Opinion ID: 1423570
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Registration as an Affirmative Disability or Restraint

Text: In Noble, the court of appeals found that the registration statute imposes an affirmative disability or restraint because registration impair[s] employability, subject[s] registrants to increased police scrutiny, and last[s] for life. 167 Ariz. at 444, 808 P.2d at 329. These results occur because the registration documents are available not only to law enforcement officials, but also to employers, potential employers and volunteer youth-serving agencies if the victim of the underlying offense was a minor and the registrant's employment or volunteer activity would place him in regular contact with minors under fifteen years of age. Id. at 443, 808 P.2d at 328; see A.R.S. § 41-1750(B)(11). In McCuin, on the other hand, the court of appeals found that the registration requirement does not affirmatively inhibit or restrain an offender's movement or activities. 167 Ariz. at 454, 808 P.2d at 339 (emphasis added). We agree. The registration information may in some circumstances be available to potential employers and government agencies not involved in law enforcement. The information is only available, however, in statutorily specified circumstances where it serves a clearly regulatory purpose. A.R.S. § 41-1750(B). [8] At most, the requirement allows employers and social service agencies in certain sensitive areas, as well as governmental licensing agencies, to take the offender's record of conviction into account in rendering decisions on matters to which the offender's record is relevant. Furthermore, these employers and agencies already have access under § 41-1750(B) to the offender's conviction record, which includes the fact of the conviction along with identifying information. See A.R.S. § 41-1750(B); Rule 37.1(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S. (requiring convicting court to report the final disposition of the case ... to the criminal identification section of the Department of Public Safety if the defendant was incarcerated or fingerprinted as a result of the charge) (hereinafter Rule 37.1(a)). The registration requirement's marginal impact on the information available to non-law enforcement personnel is not the kind of affirmative disability or restraint usually associated with criminal punishment. McCuin, 167 Ariz. at 454, 808 P.2d at 339. Cf. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 18 L.Ed. 356 (1866) (Missouri constitutional provision disqualifying person from ministry, teaching, law practice, and other callings operated to impose additional punishment for past crimes).