×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Offense of Conviction Need Not Be Sexual to Receive Sex Offender Restrictions
by Brandon Sample
Sex offender restrictions may be imposed on offenders whose offense of conviction did not involve sexual misconduct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided December 18, 2008. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin reached a similar decision December 16, 2008.
Vinson Hahn was convicted of misapplication of back funds after he stole $53,392.75 over the course of several years while working at the Bank of Oklahoma. At Hahn’s sentencing, the court imposed numerous sex offender restrictions as a conditions of supervised release based on a state conviction Hahn received for lewd and indecent proposal to a child.
Hahn appealed the sex offender restrictions arguing that they were improper because they were unrelated to his conviction for misapplication of bank funds. The Tenth Circuit disagreed.
Sex offender restrictions “may be imposed notwithstanding the conduct at which they are targeted is unrelated to the offense of conviction,” the court wrote. Further, the fact that Hahn would not be subject to the restrictions until release from prison – some eighteen years later – did not matter, the court held. To hold otherwise would effectively preclude the imposition of sex offender restrictions on offenders who receive lengthy sentences, the court concluded. Accordingly, the restrictions imposed by the lower court were affirmed.
The District III Wisconsin Court of Appeals reached a similar decision in an appeal by James Smith. Smith was convicted of falsely imprisoning a minor. Although no sexual conduct occurred during the course of Smith’s offense, Wisconsin law treats false imprisonment of a minor by a person other than the child’s parent as a “sex offense.” Consequently, Smith was ordered to register as a sex offender.
Smith appealed the sex offender restrictions, raising due process and equal protection arguments. Smith argued, for instance, that it was unreasonable to require him to register as a sex offender, given the crime of false imprisonment lacks a sexual element and others convicted of non-sexual crimes need not register. The court disagreed. Registration for the crime of false imprisonment of a minor “furthers the goal of protecting children from violence,” the court wrote. Accordingly, the registration requirement imposed on Smith was affirmed.
See: United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008); State v. Smith, 2008 AP1011-CR (Dist. III Wisc. COA).
Sex offender restrictions may be imposed on offenders whose offense of conviction did not involve sexual misconduct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided December 18, 2008. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin reached a similar decision December 16, 2008.
Vinson Hahn was convicted of misapplication of back funds after he stole $53,392.75 over the course of several years while working at the Bank of Oklahoma. At Hahn’s sentencing, the court imposed numerous sex offender restrictions as a conditions of supervised release based on a state conviction Hahn received for lewd and indecent proposal to a child.
Hahn appealed the sex offender restrictions arguing that they were improper because they were unrelated to his conviction for misapplication of bank funds. The Tenth Circuit disagreed.
Sex offender restrictions “may be imposed notwithstanding the conduct at which they are targeted is unrelated to the offense of conviction,” the court wrote. Further, the fact that Hahn would not be subject to the restrictions until release from prison – some eighteen years later – did not matter, the court held. To hold otherwise would effectively preclude the imposition of sex offender restrictions on offenders who receive lengthy sentences, the court concluded. Accordingly, the restrictions imposed by the lower court were affirmed.
The District III Wisconsin Court of Appeals reached a similar decision in an appeal by James Smith. Smith was convicted of falsely imprisoning a minor. Although no sexual conduct occurred during the course of Smith’s offense, Wisconsin law treats false imprisonment of a minor by a person other than the child’s parent as a “sex offense.” Consequently, Smith was ordered to register as a sex offender.
Smith appealed the sex offender restrictions, raising due process and equal protection arguments. Smith argued, for instance, that it was unreasonable to require him to register as a sex offender, given the crime of false imprisonment lacks a sexual element and others convicted of non-sexual crimes need not register. The court disagreed. Registration for the crime of false imprisonment of a minor “furthers the goal of protecting children from violence,” the court wrote. Accordingly, the registration requirement imposed on Smith was affirmed.
See: United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008); State v. Smith, 2008 AP1011-CR (Dist. III Wisc. COA).
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 cases
United States v. Hahn
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
State v. Smith
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2008 AP1011-CR (Dist. III Wisc. COA) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |