based entirely on the perceived severity of the offense(s) committed.astheoklahomasupremecourtnotedinitsexaminationof thescheme, [O]SORAdetermineswhomustregisterbasedsolelyonthe criminalstatuteapersonisconvictedofviolatingandnotanyindividual determination of risk the person poses to the community. ( Starkey,

29 P.3d,at1027.TheKentuckySupremeCourtmadeasimilarobservationin itsanalysisofkentucky ssexoffenderregistrationsystem: Whenarestrictionisimposedequallyuponalloffenders,withno consideration given to how dangerous any particular registrant maybetopublicsafety,thatrestrictionbeginstolookfarmorelike retribution for past offenses than a regulation intended to prevent futureones. Commonwealth(v.(Baker,295S.W.3d,at444. Theriskofretributionhijackingstatepolicyisparticularlyhighhere due to pervasive attitudes toward sex offenders. Starkey, 503 P.3d, at 1027.Whenthecommissionofaparticularclassofcrimethatapopulace findsparticularlydistastefulisthesolebasisforanoffender sinclusionin a civilregulatoryscheme, itraisestheprospectthatsuchschemeisthe exact arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation that the Ex Post FactoClauseismeanttoprevent.(Id.(quotingWeaver(v.(Graham,450U.S. 24,29(1981)). Rational(Connection(to(a(Non;punitive(Purpose( ThisMendoza;Martinezfactormaybethesolecontenderpushingfor a nonbpunitive result. In its examination of OSORA, the Oklahoma Supreme Courtfound that the scheme doesrationallyconnecttoanonb 28

30 punitive purpose of public safety.( Starkey, 305 P.3d, at On the surface, this is accurate, but there is more to this factor that the Starkey( Court(andtheDistrictCourtinthepresentcase)mayhaveoverlooked. OSORA sstatedpurposeisgiveninitsopeningsection,initsentirety: The Legislature finds that sex offenders who commit other predatoryactsagainstchildrenandpersonswhopreyonothersasa resultofmentalillnessposeahighriskofreboffendingafterrelease fromcustody.thelegislaturefurtherfindsthattheprivacyinterest ofpersonsadjudicatedguiltyofthesecrimesislessimportantthan the state s interest in public safety. The Legislature additionally finds that a system of registration will permit law enforcement officials to identify and alert the public when necessary for protectingpublicsafety.57o.s Theconnectionofregistrationandnotificationlawstothispurpose of identification and alert is relatively easy to make, but connecting the added OSORA residency restrictions, work prohibitions, and probationary conditions to this same purpose requires creativity and attenuation,ifitispossibleatall.thedistrictcourtfoundthatosora has a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their 29

31 communities. Appellant sappendix,at66.thisstatementfailstoheed the statute s divergent components, being applicable to the purpose servedbyosora soriginalcomponentsofregistrationandnotification, butnotconnectingaffirmativerestraintandsanctionstoit. ThetestimonyofDetectiveTimBlantonillustratesthisdivergence. Blanton has served both as the police officer in charge of sex offender registrationsinmidwestcity,oklahoma,andnowinvestigateschildsex crimes. While he testified that OSORA s registration system itself was helpful in investigating sex crimes, he also made clear that OSORA s affirmativerestraints suchasresidencyandworkrestrictions gavehim no additional information or aid in combating these crimes. Appellant s Appendix,at189B190. Further evidence for this disconnect is provided by Appellee Patton sownagents.docprobationofficermeredithedge,forexample, testified that her caseload of registered sex offenders carries a higher proportion of homeless or transient offenders than the general probationary population. Appellant s Appendix, at 197. Given that sex 30

