# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 30 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Dav id L. Mead or

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Pat Bran so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 12 , 20 12

Fil ed : Au gu st 16 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Dav id Mea do r ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of hi s pe ti ti on fo r a writ 1

of ha be as co rp us un de r th e Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act (AEDPA),

28 U.S.C. § 22 54

. He arg ue s th at th e de ci si on of th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t,

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l E. Hov la nd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e or th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nort h Dak ot a.in te rp ret in g th e st at e's se x of fen de r reg is tra ti on st at ut e to ap pl y to se x of fen de rs ev en

whe n th ey ha ve no pe rm an en t res id en ti al o r mai l i n g ad dr es s, is an un fo res een an d

ret ro act iv e ex pa ns io n of sta tu to ry la ng ua ge

. W e aff irm th e di st ric t cou rt' s den ia l of

th at cl ai m , ho ld in g th at th e st at e's in te rp ret at io n of it s st at ut e as ap pl ie d to Mea do r is

no t a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n su ffi ci en t to m eet th e hi gh st an da rd s fo r su cces s un de r

AEDPA.

I

In 19 94

, Dav id Mea do r was co nv ic te d of se x cri m es in Ken tu ck y

. Bec au se of

th is co nv ic ti on , whe n Mea do r m ov ed to Nor th Dak ot a in 20 0 8

, h e w a s req ui red to

reg is te r as a se x of

fen de r pu rs u a n t t o N

. D

. Cen t. Co de

. Ann

. § 12 .1-3 2- 15 (2 ). In

acco rd an ce wit h th is req ui rem en t, Mea do r reg i s t e r e d wit h th e Vall ey Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t (VCPD) on Aug us t 9, 20 08

, li st in g hi s res id en ce as a ga s st at io n pa rk in g

lo t whe re he was li vi ng i n h i s t r u c k

. Howev er, on Aug us t 14

, th e po li ce ev ic te d

Mea do r fro m

th e p ark in g l ot

.

Bet ween th e ni gh t s o f A u gu st 14 an d Aug us t 20

, Mea do r di d no t fo rm al ly

reg is te r hi s lo cat io n. The ni gh t of Aug us t 14

, Mea do r wen t to a lo cal ho sp it al to

ad dr es s so m e br eat hi ng pr ob le m s. The ne xt da y , he dr ov e to Ch at aq ua Ci ty Park in

Vall ey Cit y , bu t t he VCPD to ld hi m to lea ve . Mead or th en went to a tr ai le r pa rk in

Vall ey Ci ty, whe re he st ay ed th e ni gh ts of Aug us t 15 an d 16

. On Aug us t 17

, Mea do r

le ft th e tra il er pa rk an d st ay ed on ci ty pr op ert y in th e no rth wes t pa rt of Vall ey Ci ty.

Dur in g th e th ree- da y pe rio d be twee n Aug us t 15 an d 17

, Mea do r was in co nt act wit h

th e VCPD, te ll in g th em whe re he was sp en di ng th e ni gh t an d th at he was lo ok in g fo r

a m or e pe rm an en t pl ace to st ay

. On Aug us t 17

, an of fic er at th e VCPD su gg es te d he

st ay ne arb y at Lak e Ash ta bu la

.

Mea do r sp en t th e ni gh t ne ar Lak e Ash ta bu la on Aug us t 18 an d 19

. On Aug us t

19

, he cal le d th e VCPD an d th e Nor th Dak ot a Att or ne y Gen eral 's of fic e an d to ld bo th

-2

-th at he di d no t hav e a pl ace to st ay

. He al so as ke d ho w to reg is te r as a se x offe nd er

un de r hi s pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces

. An of fic er at th e VCPD t o l d M e a do r th at he

sh ou ld le t po li ce kn ow m or e or le ss whe re he was li vi ng

. On Aug us t 20

, Mea do r se nt

a no ti fic at io n to th e co un ty sh eri ff th at he was m ov in g to Tower Ci ty, Nor th Dak ot a.

