Opinion ID: 773077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act

Text: 20 To determine the legislature's intent when enacting the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act, we consider the body's declared purpose, the structure of the statute, and its design. Id. at 1087. Here, this examination produces conflicting signals as to whether the legislature intended the Act to be regarded as punitive. 21 One factor recently relied upon by the Supreme Court in determining whether a legislature intended a statute to be considered punitive is the statute's placement in the state code. When considering a civil commitment statute for sexual predators, the Court explained that the state's intent was not punitive on the basis of the fact that the provision was placed in the state's civil code, rather than in its criminal code. Kansasv. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 (1997); see Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1249 (10th Cir. 2000); but see Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 474 (6th Cir. 1999) (location within criminal procedure laws does not necessarily indicate an intent on the part of the legislature to punish); Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263, 1277-78 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding intent of statute non-punitive although it is placed in the state code's Corrections Law volume). The Alaska statute's placement provides conflicting signals as to whether the legislature intended it to be regarded as punitive. 22 The legislature codified the registration portion of the Act within Title 12 of the Alaska Code, which is entitled Criminal Procedure, while codifying the notification provisions in Title 18, entitled Health, Safety and Housing. If the statute were intended to be regarded as a non-punitive public safety measure, one would expect that it would have been placed entirely within the title of the Alaska code governing Safety: Title 18. Title 18 includes chapters concerning sexual assault investigations (chapter 68); police protection (chapter 65); and even a registration provision (chapter 75, concerning licensing and control of dogs). Placement of the sex offender act's registration provisions in Title 12, suggests that the legislature was more concerned with the fact that the offenders are convicted criminals than with public safety administration. 6 23 While the placement of the Act within the Alaska's code provides some evidence that it was, at least in part, intended to be punitive, two aspects of its design, in particular, provide much stronger evidence of punitive intent. The Act requires that when a defendant is sentenced for a sex offense, the registration and notification provisions are to be made a part of the criminal judgment against him. 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws 41, S 11. Alaska criminal judgments must include the defendant's plea, the verdict or findings, and the adjudication and sentence. Alaska Rule of Crim. P. 32(b). In the case of someone convicted of a sexual offense, the written judgment must [also] set out the requirements of [the Act]. Alaska Rule of Crim. P. S 32(c). Directing courts to include the registration and notification requirements of the Act in judgments evinces an intent that the application of its provisions to the defendant be regarded as part of his punishment for the crime, because the purpose of the judgment is to set forth the crime and punishment. 7 24 Furthermore, the Act amends the state's rules of criminal procedure to compel judges to advise defendants about the Act's requirements before accepting guilty pleas. Alaska Rule of Crim. P. S 11(c). Making notice of the registration requirements a prerequisite for an informed guilty plea strongly suggests that the legislature acknowledges that the requirements constitute punishment. 25 While the structure and design of the statute indicate that it is intended to be regarded as punitive, the Act's legislative findings indicate otherwise. Section 1 of the Alaska statute states: 26 The legislature finds that 27 (1) sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending after release from custody; 28 (2) protecting the public from sex offenders is a primary governmental interest; 29 (3) the privacy interests of persons convicted of sex offenses are less important than the government's interest in public safety; and 30 (4) release of certain information about sex offenders to public agencies and the general public will assist in protecting public safety. 31 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws 41, S 1. 32 These findings indicate that the legislature viewed the Act as a measure designed to accomplish a non-punitive purpose -protection of the public through the collection and release of information. Patterson, 985 P.2d at 1011 (findings make clear that legislature viewed recidivism of sex offenders [as] a problem, and sought to address the problem through the release of certain information). 33 We recently considered whether Washington's sex offender registration statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1997). In Russell, we determined that Washington's far more narrowly drawn and limited statute did not violate that Clause because it could not be considered punitive. Id. at 1089, 1093. We looked to legislative findings that included a statement that it is Washington's policy to better enable law enforcement to protect their communities by regulating sex offenders, and found that statement conclusive of the fact that the intent of the law was regulatory, not punitive. 124 F.3d at 1087. In the present case, however, while the legislative findings provide some support for the proposition that the Act is not intended to be punitive, the findings are by no means conclusive. Here, as we have explained above, unlike the Washington statute, the structure and design of the Alaska Act support the contrary conclusion: that the legislature intended that the statute be punitive. 34 Having carefully considered both the legislative findings and the statute's structure and design, we conclude that the Alaska legislature has not clearly expressed its intent as to whether or not the Act should be considered punitive. Thus, we now turn to the effects prong.