32 offenderscanchoosefromfewerthanhalfasmanyprospectivehousing options as other citizens and are prohibited from taking some work opportunities, this is unsurprising. Applying it to the stated purpose of OSORA finds the effect not merely disconnected from the purposes of notificationandtracking,butcounterproductivetoit.moreoffenderswho are made homeless means fewer offenders who can be tracked at stable addressesandthuseasilyfoundbylawenforcement.likewise,itresults incitizenswhowishtotrackanoffenderbeingprovidednotwithaclear address,butwithvagueinformationabouthisorherwhereabouts. ForthesecounterproductiveeffectsofOSORA saffirmativerestraint component,itisatbestunclearorconjecturalastowhat,ifanything,the publicobtainsinreturn.whileosora srestrictionseffectivelysegregate sexoffendersandghettoizetheirresidences,noevidencewaspresentedat trial indicating this segregation prevented crime or made it easier to investigate. Excessiveness( 31

33 Assuming for the sake of argument that OSORA does have a rational connection to a nonbpunitive purpose, the restriction of substantialhousingopportunitiesandworkoptionsareclearlyexcessive inrelationtoosora ssupposedpurposeofallowingforregistrationand trackingofoffenders.asillustratedbythealaskastatuteupheldinsmith( v.(doeandbythefederalsexoffenderregistrationandnotificationact (SORNA), a law can effectively provide for the tracking of information concerningsexoffendersandfornotificationoralertstothecommunity without the need to place any significant affirmative restraints on an offender sfreedom. Examiningtheexcessivenessfactoralsorequiresexamininghowthe state determines the length of time during which a registrant must comply with OSORA s limitations and sanctions. One of the changes to OSORA made well after Plaintiff s crime and conviction was the establishmentofa levelsystem bywhichoffenders are categorizedas Level1,Level2,orLevel3,andplacedunderrestrictionsfor15years,25 years,orlife,respectively.(see(57o.s. 583;Appellant sappendix,at48, 32

34 159B160.ItisLevel3placementtowhichMr.Shawandmostoffenders are subject, carrying a burden of lifetime compliance. The sole basis for determinationoftheselevelsisthecrime(s)committedbytheregistrant, notanyindividualdeterminationofrisk.see(appellant sappendix,at67. This leads to excessive sanctioning of offenders. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court notes, [O]SORA registration is imposed on a wide variety of crimes of which the severity of the crime and circumstances surrounding each crime vary greatly. Starkey, 305 P.3d, at The StarkeyCourtfindsfurtherclearevidenceofexcessivenessbylookingat thetotalityofrestrictiveprovisionsinoklahoma slaw,noting: [O]SORA is more stringent than the ASORA reviewed by the Supreme Court in Smith. The Act s many obligations impose a severe restraint on liberty without a determination of the threat a particularregistrantposestopublicsafety.id.at1030. Mr. Shaw is now treated to a lifetime of substantial restraints on liberty with no individualized risk determination of any kind, and no hearingorotheropportunitytobeheard.worseyet,asamendedin2009, OSORA no longer affords Shaw any right to petition for a level 33

35 assignment reduction, even if he could provide the clearest proof of rehabilitation. Id.at1029. c. Punishment%need%not%be%excessive%or%catastrophic%to%violate% the%ex%post%facto%clause.% In its analysis of OSORA s punitive character, the District Court erred in discounting key punitive sanctions of OSORA simply because theywerenotintractableorcatastrophictotheoffender.thisresultedin key Mendoza;Martinez factors such as Resemblance to Traditional Punishment, Affirmative Restraint, Promotion of Traditional Aims of Punishment,andExcessivenessallweighinginAppelleePatton sfavor. TheDistrictCourtderivedthisheightenedstandardfromthenotion thatthesecondprongofthekansas(v.(hendricks(analysis punitiveeffect of a statute rather than intention must be shown by only the clearest proof out of deference to the legislature s stated intent. Appellant s Appendix,at55.TheDistrictCourtfurthersuggeststhatthisstandardis greaterthanpreponderanceoftheevidence,thoughnotnecessarilyrising toacommonlyusedheightenedburdensuchasclearandconvincing.id.( 34

36 Despite this pronouncement, however, the District Court did not appear to withhold any factual findings due to lack of sufficient proof. Instead the Court discounted the importance of OSORA s affirmative restraints, sanctions and probationary measures when making its determinationunderthemendoza;martinezframework. For example, the Court found that OSORA did not resemble traditionalpunishmentsuchasbanishment,byemployingthefollowing analysis: [O]SORA prohibits Shaw s residency in certain locations and makes it more difficult to integrate in the community; [O]SORA doesnot,however,callforshaw scompleteexpulsionofexilefrom the community as the historical practice of banishment contemplates. Appellant sappendix,at60. Putanotherway,theCourtfoundthatbecauseShaw sbanishment from his community was not absolute, it did not sufficiently resemble banishmenttobeunderstoodasapunishment.foranoffenderinshaw s position, such a distinction is of little, if any impact to the effect of the sanction.shaw sforcedexilefromhisneighborhoodandthemajorityof others in his community does not change character merely because it is 35

37 notdemarkedpreciselyatthecitylimits.thecourt sconclusiondoesnot actually address the qualitative distinction separating punishment from civilregulation,butratherthedegreeofthatpunishment.thesamecan besaidofthecourt streatmentofosora saffirmativerestraints. AstheDistrictCourtheldregardingthestatute sworkrestrictions, [O]SORAadmittedlyrestrainsemploymentchoicesinthisstate;itdoes not,however,resultincompletelossoflivelihood,anditdoesnotforbid change. Appellant sappendix,at63.likewise,thecourtmadeasimilar observation concerning OSORA s residency restrictions: [O]SORA s blanket residency restrictions make finding housing difficult, but not impossible.thestatutoryrestrictionsarenotinsurmountable Id.at62. The District Court relied on both these observations to determine that OSORA s affirmative restraints were insufficient to be considered punishment. Toholdthatanaffirmativerestraintmaybediscountedsolongasit is surmountable is like telling a climber that any mountain that can be scaled must therefor be called a hill. Likewise, to say that because a 36

38 sanction is not identical in every respect to a traditionally understood punishment,itmustnotresembleorbelikeone,missesthemarkof(the hurdlehendricks(placesbeforeplaintiffs.suchenhancementofmr.shaw s burden resembles not what is required in Hendricks(or Smith(v.(Doe, but ratherwhatisrequiredtoproveaneighthamendmentviolationordefeat qualified immunity. Hendricks and Smith( do not require a man in Mr. Shaw s position to prove that he is being punished in an outrageous or unconscionable manner, but rather simply to prove that he is being punished. The District Court erred in finding, in effect, that OSORA s sanctions are do not qualify as punitive so long as Shaw is capable of survivingthem. II. To% find% OSORA% to% be% non+punitive% is% inconsistent% with% Oklahoma s%interpretation%and%administration%of%its%own%law.% ManyofthekeyquestionsaskedbytheDistrictCourtinthepresent casehadbeenansweredbeforeappellantshaw sfirstfiling.oklahoma s highest court has clearly and consistently interpreted OSORA as a punitive measure. Furthermore, Oklahoma s correctional and law 37

39 enforcement agents administer OSORA as a creature of criminal sentencingratherthancivilregulatorylaw. a. OSORA% has% been% interpreted% conclusively% to% be% a% punishment% scheme%and%is%treated%as%such%by%oklahoma s%highest%state%court.% TheOklahomaSupremeCourthasreached,andcontinuestoreach, theoppositeconclusionasthedistrictcourtinthepresentcase holding unequivocallythatosoraisapunitivescheme.see(starkey,305p.3d,at The holding in Starkey( has been relied upon and reaffirmed in numeroussubsequentoklahomacases.seehendricks(v.(jones,349p.3d531 (Okla.2013);Bollin(v.(Jones,349P.3d537(Okla.2013);Burk(v.(State(ex(rel.( Department(of(Corrections,349P.3d545(Okla.2013);Cerniglia(v.(Okla.(Dept.( of( Corrections, 349 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2013); Osborn( v.( Okla.( Department( of( Corrections, 313 P.3d 926 (Okla. 2013); Luster(v.(State(ex(rel.(Department(of( Corrections,315P.3d386(Okla.2013). While the Oklahoma Supreme Court s constitutional reasoning is notentitledtodeferenceinthefederalcourts,itsconclusionsconcerning howtointerpretorconstructitsstate sstatutesare.astatehighcourt s rulingconstructingastatelaworordinance isarulingonaquestionof 38