On Au gu st 22 , Mead or pro pe rly regi st ered in th at co un ty.

D es pi te th is

, on Aug us t 20

, 20 08

, Nor th Dak ot a fil ed a cri m in al co m pl ai nt

ag ai ns t Mea do r, ch arg in g hi m wit h fai lu re to co m pl y wit h reg is tra ti on req ui rem en ts

i n v i ol at io n of N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ), a cl as s C fel on y

. The s t a t u t e

req ui res th at

, "u po n a ch an ge of ad dr es s, th e in di vi du al req ui red to reg is te r sh al l al so

reg is te r wit hi n th ree da y s at th e la w en fo rcem en t ag en cy ha vi ng lo cal juri sd ic ti on of

th e ne w pl ace of res id en ce, sc ho ol

, or em pl oym en t." A jury fo un d Mea do r gu il ty of

th is ch arg e. The tri al co ur t th en se nt en ced Mea do r to fiv e y ears ' im pr is on m en t, pl us

two y ea r s ' s u p erv is ed rel eas e. Mea do r ap pe al ed hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce to th e

Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t, arg ui ng , in te r al ia

, th at th e st at e di st ric t co ur t erre d an d

vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s in in te rp ret in g § 12 .1-3 2

- 1 5 ( 7 ) a s req ui rin g hi m to

reg is te r wit hi n th ree da y s e v e n t h o u g h he ha d no t ob ta in ed a res id en ce. The st at e

su pr em e co ur t de ni ed Mea do r's cl ai m s, an d he ld th at "[t ]h e p la in la ng ua ge of th e

st at ut e req ui res an in di vi du al to reg is te r wit hi n th ree da y s of a ch an ge of ad dr es s."

St at e v . Mead or , 78 5 N.W.2d 8 86 , 89 1 (N.D. 2 01 0)

.

Fo ll o w i n g th e st at e su pr em e co ur t de ci si on , Mea do r fil ed a ti m el y pr o se

pe ti ti on fo r rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 in fed eral co ur t. His pe ti t i o n al le ge d

se ve ral erro rs , in cl ud in g an ex po st fact o vi ol at io n an d a cl ai m th at "t he tri al co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n or au th or it y in de nyin g a m ot io n to di sm is s, whe re, th e ap pe ll an t

di d no t m ov e to a ne w res id en ce fo r t h r ee da y s un de r N.D.C.C. 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 )
(2 00 7) ." Mea do r al so fil ed a m em or an du m su pp or ti ng po si ti on , whi ch in cl ud ed th e

fo ll owi n g q u e s ti on : "Whet he r th e pe ti ti on er was de ni ed du e pr oc es s of la w by th e

St at e's at to rn ey ha vi ng ch an ge d th e m ean in g of N.D.C.C. § 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ) to in cl ud e

pe rs on s wh o h av e n o re si de nc e to reg is te r? "

-3

-On Aug us t 23

, 20 11

, a Mag is tra te Ju dg e fil ed a Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on

.

It reco m m en de d or d e r i n g M e a do r's pe ti ti on be am en de d to in cl ud e a du e pr oc es s

c l a i m ba se d on an un ex pe ct ed jud ic ia l ex pa ns io n of st at ut or y la ng ua ge

. I t t h e n

reco m men d e d de nyin g Mea do r's cl ai m s an d di sm is si ng hi s pe ti ti on , bu t gr an ti ng a

cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on Mea do r's du e pr oc es s clai m

. Bo th pa rti es ob jecte d to

th e Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on , an d th e U.S. Dis tri ct Co ur t a d o p t ed it

, de nyin g

Mea do r's cla im s b ut gra nt in g t he cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e am en de d c la im

.

II

W e m us t fi rs t ad dr es s t he is su e o f whe th er Mead or 's clai m is pro pe rly befo re

th is co ur t. Und er AEDPA, a fed e r a l c o u rt m ay no t gr an t a writ of ha be as co rp us

un le ss th e pe ti ti on er ha s ex ha us te d av ai la bl e st at e r e med ie s. 28 U.S.C.

