This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A13-2374

Ivan Ray Vaughan, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of 

Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity, 

Respondent.

Filed July 14, 2014

Affirmed

Bjorkman, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-CV-12-9128

Bradford Colbert, Lauren Pockl (certified student attorney), Legal Assistance to 

Minnesota Prisoners, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Angela Helseth Kiese, Assistant Attorney General, 

St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Hooten, 

Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

BJORKMAN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s declaration that appellant is required to 

register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166 (2012). Appellant argues 
2

that requiring him to register based on an offense he was acquitted of in 1990 violates the 

presumption against retroactive laws and his substantive and procedural due-process 

rights. We affirm.

FACTS

In 1990, a jury found appellant Ivan Ray Vaughn guilty of fifth-degree criminal 

sexual conduct and two counts of burglary and acquitted him of a charge of third-degree 

criminal sexual conduct arising out of the same set of circumstances. The district court 

placed Vaughn on probation for six years.

In 1991, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the registration statute, which requires

individuals convicted of certain enumerated offenses, including third-degree criminal 

sexual conduct, to register as predatory offenders. 1991 Minn. Laws ch. 285, § 3, at 

1325-26. Two years later, the legislature amended the statute to also require registration 

by individuals charged with an enumerated offense and convicted of that offense or 

“another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances.” 1993 Minn. Laws 

ch. 326, art. 10, § 1, at 2090. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) 

did not inform Vaughn of his obligation to register at that time.

In January 2010, the BCA informed Vaughn that he is required to register as a 

predatory offender. Vaughn first registered in January 2012 and has been in compliance 

ever since. His registration term is expected to expire on October 27, 2023.

Vaughn initiated this action against respondent Wade Setter, superintendent of the 

BCA, seeking a declaration that the registration statute does not apply to him because the 

legislature did not clearly indicate that the 1993 amendment applies retroactively and
3

applying the registration statute to him violates his rights to substantive and procedural 

due process.

1

 The BCA moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. 

This appeal follows.

D E C I S I O N

Where, as here, there are no disputed material facts, we review a grant of summary

judgment de novo, as a question of law. Kelly v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 666 

N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn. 2003).

I. The registration statute applies retroactively to Vaughn.

Statutes and statutory amendments generally do not apply retroactively. State v. 

Traczyk, 421 N.W.2d 299, 300 (Minn. 1988). “No law shall be construed to be 

retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.” Minn. Stat. 

§ 645.21 (2012). When enacting the registration statute, the legislature stated that it 

would apply to “offenders released from imprisonment on or after [the statute’s effective 

date].” 1991 Minn. Laws ch. 285, § 13(a), at 1329. We have recognized that this 

provision calls for retroactive application of the statute. See State v. Manning, 532 

N.W.2d 244, 247 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. July 20, 1995). 

Vaughn argues that the 1993 amendment is not retroactive because it did not 

contain a similar express indication of retroactivity. We are not persuaded. We have 

repeatedly held that amendments to the registration statute are retroactive. See, e.g., State 

v. Jedlicka, 747 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. App. 2008) (2005 amendment removing 

 

1 Vaughn also asserted ex post facto and laches claims, which the district court rejected.

Vaughn does not pursue those claims on appeal.
4

burglary offense from scope of registration statute); State v. Lilleskov, 658 N.W.2d 904, 

908-09 (Minn. App. 2003) (1994 amendment extending scope of registration statute to 

juveniles). As we explained in Lilleskov, the goal of the registration statute, “to monitor 

sex offenders released into the community,” would be “substantially impeded if it applied 

only to offenders who committed their offense after the statute’s effective date.” 658 

N.W.2d at 908. We conclude the legislature plainly intended the registration statute and 

its amendments to apply retroactively to offenders like Vaughn. 

II. The registration statute is constitutional.

The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. 

Irongate Enters., Inc. v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 736 N.W.2d 326, 332 (Minn. 2007). We 

presume statutes are constitutional and will only declare a statute unconstitutional “when 

absolutely necessary.” ILHC of Eagan, LLC. v. Cnty. of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412, 421 

(Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted). A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute

bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a 

reasonable doubt. State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2012).

