proceed may it please the court the stipulated facts in this case are that a w entered the state of nebraska is required to register in minnesota and did register in minnesota nebraska law requires registration for the sex offender registry of any person who enters the state and is required to register as a sex offender in another state the nebraska supreme court has described this specific provision as plain direct and unambiguous they have also nebraska supreme court has also said that an individual's actual registration in another state is conclusive evidence of being quote required to register in that state for purposes of applying this provision every element of the statute the specific statute that's been challenged here has been met and the nebraska sex offender registry act applies to  for that reason we asked this court today to resolve the remaining legal questions that were presented below apple e's have agreed there are no genuine issues of material fact and that this case  decided on cross motions for summary judgment with this dip you laid it with a stipulation of facts and the reason the state's asking for this is we're not just talking about one juvenile i know this case is about one juvenile but there are approximately one hundred seventy five juveniles on th nebraska sex offender registry their knowledge in the same situation is a w there are approximately thirty who are but their names aren't disclosed if they were in the rescue right every person on the nebraska sex offender registry their name is disclosed even those juveniles publicly publicly juveniles you've been correct i didn't think that was right i thought the situation here was that juveniles are not don't do not have to register and in minnesota juveniles did have to register but it wasn't public and so i think what was troubling judge cuff was is does a look this is it to require to end up where they didn't have to have a public registration if i might first clarify the the issue there and then i'll get to the you started like you better do that because shirk juveniles are absolutely on the nebraska sex offender registry just not all of them the distinction here and that's that's presented in this case is juveniles with the solian a brassica juvenile adjudication for a particular set of crimes they are not required to register in nebraska ok but what is absolutely true is every single person juvenile or not who enters the state of nebraska is required to register someone else they are required to register in nebraska if they if they move into the state right if  they enter the state they technically don't like like this young man did yes ok but the but i am i right that if he was a nebraska resident who committed the crime here he would not have to register generally yes if it would been the exact same crime and if he if he would still remain in minnesota he'd have to register but it would not be public correct and that's the key there because i did read differences there were going to make it public which is  t minnesota policy and against nebraska policy for this type of a juvenile conviction and that's that's i'm sure what troubled judge cuff and i certainly troubles me  now if the if a nebraska juvenile committed the same crime the nebraska crime in minnesota he would not have to register it if but the minnesota person who doesn't have to have to disclose let's put it that way that disclosure is the issue moved to nebraska that the fact that he's moved over the border now right not exactly your question highlights a very important distinction in this this is the case if you're nebraska resident juvenile you live here with your parents or for whatever reason right and you go on vacation you commit this exact same crime in minnesota and you in minnesota when you return to nebraska you will be required to register in nebraska it doesn't matter that you've lived in nebraska but he does not but if you didn't do that which the kangaroo hopped from nebraska minnesota back to nebraska you have a constitutional right to travel interstate commerce right correct so this young man from minnesota had a constitutional right to move to nebraska right correct and we didn't prevent him from doing so but when he moved to nebraska he has to disclose his name and exactly as a person exactly in the same position who is in the breast a resident doesn't have to as you know i again i would say just slightly dispute the characterization that they're exactly the same because again if a new breast resident had done the crime in minnesota they would have to register in nebraska that there's two two things at play here one so he's penalize for his traveling in interstate commerce which he has a constitutional right to do right i mean we we would argue that he's not being penalize for the travel i mean the state of minnesota has decided what he didn't penalize for the privately penalize by having to have his name published in nebraska right because nebraska elected to have a single public registry and there's nothing unconstitutional about that choice well there's the doctrine of constitutional avoidance see it that a brass can and doesn't have to and because he takes advantage of a constitutional right to travel to nebraska your mak and i don't know where that beats a south dakota or iowa or kansas or someplace he comes to nebraska would he have to register nebraska and know that at least not under this provision unless he was caught under some other provision which i don't believe he would be well your hypothetical so it depends on whether he had to register in the state that where he had his adjudication