§ 22 54 (b )(1 )(A). The go ve rn m en t arg u e s t h a t we sh ou ld no t co ns id er Mea do r's

ha be a s c l a im be cau se he fai le d to ex ha us t th e is su e of whe th er th e st at e's

in te rp ret at io n of § 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ) was an un fo res eeab le an d ret ro act iv e ex pa ns io n of

na rro w an d pr eci se st at ut or y la ng ua ge

. To ex ha us t a cl ai m in st at e co ur t, a ha be as

pe ti ti on er "m

us t sh ow th at he ei th er m ad e a fai r pr es en ta ti on of hi s cl ai m s to th e st at e

co ur ts or t ha t h e h as no ot he r pr es en tl y av ai la bl e st at e rem ed ie s t o p ur su e." Gen try

v. Lan sd own , 17 5 F .3d 10 82 , 10 83 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

Here, Mea do r pr es en te d to th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t th e qu es ti on of

whe th er hi s co nv ic ti on was a vi ol at io n of hi s "s ub st an ti al du e pr oc es s rig ht to fai r

no ti ce." Tha t co ur t ch arac te riz ed th is arg um en t as as se rti ng th at "t he st at ut e do es no t

req ui re a se xu al of

fen de r [to ] lo cat e a ne w ad dr es s wit hi n th ree da y s, bu t req ui res an

of fen de r to reg is te r a ne w ad dr es s with in th ree days of ob ta in in g a ne w res id en ce."

Mea do r, 78 5 N.W .2d at 89 1. Mea do r al so pr es en te d th e fact s of h i s c a s e , whi ch

su pp or te d hi s arg um en t th at th e st at e im pr op erl y req ui red hi m to reg is te r an ad dr es s

whe n h e was a tr an si en t.

-4

-In res po ns e, th e Nor th Dako ta Su pr em e Co ur t h el d:

The pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e req ui res an in di vi du al to reg is te r wit hi n th ree da y s of a c h an ge of ad dr es s. Mea do r req ue st ed th e jury

in st ru ct io ns in cl ud e l a n g u a ge fro m St at e v. Ru be y , 20 00 ND 11 9, ¶¶ 18 –1 9, 61 1 N.W .2d 88 8, in whi ch a m ajor it y of th i s C o ur t he ld th e

wor d "ad dr es s" un de r a pr io r ve rs io n of th e st at ut e in cl ud ed m ai li ng an d

res id en ti al ad d r es se s, an d he do es no t arg ue th at a di ffer en t
in te rp ret at io n ap pl ie s un de r th e cu rren t ve r s i on of th e st at ut e. Fu rth erm or e, Mea do r di d no t arg ue th e st at ut e is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

va gu e. See San to s v. St a t e, 28 4 Ga. 51 4, 66 8 S.E.2d 67 6 (2 00 8) (regi st rat io n st at ut e is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e as to ho m el es s of fen de rs be cau se it do es no t pr ov id e su ffi ci en t no ti ce of ho w th ey c a n co m pl y wit h th e reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t). W e co nc lu de that Me ad or ' s ar gum en t
is wit ho ut m eri t an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by

de nyin g h is m ot io n t o d is m is s.

Id

. Th u s , t h e s t a t e su pr em e co ur t ru le d on th e m eri ts th at th e "p la in la ng ua ge " of

§ 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ) an d Ru be y req ui red Mea do r to reg is te r ev en th ou gh he was tra ns ie nt

,

an d th at he was on no ti ce of th is req ui rem en t. Mo r eo ve r, th e co ur t's as se rti on th at

Mea do r di d no t rai se a va gu en es s cl ai m ap pe ars to be refe rri ng to a cl ai m th at he di d

no t kn ow ho w to reg is te r as a tra ns ie nt

, rat he r th an th e cl ai m he rai se s he re, whi ch is

th at the sta

te co ur ts interp ret ed th e st at ut e in an un fo res eeab le an d ret ro act iv e m an ne r.