40 statelawthatisasbindingonusasthoughtheprecisewordshadbeen writtenintotheordinance. Terminiello(v.(City(of(Chicago,337U.S.1(1949). Whetherstatestatutesshallbeconstruedonewayoranotherisastate question, the final decision of which rests with the courts of the state. Hebert(v.(State(of(Louisiana,272U.S.312(1926). As such, the question of whether OSORA itself is punitive in purposeoreffectisamatterofinterpretingthecharacterofthelaw,not therequirementsoftheconstitution. Whetherastatutoryschemeiscivil orcriminal isfirstofallaquestionofstatutoryconstruction. Kansas(v.( Hendricks,521U.S.346,361(1925)(quotingAllen(v.(Illinois,478U.S.364, 368 (1986)). The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized this notion, observing, [t]hiscourt, inapplyingtheexpostfactoprohibitionofthe FederalConstitutiontostatelaws,acceptsthemeaningascribedtothem bythehighestcourtofthestate. Lindsey(v.(Washington,301U.S.397,400 (1937). Inthepresentcase,theDistrictCourt scontrarydeterminationthat OSORAistobeconstructedasacivilregulatorystatuteshouldyieldto 39

41 the Oklahoma Supreme Court s construction of its own state law. At a minimum,nolessdeferenceshould be shown to the construction of the statutebytheoklahoma ssupremecourtthanthatshowntothestated intentionoftheoklahoma slegislature.seeappellant sappendix,at55. If the former is to be binding as though the precise words had been writtenin itmustnecessarilybeonatleastequalplainwiththeformer. Terminiello(v.(Chicago,337U.S.at4. b. OSORA% is% administered% and% enforced% as% a% creature% of% criminal,% rather%than%civil,%law.% % The construction of OSORA repeatedly adopted in Oklahoma s courts is reinforced by how it is enforced and administered throughout the state. This begins with how an Oklahoman becomes subject to it. OSORAsharesacommonessentialfeaturewitheverypunitivemeasure inlaw thesimplebutprofoundfactthatitsrequirementsaretriggered by the conviction or guilty adjudication of a defendant in a criminal proceeding.allregistrantsunderosoracarrycriminalconvictionsfora specificclassofcrimes.conversely,itisnotpossibletobecomesubjectto 40

42 OSORAwithoutbeingfoundguiltyofacrime.SeeAppellant sappendix, at156.thisessentialconnectionbetweencrimeandpunishmentcanbeall too easily overlooked in the minutia of the Mendoza;Martinez test, but nonetheless places OSORA entirely in the company of criminal punishmentstatutesanddivorcesitfromcivilandregulatorylaw. Moreover, the totality of daybtobday regulation of offenders and thetotalityofdeterminationsanddecisionsonwhichitsparametersare predicated are undertaken not by traditional government regulatory agencies,butentirelybylawenforcementandcorrectionalagents.there is only one decision a citizen can make to render themselves under the regulation oftheoklahomadepartmentofcorrections heorshecan commit a felony crime. This further differentiates the administration of OSORA(whichisfoundwithinOklahoma spenalcode)fromoklahoma s bodyofcivilregulatorylaw. Fromstarttofinish,anoffender sentirejourneytobecomesubject toosora,tocomplywithit,toviolateit,andtobesanctionedfordoing so, involves solely police, criminal courts, and corrections. There is 41

43 preciselyzerocivilprocessinvolved.toholdthatosoraisnotpunitive is to ignore that it is administered and enforced as a form of criminal sentence,notcivilregulation. 42

