×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
8th Circuit Upholds Minnesota Law Requiring Registration For Non-Sexual Offenses
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Minnesota law requiring certain individuals convicted of non-sexual offenses to register as sexual predators.
Brian Gunderson was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct stemming from an alleged rape. The victim charged that upon inviting Gunderson into her home after he gave her a ride on March 31, 1998, Gunderson began punching her in the head and eventually raped her, ejaculating inside her vagina. Gunderson denied raping the woman but admitted that he and the woman had been in a physical altercation that night. Forensic tests performed on vaginal swabs and other biological evidence by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension laboratory found no semen and none of Gunderson's pubic hairs.
Gunderson's attorney subsequently negotiated a plea bargain under which Gunderson would be charged only with third degree assault. Gunderson received three years probation but later violated it and was sent to prison. While in prison Gunderson was informed that he would have to register as a sexual predator even though he had not been convicted of a sex offense. Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1) "requires registration of those convicted of a non-predatory offense 'arising out of the same set of circumstances' as a predatory offense&."
Gunderson registered but then sued the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections claiming that he should not be required to register because the sexual assault charge had been dismissed and the charge of which he was convicted did not trigger the sexual predator statute. Gunderson further argued that requiring him to register as a sexual predator even though he had not been convicted of a predatory sexual offense would violate his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2002 WL 31163049, granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and Gunderson appealed.
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Addressing Gunderson's due process claim, the Court held that since the statute did not infringe on a fundamental right (because it was not punitive or criminal in nature), the state only had to show "the statute's registration requirements are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose." The statute satisfied that standard, the Court reasoned, because the statute's intent was to ensure the registration "of all predatory offenders, including those who take advantage of favorable plea agreements."
Gunderson's procedural due process claim, which asserted that the statute injured his reputation, also failed. "Damage to reputation alone ... is not sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the due process clause," the Court held. "The loss of reputation must be coupled with some other tangible element to rise to the level of a protectable property interest."
The Court noted that "the statute may lead to unfair results in some cases." For instance, under the statute, if an individual was tried and acquitted of a predatory charge but found guilty of a non-predatory offense arising from the same set of circumstances, that individual would be required to register as a sex offender. Nevertheless, the justices held that the statute was constitutional and that Gunderson was required to register. See: Gunderson v. Hvass, 339 F.3d. 639 (8th Cir. 2003).
Brian Gunderson was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct stemming from an alleged rape. The victim charged that upon inviting Gunderson into her home after he gave her a ride on March 31, 1998, Gunderson began punching her in the head and eventually raped her, ejaculating inside her vagina. Gunderson denied raping the woman but admitted that he and the woman had been in a physical altercation that night. Forensic tests performed on vaginal swabs and other biological evidence by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension laboratory found no semen and none of Gunderson's pubic hairs.
Gunderson's attorney subsequently negotiated a plea bargain under which Gunderson would be charged only with third degree assault. Gunderson received three years probation but later violated it and was sent to prison. While in prison Gunderson was informed that he would have to register as a sexual predator even though he had not been convicted of a sex offense. Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1) "requires registration of those convicted of a non-predatory offense 'arising out of the same set of circumstances' as a predatory offense&."
Gunderson registered but then sued the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections claiming that he should not be required to register because the sexual assault charge had been dismissed and the charge of which he was convicted did not trigger the sexual predator statute. Gunderson further argued that requiring him to register as a sexual predator even though he had not been convicted of a predatory sexual offense would violate his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2002 WL 31163049, granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and Gunderson appealed.
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Addressing Gunderson's due process claim, the Court held that since the statute did not infringe on a fundamental right (because it was not punitive or criminal in nature), the state only had to show "the statute's registration requirements are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose." The statute satisfied that standard, the Court reasoned, because the statute's intent was to ensure the registration "of all predatory offenders, including those who take advantage of favorable plea agreements."
Gunderson's procedural due process claim, which asserted that the statute injured his reputation, also failed. "Damage to reputation alone ... is not sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the due process clause," the Court held. "The loss of reputation must be coupled with some other tangible element to rise to the level of a protectable property interest."