correct and part of this gets back to the entire purpose of the federal law was to prevent the jurisdiction jumping well issues just register its disclosure i mean the minnesota they both have to register but in minnesota and brassica you don't have to be on a register that people can see correct states have chosen both options some states have so it's the disclosure that the minnesota boy doesn't want to have to do by simply taking advantage of his constitutional right to move to rescue that's correct and you've actually caught on to something that's you have to read the pleadings very closely but he actually doesn't challenge the registration requirement is challenging specifically the public know your cation requirement or you know that's a problem that's a tell us why you tell us why judge individual who is enter the state is required to register in the other state there was even a motion to certify state law question and it well before i get there i have to point out that in the district court's order it it said jay for sixteen even the district court agrees that the juvenile was required to register in minnesota why is is the interpretation reasonable or illegal or whatever a number reasons first of all there's really no dispute that this individual is a sex offender in minnesota minnesota they call it the predatory offender registry  t repeatedly even this the sentencing order that the education order here references this individual as a sex offender the again i go back to the district court agreed that he was required to register and under nebraska law the fact that he was required to register and then did register is quote conclusive evidence of being a being required to register than this section well if there is no definition of offenders that  they unconstitutionally they what judge couple tries to make a distinction by pointing to other portions of the of the statute were specifically referenced as a conviction and says well they must have meant that but that the two things out highlight there is one if they did why did they put conviction in this section and two when this law was passed the superintendent of state patrol testified to the legislature and specifically told them this is what was happening and this was what was going to happen under this specific subdivision they didn't change it they actually left it in the bill and passed it you know it just it seems that this is contrary to the policy both the brask and minnesota and i just wonder you don't need to answer this why why the state in the brassicas pushing this and just not lucky the other way that you know i'm going to hold police discretion at this we're trying to apply the plain language of the law as written and as i just highlighted multiple instances the state patrol's inform the legislature that you know this is the way it's written in this is the way it's been applied and they haven't changed it and so we don't feel like we can just unilaterally is not subject to soreness but a for a juvenile judy kid delinquent in minnesota who moved to nebraska is subject to sort of right that's the only that's the difference here right it's correct a juvenile adjudicated delinquent in any other state that then requires sex offender registration of if they move to nebraska or if they enter actually in the neighbors either for three days the function at the bottom line the functioning of the nebraska act piece of the the minnesotan prohibits him from traveling interstate commerce if he wishes to avoid publishing his name under seal or no right well there's a couple issues here first of all i don't want to get into the the lengthy history as this relates to interstate compact but he did to transfer to nebraska and under the terms of the compact under the constitution he can elect to go to nebraska or wherever he wants to and he has a constitutional right to do that and absolute or you're pushing him into with it and rescue statute you're pushing him and do a pretty thing prohibiting him from exercising a constitutional right i view i understand we if i may say the last minute for about a certain it please the court joshua we are appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs happily a w as well as his custodial grandparents john and jane doe the facts of this case of already been discussed before i get up here but essentially a w was a juvenile and he was accused of committing an act at age eleven and in the state of minnesota a petition was filed and he went through juvenile proceedings within the state of minnesota  and at the time that the accusations were made he was removed from his parental home and sent to live in the state of nebraska with his grandparents during the pendency of the proceedings ultimately at the end of and down to the brass could live with his grandparents well it's unclear if that was from the quarter of that came from his parents or the accusation involved in this isn't part of the record it involved a step family member so he was removed from the house where he was or why residing with the other individual and so there may have been a court order it may have been i i don't know how he was placed but he was sent because those a stable family environment and read will and roscoe with his grandparents are red willow county now minnesota has termed their registry the predatory offender registry it's compliant with the federal source but that's just the name that they give to it now specifically and this is in the district  cites that minnesota specifically provides that a person with a delinquency adjudication does not meet the definition of a predatory