Opinion ID: 2007417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the General Assembly Intended KRS 17.545 to be Punitive

Text: We must first determine whether the General Assembly intended to establish a civil, nonpunitive, regulatory scheme, or whether the legislature intended to impose punishment. In determining the legislature's intent, this Court must first ask whether the legislature, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other. Smith, 538 U.S. at 93, 123 S.Ct. 1140 (quoting Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997)). Therefore, we look to the General Assembly's expressed and implied intent. In determining the General Assembly's implied intent, we look to, as discussed in Smith , [o]ther formal attributes of a legislative enactment, such as the manner of its codification or the enforcement procedures it establishes. 538 U.S. at 94, 123 S.Ct. 1140. We begin by examining the General Assembly's expressed intent in enacting KRS 17.545. The legislative history of House Bill 3 is extremely sparse. The bill was entitled AN ACT related to sex offenses and the punishment thereof. 2006 Ky. Acts 182. This title suggests that the General Assembly intended KRS 17.545 to be punitive. However, while the title of an act may be used as an aid in statutory construction, Wheeler & Clevenger Oil Co., Inc. v. Washburn, 127 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Ky.2004), we do not believe that it should be determinative in this situation. We therefore look to the General Assembly's implied intent in enacting KRS 17.545. First, we consider the manner of its codification. Kentucky's original sex offender residency restrictions, which were codified at KRS 17.495, were part of the 2000 amendments to Kentucky's Megan's Law. [4] 2000 Ky. Acts 401. In Hyatt v. Commonwealth, this Court, addressing the sex offender registration portions of our Megan's Law (including the 2000 amendments), concluded that those statutes are directly related to the nonpunitive goals of protecting the safety of the public. 72 S.W.3d at 572. Second, we look at the penalties established by KRS 17.545. Violation of residency restrictions is a crime: a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a class D felony for subsequent offenses. KRS 17.545(3). However, criminal liability attaches only if the offender fails to move. This is similar to the criminal liability under KRS 17.510(11) for failing to register as a sex offender, which we upheld in Hyatt, 72 S.W.3d at 573. See also Smith, 538 U.S. at 101-02, 123 S.Ct. 1140 (A sex offender who fails to comply with the reporting requirement may be subjected to a criminal prosecution for that failure, but any prosecution is a proceeding separate from the individual's original offense.). We conclude that the General Assembly intended KRS 17.545 to be a civil, nonpunitive, regulatory scheme. Therefore, we now consider the second part of the Smith test.