The Court noted that "the statute may lead to unfair results in some cases." For instance, under the statute, if an individual was tried and acquitted of a predatory charge but found guilty of a non-predatory offense arising from the same set of circumstances, that individual would be required to register as a sex offender. Nevertheless, the justices held that the statute was constitutional and that Gunderson was required to register. See: Gunderson v. Hvass, 339 F.3d. 639 (8th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Gunderson v. Hvass
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 339 F.3d. 639 (8th Cir. 2003). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
339 F.3d 639
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Brian GUNDERSON, Appellant,
v.
Sheryl Ramstad HVASS, individually and as the Commissioner for the Minnesota
Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 02-3617.
Submitted: June 9, 2003.
Filed: Aug. 6, 2003.
Defendant, convicted of non-sexual assault, brought § 1983 action against the Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, alleging that he was incorrectly told that he was required to register as predatory offender under Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Ann D. Montgomery, J., 2002 WL 31163049, granted summary judgment in favor of Commissioner. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Bye, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) defendant was required to register under predatory offender registration statute; (2) statute did not violate substantive due process; and (3) statute did not violate procedural due process.
Affirmed.
Beam, Circuit Judge, filed separate concurring opinion.
*641 Bradford W. Colbert, argued, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
Kari J. Ferguson, argued, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
BYE, Circuit Judge.
Brian Gunderson appeals the district court's [FN1] grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. We affirm.
FN1. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
I
On March 31, 1998, Mr. Gunderson gave a ride home to a woman he met in a bar. Two days later, Gunderson was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(1). The woman alleged
upon arrival at her residence Gunderson asked if he could come in. She stated that she allowed Gunderson into her residence and upon entering the residence she told Gunderson that she wanted to go to sleep and he then attacked her. She stated that Gunderson began punching her in the head. She stated that Gunderson then took off her pants and she tried to struggle with Gunderson but he continued punching her and holding her arms. She stated that he then forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and did ejaculate inside her vagina.
Criminal Complaint for St. Louis County, File # K7-98-1004801; District Court Docket # 16, Exhibit A.
Gunderson denied any type of sexual misconduct, but admitted he and the victim had a physical altercation on the night in question. Forensic tests performed on a sexual assault kit containing biological samples collected from the victim supported Gunderson's version of the events. Specifically, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) laboratory reports indicated "[e]xaminations of the [victim's] vaginal swabs ... did not detect the presence of semen." District Court Docket # 20, Exhibit B. In addition, none of Gunderson's pubic hairs were found in samples collected from the victim's pubic region. Id.
After the BCA's report was prepared, Gunderson's attorney negotiated a plea agreement under which the original complaint charging Gunderson with a sex offense was dismissed in its entirety, and Gunderson pleaded guilty to a new complaint charging him with third degree assault in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.223. On August 17, 1998, Gunderson received three years of probation with a stayed *642 sentence of fifteen months imprisonment. Less than a year later, Gunderson violated his probation and was committed to the custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. While in custody, he was told he would have to register under Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute, notwithstanding the fact he had never been convicted of a crime triggering predatory status. [FN2] The statute requires registration of those convicted of a non-predatory offense "arising out of the same set of circumstances" as a predatory offense. Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1).
FN2. The predatory offender registration statute does not list a violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.223 as one which requires registration, but does refer to "criminal sexual conduct under section 609.342." Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1)(iii).
After complying with the registration requirements, Gunderson filed this suit against the Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Gunderson claimed he should not have to register because the original sexual assault charge against him had been dismissed, and the subsequent complaint to which he pleaded guilty did not charge a crime covered by the registration statute. Gunderson further contended the statute violates his constitutional rights if it requires him to register as a predatory offender even though he has never been convicted of a predatory offense.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the case was referred to a federal magistrate judge. [FN3] The magistrate judge issued a well-reasoned 42-page report to the district court, recommending the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be granted. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation, concluding Gunderson's conviction for a non-sexual assault met the criteria for registration under Minn.Stat. § 243.166, and the statute did not violate Gunderson's constitutional rights. Gunderson v. Hvass, No. Civ. 01-646, 2002 WL 31163049, at *1-2 (D.Minn. Sept. 27, 2002). This timely appeal followed.