44 CONCLUSION% ThroughtheretroactiveapplicationofOSORA ssanctionstojuston Shaw,DefendantPattonnowmandateswhereShawcanandcannotlive, wherehecanandcannotwork,wherehecanandcannotgo,andwhere hemustreporteachtuesdaymorning.mr.shawhasnoweffectivelybeen placedonahighlyrestrictiveformofcriminalprobation.appellantshaw makes no argument that Oklahoma lacks the authority to punish using such measures, but the state does not have the right to impose these punishmentsretroactively. Mr.Shaweffectivelyhasbeenissuedanewcriminalsentenceforhis oldcrime.thissentencewasnotrenderedbyajudgeorjuryattrial,but by the Oklahoma Legislature years later, who have charged Defendant Patton with ensuring that said punishment is carried out. Such is the essence and definition of an Ex Post Facto clause violation, constituting conduct fundamentally incompatible with the protections of the United StatesConstitution. 43

45 Respectfullysubmitted, /s/bradyhenderson BradyR.Henderson AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofOklahomaFoundation 3000PaseoDrive OklahomaCity,OK73103 Counsel(for(Appellant( 44

46 STATEMENT%REQUESTING%ORAL%ARGUMENT% % This Appeal concerns an issue with widebranging impact both inside and outside the state of Oklahoma. For offenders subject to the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act, or similar laws in other jurisdictions,theissuespresentedaremarkedbyprofoundimpact. Asthisappealpresentsanimportantcaseoffirstimpressiontothis Court, concerns the interpretation of the United States Constitution and UnitedStatesSupremeCourtprecedent,anddetermineshowstatesmust dealwithanimportant,complex,andintenselycontroversialsetofissues that can impact public safety, Appellant respectfully requests the opportunitytobeheardatoralargument. s/bradyr.henderson Counsel(for(Appellant( % 45

47 CERTIFICATE%OF%COMPLIANCE%WITH%FED.%R.%APP.%P.%32.% % Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a), I hereby certify that: 1. ThisBriefcomplieswiththetypeBvolumelimitationrequiredby Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B). Exclusive of portions excluded by Fed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii),thisBriefcontains6,210words. 2. This Brief complies with the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and 32(a)(6) via the use of proportionately spaced, 14B pointseriffont. Date:August24,2015 s/bradyr.henderson Counsel(for(Appellant( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 46

48 CERTIFICATE%OF%COMPLIANCE%WITH%LOCAL%RULES%AND% ELECTRONIC%FILING%GUIDELINES% % Iherebycertifythat: 1. Allrequiredprivacyredactionshavebeenmade,asmandatedby 10 th Cir.R ThehardcopiessubmittedtotheCourtthisdateareexactcopies oftheversionsubmittedelectronically. 3. This electronic submission, and its attachments, have been scanned with the latest version ( , updated August 19, 2015) of Bitdefender Antivirus for Mac, a commercial antivirus application,andfoundtobefreeofviruses. Date:August24,2015 s/bradyr.henderson Counsel(for(Appellant( 47

49 CERTIFICATE%OF%SERVICE% I certify that on August 20, 2015, I caused a copy of the attached pleading to be served by electronic mail to all attorneys who have appearedinthismatterandregisteredforecfnotifications. Date:August24,2015 s/bradyr.henderson Counsel(for(Appellant( % 48

50 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 24

51 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 24

52 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 24

53 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 24

54 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 24

55 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 6 of 24

56 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 7 of 24

57 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 8 of 24

58 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 9 of 24

59 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 10 of 24

60 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 11 of 24

61 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 12 of 24

62 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 13 of 24

63 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 14 of 24

64 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 15 of 24

65 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 16 of 24

66 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 17 of 24

67 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 18 of 24

68 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 19 of 24

69 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 20 of 24

70 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 21 of 24

71 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 22 of 24

72 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 23 of 24

73 Case 5:14-cv W Document 56 Filed 05/13/15 Page 24 of 24