By Scott . . . For the second time this year, an Illinois state appellate court has overturned sex offender registration conditions placed on a defendant. The unanimous decision was issued by a panel of Illinois’ 3rd District Appellate Court on 8/20/18.

The court found that Illinois’ Sex Offender Registration Act and related restrictions, as applied to Devin M. Kochevar, violated both the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.

Kochevar and his alleged victim knew each other for several years. They were both on the track team at the same high school. When Kochevar turned 18 the relationship became sexual; her parents called the police when they found out about it.

In February 2018, the panel in People v. Tetter, 2018 IL App (3d) 150243 (a different case) wrote that, given the circumstances of that case, the lifetime sex offender statutes were “grossly disproportionate to his crime.” In that case, Tetter was convicted of criminal sexual abuse when, at age 21, he was involved in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl. Kochevar in his appeal argued that the court should consider the Tetter decision when weighing in on his case.

The panel in the Kochevar case wrote that given the sentence imposed and the misdemeanor charge Kochevar was convicted of, “… the pervasive negative impact of the SORA [Sex Offender Registration Act] regulations is genuinely shocking in this case.”  The panel agreed with Tetter’s conclusion that sex offender registration requirements have turned into something punitive. The court went on to write, “We find nothing in his personal record or in the record on appeal that suggests that the rigid technical structure of the sex offender statutes are necessary to restrain instincts or predilections to prey on children that Kochevar gives no evidence of having now or ever having had. The imposition of the restrictions is punitive, and because it is unnecessary in order to secure Kochevar’s compliance with the statutes’ expressed purpose of preventing abuse of children, it is grossly disproportionate to his crime and violates the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.”

In its decision the court vacated Kochevar’s requirement to register as a sex offender or to comply with any restrictions that Illinois imposes on sex offenders who have been convicted of an offense against a minor.

Judge McDade wrote “This system that the legislature has devised affirmatively obstructs the [s]tate’s constitutional objective of restoring this particular offender to useful citizenship in violation of the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.”

The oral arguments may be heard here.

The post Illinois appeals court finds sex offender registration requirement too harsh first appeared on NARSOL.

By Scott . . . I’m on the board of Illinois Voices for Reform and have been actively involved with the organization since 2012. I am on the registry for life as currently required by Illinois law due to an incident involving a minor back in 2008. I served two years of probation and successfully completed sex offender counseling in 2012. My wife and I love to travel, and we were fortunate to be able to travel to Europe for a week at the end of March. I gave the federally required 21 days international travel notice to my local police department. I had no problems traveling to Europe other than the usual hassle of being sent to secondary at O’Hare airport upon return to the U.S. which is typically a 5-10 minute inconvenience.

Approximately two weeks after I returned from Europe, the U.S. State Department sent out a passport revocation letter as required by International Megan’s Law. This letter arrived at my home via certified mail about a week after they sent it. The letter, as shown, requires me to immediately return my passport since under federal law my passport needs to contain words alerting countries that I was convicted of a sex offense against a minor. The government requires me to return my passport, and if I want a new one, I have to apply for one as if I have never had a passport. The expense will be around $200 for a new passport which includes obtaining a copy of my birth certificate ($26), another 10-year passport ($110) which, by the way, I had already renewed last year, and the execution fee ($35).

If the government requires this stamp on my passport, I can’t understand why they just don’t make me mail in the passport so that some overpaid government worker can stamp it and mail it back to me. Why does the government revoke my passport and make me go through the expense and hassle of renewing the passport? This seems to me clearly ex post facto punishment since I can’t think of any other rationale for such an irrational process. I also can’t understand why I am being singled out as a danger such that my government needs to call out my conviction to other countries. We don’t do this to people who have been convicted of any other crime. I am in favor of laws that protect the public while allowing law-abiding citizens formerly convicted of an offense to return to normal, productive lives. I don’t see how International Megan’s Law will accomplish this goal other than to oppress individuals like myself who were convicted of a sex offense against a minor. Our country needs to stop passing oppressive laws disguised as public safety measures and start passing laws that actually help to prevent crime while helping to reintegrate those who have been convicted of a criminal offense.

I do plan to eventually get a new passport with the requisite marking. And I plan to continue the fight to change state and national laws that do little more than to pile on more punishment to individuals who have already paid their debts to society and who pose no risk of re-offense.

The post Passport revoked first appeared on NARSOL.