offender so in our in our parlance that means that it does not mean meet the definition of a sex offender in the state in nebraska now the state of minnesota makes an explicit unequivocal distinction between predatory offenders and juvenile delinquents now the act that requires a juvenile delinquent to register basically a fills out a form and it's sent to an individual with law enforcement but they are not subject to all of the other provisions of the predator offender registry of minnesota they make the same distinction that nebraska has made they have made it explicit that these people are not are juvenile a judyth juveniles are not predatory offenders so nebraska sex offender registry act twenty nine dash four thousand three one eighty four applies to any person who on or after january one thousand nine hundred ninety seven enters the state a w entered the state he was sent to live with his grandparents he is required to register and we don't doubt that he was required to register he filled out a registration form but then the next says as a sex offender now judge cuff noted that as a sex offender was not defined in the state of nebraska so for our purposes here today there's two questions one registry and two as a sex offender and so for someone to enter the state after one thousand nine hundred seven and have to register as a sex offender that means they have to meet the definition of a sex offender now the app appellants defendants in this case have completely read out of that requirement as a sex offender is moved for summary judgment of the first basis of their claim was that the plane reading of the statute as a whole a sex offender does not apply to a juvenile adjudication and the district court in this case agreed and his analysis that he used to reach that determination starts with state vs norman eight zero eight northwest second forty eight in nebraska supreme court case from two thousand and twelve and it says sex offender is not specifically defined in sora however then they determine that persons who stand convicted this is the key distinction conviction vs juvenile adjudication conviction is what we're familiar with think comes with all the constitutional guarantees of an adult court a juvenile adjudication is different every state in the nation every court has recognized the difference between juvenile courts and adult courts he also looked at the nebraska administrative code section point zero zero two point two six it also required a conviction he looked at another area of the law a sexual predator residency restriction act at twenty nine four zero one five to four zero one seven required a conviction he looked at the juvenile court for forty three das two eight zero no adjudication by the juvenile court shall be deemed a conviction nor shall the adjudication operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily resulting from conviction now the one instance where we have a different definition is the federal sore now and they say that it can include a juvenile juvenile adjudication but only if an individual is younger than fourteen and only if it involves an aggravated offense so that's a specific definition within federal sorn that's the only time that adjudication is ever mentioned and judge judge cuffe deals with that he also cites miriam webster the free dictionary west encyclopedia of american law all coming to the same conclusion that sex offender requires conviction and then he also looks to the minnesota law they have similar juvenile provisions that an adjudication does not mean conviction and they've got the provisions that said that a juvenile delinquent does not equal a predatory offender so after all of that he also analyze another section of sora twenty nine dash four zero zero five where sets out the periods of registration for individuals and each of those periods is dependent upon the record of conviction so for all of the foregoing reasons he determined that a sex offender in nebraska requires a conviction and he said even if he found the term sex offender ambiguous he would reach the same result because it was contrary to the clear legislative intent in this case when the legislature discussed this they talk we do not apply this to juveniles they had an opportunity for certain federal funds pursu to grant money that was available to them if they made a juvenile registry and they rejected that so for all of the foregoing reasons judge cuffe determine that a juvenile adjudication does not classify as a sex void for vagueness anything like that and that's how this case began it was filed as in one thousand nine hundred three action first amendment claims eighth amendment claims due process claims but the doctrine of constitutional void essentially for all intents and purposes both states use are the same except i mean the underlying stages are the same yes minnesota and nebraska have both chosen to treat juvenile delinquents different or differently but the same way is between two states the same as between the two states that's correct and with that if there are no further questions thank you ok we supposed to believe you have some time left norman was about a different subsection of nebraska law specifically referenced convictions so it isn't all that surprising that the nebraska supreme court talked about convictions when that subsection reference convictions the subsection before us today does not and a little bit on why nebraska has this provision it's the same reason we have the entire sex offender registry which are to alert the public public safety and to well in part put us in compliance with federal law so