Substantive due process

The Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions 

contain “a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government 

actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Zinermon 

v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S. Ct. 975, 983 (1990); see also Sartori v. 

Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448, 453 (Minn. 1988) (stating that due-process

protection is “identical” under both constitutions). To satisfy substantive due process, all 
5

statutes must “provide a reasonable means to a permissible objective.” Boutin v. 

LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Minn. 1999). When a statute implicates a fundamental 

right, we apply strict scrutiny: the government must demonstrate that the law is necessary 

to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. State v. 

Wiseman, 816 N.W.2d 689, 692-93 (Minn. App. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1585 

(2013). 

Vaughn argues that the registration statute infringes on his fundamental right to 

interstate travel because it requires him to notify other states of his registration status if 

he moves and that status may provide a basis for registration in other states even though

his criminal history would not. But Vaughn concedes that he has no current or 

anticipated plans to move to any other state. He therefore cannot demonstrate that he has 

sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury to his interstate-travel 

right from enforcement of the registration statute, as he must to have standing. See

Paulson v. Lapa, Inc., 450 N.W.2d 374, 380 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. 

Mar. 22, 1990).2 Because Vaughn lacks standing to assert a violation of his right to 

interstate travel, we decline to address whether the registration statute is necessary and 

narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See Citizens for a Balanced City v. 

Plymouth Congregational Church, 672 N.W.2d 13, 18 (Minn. App. 2003) (“When a 

party does not have standing, a court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.”). 

 

2 Neither the parties nor the district court addressed standing, but because standing goes 

to the validity of a cause of action a court may address it sua sponte at any time. See 

Enright v. Lehmann, 735 N.W.2d 326, 329 (Minn. 2007); Builders Ass’n of Minn. v. City 

of St. Paul, 819 N.W.2d 172, 176 (Minn. App. 2012).
6

Instead, we consider whether the statute provides “a reasonable means to a 

permissible objective.” Boutin, 591 N.W.2d at 716. It is well established and undisputed 

that the registration statute satisfies the second part of this rational-basis standard. As the 

supreme court stated in Boutin, the legislature enacted the registration statute “to create 

an offender registry to assist law enforcement with investigations.” Id. at 717; accord

Manning, 532 N.W.2d at 248 (recognizing law-enforcement purpose of registration). 

And the legislature amended the statute two years later to include not only those 

convicted of predatory offenses but also those charged with a predatory offense and 

convicted of an offense arising out of the same circumstances to “ensure that true 

predatory offenders cannot plead out of the registration requirements.” State v. Lopez,

778 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn. 2010).

Vaughn contends that requiring him to register does not reasonably serve these 

objectives because he was acquitted of the enumerated offense and therefore is not a 

predatory offender. We are not persuaded. First, the supreme court rejected the 

argument that “the state does not have an interest in registering nonpredatory offenders.” 

Boutin, 591 N.W.2d at 718. Second, Vaughn equates the short-hand term “predatory 

offender”3 with a person convicted of a predatory offense. But it is well established that 

the registration statute is regulatory, not punitive, and does not employ a criminal 

standard in defining who is a predatory offender. See id. at 717; Manning, 532 N.W.2d at 

248. Rather, the statute requires registration when an individual is convicted of a felony 

 

3

The term “predatory offender” is used in the statute’s title and as a means of describing 

the statute, but it is not a defined statutory term and does not appear in the provisions 

identifying who is subject to the statute’s obligations. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166.
7

and there is (at a minimum) probable cause to believe that the underlying set of 

circumstances involved predatory conduct. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b; Lopez,

778 N.W.2d at 705 (recognizing that combination of “threshold factual showing of 

probable cause” and “conviction for another offense ‘arising out of the same set of 

circumstances’ limits the number of defendants who might be forced to register”). 

Individuals who fall within these parameters—including, undisputedly, Vaughn—are the 

“true predatory offenders” that the registration statute is intended to encompass. See

Lopez, 778 N.W.2d at 704. 