FN3. The Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Brian GUNDERSON, Appellant,
v.
Sheryl Ramstad HVASS, individually and as the Commissioner for the Minnesota
Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 02-3617.
Submitted: June 9, 2003.
Filed: Aug. 6, 2003.
Defendant, convicted of non-sexual assault, brought § 1983 action against the Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, alleging that he was incorrectly told that he was required to register as predatory offender under Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Ann D. Montgomery, J., 2002 WL 31163049, granted summary judgment in favor of Commissioner. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Bye, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) defendant was required to register under predatory offender registration statute; (2) statute did not violate substantive due process; and (3) statute did not violate procedural due process.
Affirmed.
Beam, Circuit Judge, filed separate concurring opinion.
*641 Bradford W. Colbert, argued, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
Kari J. Ferguson, argued, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
BYE, Circuit Judge.
Brian Gunderson appeals the district court's [FN1] grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. We affirm.
FN1. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
I
On March 31, 1998, Mr. Gunderson gave a ride home to a woman he met in a bar. Two days later, Gunderson was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(1). The woman alleged
upon arrival at her residence Gunderson asked if he could come in. She stated that she allowed Gunderson into her residence and upon entering the residence she told Gunderson that she wanted to go to sleep and he then attacked her. She stated that Gunderson began punching her in the head. She stated that Gunderson then took off her pants and she tried to struggle with Gunderson but he continued punching her and holding her arms. She stated that he then forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and did ejaculate inside her vagina.
Criminal Complaint for St. Louis County, File # K7-98-1004801; District Court Docket # 16, Exhibit A.
Gunderson denied any type of sexual misconduct, but admitted he and the victim had a physical altercation on the night in question. Forensic tests performed on a sexual assault kit containing biological samples collected from the victim supported Gunderson's version of the events. Specifically, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) laboratory reports indicated "[e]xaminations of the [victim's] vaginal swabs ... did not detect the presence of semen." District Court Docket # 20, Exhibit B. In addition, none of Gunderson's pubic hairs were found in samples collected from the victim's pubic region. Id.
After the BCA's report was prepared, Gunderson's attorney negotiated a plea agreement under which the original complaint charging Gunderson with a sex offense was dismissed in its entirety, and Gunderson pleaded guilty to a new complaint charging him with third degree assault in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.223. On August 17, 1998, Gunderson received three years of probation with a stayed *642 sentence of fifteen months imprisonment. Less than a year later, Gunderson violated his probation and was committed to the custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. While in custody, he was told he would have to register under Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute, notwithstanding the fact he had never been convicted of a crime triggering predatory status. [FN2] The statute requires registration of those convicted of a non-predatory offense "arising out of the same set of circumstances" as a predatory offense. Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1).
FN2. The predatory offender registration statute does not list a violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.223 as one which requires registration, but does refer to "criminal sexual conduct under section 609.342." Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1)(iii).
After complying with the registration requirements, Gunderson filed this suit against the Commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Gunderson claimed he should not have to register because the original sexual assault charge against him had been dismissed, and the subsequent complaint to which he pleaded guilty did not charge a crime covered by the registration statute. Gunderson further contended the statute violates his constitutional rights if it requires him to register as a predatory offender even though he has never been convicted of a predatory offense.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the case was referred to a federal magistrate judge. [FN3] The magistrate judge issued a well-reasoned 42-page report to the district court, recommending the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be granted. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation, concluding Gunderson's conviction for a non-sexual assault met the criteria for registration under Minn.Stat. § 243.166, and the statute did not violate Gunderson's constitutional rights. Gunderson v. Hvass, No. Civ. 01-646, 2002 WL 31163049, at *1-2 (D.Minn. Sept. 27, 2002). This timely appeal followed.
FN3. The Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.