Alt ho ug h Mead or 's argu m en t— an d th e st at e's tre at m en t of it —m ig ht no t ha ve be en

as fu ll y de ve lo pe d as it co ul d ha ve be en , we fin d th at it was su ffi ci en t to fai rly pr es en t

hi s cl ai m to th e Nor th Dako ta st at e co ur ts

.

The st at e al so arg ue s th at we sh ou ld no t co ns id er M e a do r's AEPDA pe ti ti on

be cau se hi s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m of an un fo res een an d ret ro act iv e ex pa ns io n was no t

in cl ud ed in hi s pe ti ti on to th e fed eral di st ric t co ur t. Ord in ari ly, a fed eral di st ric t co ur t

"s ho ul d no t gr an t ha be as rel ie f to a pe ti ti on er ba se d up on a le ga l th eo ry th at in vo lv es

an en ti rel y di ffer en t an al y si s an d le ga l st an da rd s th an th e th eo ry act ua ll y al le ge d" in

t h e pe ti ti on to th at co ur t. Frey v. Sch ue tz le

, 78 F.3 d 35 9, 36 1 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 6 )

.

-5

-Howev er, we rel ax th es e req ui rem en ts whe re a pe ti ti on er rep res en ts hi m se lf pr o se

.

Id . ("We no te th at as a ge ne ral rul e a p ro se h ab eas pe ti ti on m us t b e g iv en a li be ral

co ns tru ct io n an d th at su ch a pe ti ti on er is no t req ui red to id en ti fy sp eci fic le ga l

th eo rie s o r of

fer c as e ci ta ti on s i n o rd er t o b e en ti tl ed to rel ie f.").

Here, whi le Mea do r m ay ha ve pr es en te d hi s co ns ti t u t i o n a l ch al le ng e to th e

Nor th Dak ot a se x of

fen de r reg is tra ti on st at ut e so m ewh at in art fu ll y , it is ne ve rth el es s

su ffi ci en tl y pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t. In Mea do r's ha be as pe ti ti on , he pr es en te d

th e fo ll owi ng qu es ti on : whet he r "t he tri al co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n o r au th or it y in

de nyin g a m ot i o n t o d i s m is s, whe re, th e ap pe ll an t di d no t m ov e to a ne w r es id en ce

fo r th ree da y s un de r N.D.C.C. 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ) (2 00 7) ." In th e m em or an du m

acco m pa nyin g hi s pe ti ti on , he al so pr es en ts an ad di ti on al qu es ti on to t h e co ur t:

"Whet he r th e pe ti ti on er was de ni ed du e pr oc es s of la w by th e St at e's Att or ne y ha vi ng

ch an ge d th e m ean in g of N.D.C.C. 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ) to in cl ud e pe rs on s wh o h a ve no

res id en ce t o re gi st er? "

The fact s Mea do r pr es en te d in bo th hi s br ie f a n d p et it io n su pp or t th e

un fo r e s e eab le an d ret ro act iv e jud ic ia l ex pa ns io n is su e th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered

. Mea do r arg ue s th at he di d no t reg is te r as a se x of fen de r ov er th e pe rio d

i n q u e s t i o n be cau se he was ne ve r in on e pl ace fo r lo ng er th an th ree da y s an d th e

st at ut e do es no t req ui re reg is tra ti on un de r th os e ci rcu m st an ces

. Bec au se Mea do r se t

fo rth th e rel ev an t fact s an d o u t l i n e d th e al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n in hi s br ie f

to th e Nor th Dako ta Su pr em e Co ur t an d in hi s pe ti ti on to th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct

Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Nor th Dak ot a th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ad dr es si ng th at

is su e o n t he m eri ts

.

III

W e ne xt tu rn to a d is cu ss io n of Mea do r's co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m on th e m eri ts

. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t c o u r t's de ni al of a writ of ha be as co rp us

. Owen v.