Vaughn also argues that even if his conduct was predatory, its relevance to law 

enforcement investigations has grown stale in the decades since his conviction offenses. 

We disagree. While Vaughn correctly asserts that the registration statute requires most 

predatory offenders to register for a period of ten years, see Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 

6(a), the ten-year registration term is not static. The statute extends the registration 

period (1) to coincide with any probation, supervised-release, or conditional-release term 

for the conviction offense that extends beyond ten years; (2) when an offender fails to 

comply with the registration requirements; and (3) to account for interim periods of 

incarceration or civil commitment. Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(a)-(c). These statutory 

extensions reflect the legislature’s recognition that the passage of time diminishes the 

relevance of past predatory conduct only if that time does not include subsequent 

criminal conduct. We are persuaded that monitoring predatory offenders until they have 

been law-abiding citizens in the community for ten years is a reasonable means of 

furthering the law-enforcement objectives recognized in Boutin. 
8

On this record, we conclude that Vaughn has failed to show the registration statute 

violates his right to substantive due process.

Procedural due process

The Due Process Clauses also provide “a guarantee of fair procedure” before the 

government can deprive an individual of protected “liberty” or “property” interests. 

Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 125, 110 S. Ct. at 983; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 

S. Ct. 893, 901 (1976); see also Sartori, 432 N.W.2d at 453. Accordingly, the first step 

in considering a procedural due-process claim is determining whether “a protectable 

liberty interest is at stake.” Boutin, 591 N.W.2d at 718. Where the interest at stake is a 

person’s reputation, the complainant must demonstrate injury to reputation plus the loss 

of some other tangible interest—the “stigma-plus test.” Id.

The supreme court recognized in Boutin that “being labeled a ‘predatory offender’ 

is injurious to one’s reputation,” thus satisfying the “stigma” requirement. Id. With 

respect to the “plus” requirement, Vaughn argues that the registration statute deprives 

him of tangible interests by (1) imposing substantial registration obligations and serious 

criminal penalties for noncompliance and (2) interfering with interstate travel. His 

second argument is unavailing because, as we discussed above, he alleges no actual or 

imminent injury to his right to interstate travel. Vaughn’s first assertion, however, 

warrants further consideration.

In Boutin, the supreme court rejected the argument that “complying with the 

requirements of the registration statute amounts to the loss of a recognizable interest,” 

reasoning that “there is no recognizable interest in being free from having to update 
9

address information.” Id. at 718. Vaughn urges us not to follow Boutin, arguing that the 

supreme court failed to consider the full scope of obligations and consequences flowing 

from the registration statute and the legislature has increased those burdens substantially 

in the 15 years since Boutin was decided. We are not persuaded.

First, even if the supreme court erred as Vaughn asserts, it is outside the purview 

of this error-correcting court to overrule the supreme court. State v. Grigsby, 806 

N.W.2d 101, 114 (Minn. App. 2010), aff’d, 818 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 2012). Second, 

Vaughn identifies only two changes to the registration statute since Boutin, neither of 

which has impaired his liberty interests. Vaughn highlights that predatory offenders now 

are required to disclose their predatory-offender status to certain health-care facilities

before being admitted for inpatient treatment. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 4b. But 

Vaughn has not demonstrated that he has been or is likely to be deprived of health care 

because of this limited disclosure requirement. He also points out that failure to register 

was a gross misdemeanor offense at the time of Boutin and now is a felony offense. See 

id., subd. 5. But increasing the penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the 

registration statute does not make the act of compliance itself more onerous. Moreover, 

any potential loss of liberty would be a consequence for knowing failure to comply with 

those requirements, after such failure was established through the full process afforded a 

defendant in a criminal proceeding. In short, Vaughn has not demonstrated that the 

registration statute restricts his liberty any more now than it did at the time of Boutin. 
10

On this record, we conclude Vaughn has not demonstrated that the registration 

statute violates his right to procedural due process.

Affirmed.