-6

-W eb er, 64 6 F.3 d 11 05

, 11 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). A fed eral co ur t m ay on ly gr an t a ha be as

pe ti ti on if th e de ci si on th at res ul te d in th e st at e co nv ic ti on "was co n t r a r y to

, or

in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl i s he d Fed eral la w, as

de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es ." 28 U.S. C

. § 22 54 (d )(1 ).

Un d e r t h i s s t an da rd

, "ev en a st ro ng cas e fo r rel ie f do es no t m ean th e st at e co ur t's

co nt rary con cl us io n was un reas on ab le ." Harri ng to n v. Ri ch te r, 13 1 S . Ct. 7 70 , 78 6
(2 01 1)

. Rat he r, th e pe ti ti on er "m us t sh o w t h a t t h e s ta te co ur t's ru li ng on th e cl ai m

be in g pr es en te d in fed eral co ur t was so la ck in g in jus ti fic at io n th at th ere was an erro r

well un de rs to o d a n d co m pr eh en de d in ex is ti ng la w be y on d an y po ss ib il it y of

fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t." Id. at 78 6– 87

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th e du e pr oc es s rig ht s of a cri m in al de fen da nt

m ay be vi ol at ed "n ot on ly fro m va gu e st at ut or y la n g u ag e bu t al so fro m an

un fo res eeab le a nd ret ro act iv e jud ic ia l ex pa ns io n of na rro w an d pr eci se st at ut or y

la ng ua ge ." Bo ui e v. Ci ty o f Co lu m bi a, 37 8 U.S. 3 47 , 3 52 (1 96 4) . S uc h a de ci si on

vi ol at es du e p r o c es s be cau se "i t lu ll s th e po te nt ia l de fen da nt in to a fal se se ns e of

se cu rit y , gi vi ng hi m no reas on ev en to su sp ect th at co nd uc t cl earl y ou ts id e th e sc op e

of th e st at ut e as writ te n wil l be ret ro ac t i ve ly br ou gh t wit hi n it by an act of jud ic ia l

co ns tru ct io n." I d

. I n Bo ui e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t fo un d su ch a vi ol at io n whe re th e

Su pr em e Co ur t of So ut h Caro li na co ns tru ed a cri m in al tre sp as s st at ut e to ap pl y bo th

whe n en try was pr oh ib it ed in th e fir st pl ace, as well as whe n a pe rs on refu se d to le av e

a f t e r an in it ia ll y la wfu l en try. The Co ur t no te d th at

, to ob ta in a co nv ic ti on in th a t

cas e, th e st at e co ur t ha d rev ers ed ni ne ty-fiv e y ears of cas es th at " u n i f o rm ly

em ph as iz ed th e no ti ce-b efo re-e nt ry req ui rem en t, an d ga ve not the sl ig ht es t in di cat io n

th at th at req ui rem en t co ul d be sa ti sf ie d by pr oo f of th e di ffer en t act of rem ai ni ng on

th e la nd aft er b ei ng to ld to lea ve ." Id . at 3 56 –5 7.

Mea do r arg ue s th at

, li ke in Bo u i e , t he Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's

in te rp ret at io n of § 12 .1-3 2- 15 (7 ) was an un fo res eeab le an d ret ro act iv e ex pa ns io n of

st at ut or y la ng ua ge

. In rel ev an t pa rt, th is st at ut e req ui res th a t " [ u ]p o n a ch an ge of

-7

-ad dr es s, th e in di vi du al req ui red to reg is te r sh al l al so reg is te r wit hi n th ree da y s at th e

la w en fo rcem en t ag en cy ha vi ng lo cal juri sd ic ti on of th e ne w p l a c e o f res id en ce,

sc ho ol

, or em

pl oym en t." Mea do r as se rts th at th is st at ut e do es no t req ui re hi m , as a se x

of fen de r who rem ai ns in cl os e co nt act wit h st at e au th or it ie s bu t is tra ns ie nt an d do es

no t h av e a m ai li ng ad dr es s, t o re gi st er.

Fo r su pp or t, Mea do r rel ie s pr im ari ly on St at e v. Ru be y , 61 1 N.W .2d 88 8 (N.D.

20 00 ). The re, th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered th e cas e of a se x of fen de r

who di d n ot reg is te r whi le he was l iv in g in hi s t ru ck an d h ad no pe rm an en t ad dr es s

ex cep t fo r a p os t o ffi ce b ox . The co ur t af fir m ed Ru be y 's c on vi ct io n, an d h el d:

If an of fen de r reg is te red a t a pa rti cu la r res id in g ad dr es s pe rm an en tl y ab an do ns th e ad dr es s, th e of fen de r m us t reg is te r th e su bs eq ue nt res id in g ad dr es s if th er e is on e

. Howev er, if th e of fen de r, as in th is cas e, ha s no

ne w res id in g ad dr es s, bu t ha s a ne w m ai li ng ad dr es s, th e of fen de r m us t

no ti fy au th or it ie s o f th e n ew ad dr es s.

Id

. at 89 2 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. As Mea do r arg ue s, Ru be y se em s to in di cat e th at th e se x

of fen de r reg is tra ti on st at ut e req ui res reg is tra ti on of a pe rs on 's pe rm an en t "re si di ng

ad dr es s" or hi s m ai li ng ad dr es s. Lik e Mea do r, th e de fen da nt in Ru be y di d no t ha ve

a pe rm an en t res id in g ad dr es s, bu t rat he r li ve d as a tra ns ie nt

, ou t of hi s ve hi cl e. In th at

cas e, th ou gh

, be cau se he ha d a P.O. bo x, he ha d so m e pe rm an en t ad dr es s an d

th eref or e was req ui red to reg is te r. Here, Me ad or ha d n o s uc h a dd res s.

To su pp le m en t his ar gum en t abou t Ru be y , Mea do r fu rth er arg ue s th at req ui rin g

a tra ns ie nt se x of

fen de r to reg is te r is il lo gi cal fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, on th e se x

of fen de r reg is tra ti on fo rm , th ere is no pl ace to no te a tra ns ie nt ad dr es s. Seco nd

, if

Mea do r ha d r e g i s t e r e d an y of hi s ad dr es se s whe re he li ve d du rin g th is pe rio d, he

co ul d no t ha ve do ne so un ti l he ha d le ft th em wit h no pl an s to ret ur n, si nc e he st ay ed

at each fo r fewer th an th ree da y s. R a t h e r th an pr ov id in g th e st at e wit h accu rat e

-8

-in fo rm at io n of hi s whe reab ou ts

, th is wou ld ha ve co nf us ed th e is su e, th us fru st rat in g

th e p ur po se s o f th e st at ut e.

The st at e m ak es se ve ral a r g um en ts in res po ns e. Fi rs t, it em ph as iz es th e

pu rp os e of th e se x of

fen de r reg is tra ti on st at ut e. Th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

ha s rep eat ed ly po in te d to th e reg is tra ti on st at ut e's pu rp os e of ke ep in g "b et te r tra ck of

se x offe nd ers an d th os e who co m m it cri m es ag ai ns t ch il dr en ." Ru be y , 61 1 N.W .2d

at 89 1; se e al so St at e v. McAv oy, 76 7 N.W .2d 87 4, 87 7 (N.D. 20 09 ); St at e v. St ei ge r,

64 4 N.W .2d 18 7, 18 9 (N.D. 20 02 ). Als o im po rta nt is pr ev en ti ng se x of fen de rs fro m

ci rcu m ve nt in g t he reg is tra ti on req ui rem en ts :

All owi ng se x of

fen de rs to c irc um ve nt to reg is tra ti on pr oc es s by ph y si cal ly le av in g on e r e s id en ce wit ho ut te ch ni cal ly acq ui rin g a ne w

res id en ce wou ld pe rm it th e of fen de r to "s li p th ro ug h th e cra c k s,"

di sa pp ear fro m la w en fo rcem en t vi ew an d th us th wart th e pu rp os e fo r whi ch th is law was en act ed

.

Ru be y , 61 1 N.W .2d at 89 2. The st at e arg ue s th at if th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

ha d in te rp ret ed th e st at ut e to on ly r e q u i r e reg is tra ti on whe n a se x of fen de r ha s a

"l eg al res id en ce," it wou ld be eas y to ev ad e th e req ui rem en ts of th e st at ut e an d th us

fru st rat e it s pu rp os e. In th is ve in , th e st at e al so arg ue s t ha t t he st at em en t i n Ru be y , in di cat in g th at reg is tra ti on is on ly req ui red if a se x of fen de r ha s a le ga l res id en ce or

a m ai li ng ad dr es s, is di ct a an d th eref or e is no t ne ces sa r i l y an accu rat e st at em en t of

Nor t h D ak ot a la w be fo re th is cas e. In Ru be y , th e de fen da nt di d ha ve a m ai li ng

ad dr es s, so un li ke in Mea do r's cas e, th e co u r t d i d n o t co ns id er wha t th e st at ut e

req ui red of s ex off

en de rs who ha d n o p erm an en t ad dr es s.

In co ns id eri ng th is cas e, we fir st no te th at Mea do r's in te rp ret at io n of § 12 .1-3 2-

15 ( 7 ) h a s so m e fo rce. The Ru be y cas e do es se em to st ro ng ly in di cat e th at a se x

of fen de r is no t req ui red to reg is te r hi s r e s i d e n ce ad dr es s whe n he is a tra ns ie nt

. Fu rth erm or e, Mea do r's arg um en t t h a t h is reg is tra ti on wou ld ha ve fru st rat ed th e

-9

-pu rp os e of th e se x of fen de r st at ut e by pr ov id i n g ou td at ed in fo rm at io n ab ou t hi s

whe re a b o u ts is well -ta ke n an d is a st ro ng co un te r-ar gu m en t to th e st at e's em ph as is

on th e st at ut e's pu rp os e o f ke ep in g b et te r tr ack of s ex off en de rs

.

Howev er, ou r ta sk is no t to in te rp ret th e No r t h D a k o t a st at ut e in th e fir st

in st an ce. The is su e we m

us t de ci de un de r AEDPA an d Bo ui e is no t whe th er we ag ree

or di sa gr ee wi th th e st at e co ur t's in te rp ret at io n o f it s o wn s ta tu te

. As has lo ng be en

th e cas e, "t he el em en ta ry ru le is th at [fed eral co ur ts acce pt ] th e in te rp ret at io n of the

st at ut e of a st at e affi xe d to it by th e co ur t of the la st res or t th ereo f." Mi ss ou ri, K. &

T. R y . C o. v. McC an n, 17 4 U.S. 5 80 , 5 86 (1 89 9)

. W e m ay th eref or e on ly co ns id er

whe th er th e st at e co ur t's in te rp ret at io n was su ch an un fo res een an d ret ro act iv e

ex pa ns io n of na rro w a nd pr eci se st at u t o r y la ng ua ge , B ou ie , 3 78 U.S. a t 35 2, th at it

"re su lt ed in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to

, or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n

of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d

St at es ." 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). Mea do r's arg um en t, whi le pe rh ap s co nv in ci ng as

a m at t e r of st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, is no t su ffi ci en tl y de fin it iv e to m eet th es e two

st an da rd s. In pa rti cu la r, th e st at e's arg um en t th at th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

di d n o t c o nf

ro nt th e sa m e fact s in Ru be y as it was pr es en te d wit h in th is cas e

in di cat es th at th ere is no pr io r un ifo r m i n t e r p ret at io n co nt rary to th e st at e's pr es en t

in te rp ret at io n, as AEDPA and Bo ui e req ui re.

Acco rd in gl y , we a f

f i r m t h e de ci si on of th e di st ric t co ur t de nyin g Mea do r's

cl ai m for rel ie f un de r AEDPA.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-