Opinion ID: 1743191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: May Events Occurring After Original Scoring of Risk Assessment Instrument Be Considered in Review Hearing Challenging Risk Assessment Classification?

Text: [5] We first address the threshold issue raised by McCray's motion for rehearing, which is whether events which occur after the risk assessment instrument is scored but before the completion of administrative review may be considered by the reviewing officer. SORA is a civil, nonpunitive regulatory scheme designed to protect the public from the danger posed by sex offenders. Welvaert v. Nebraska State Patrol, 268 Neb. 400, 683 N.W.2d 357 (2004); Slansky v. Nebraska State Patrol, 268 Neb. 360, 685 N.W.2d 335 (2004); State v. Worm, 268 Neb. 74, 680 N.W.2d 151 (2004). The Nebraska State Patrol is required by law to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the registration provisions of [SORA]. § 29-4013(1). Under rules and regulations adopted pursuant to SORA, registrants are granted a limited review hearing to contest their classification. Slansky v. Nebraska State Patrol, supra ; 272 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 19, § 014 (2000). These hearings are limited to the appropriateness of a registrant's classification. Id. McCray argues that if our opinion in McCray I means that the hearing officer may only review the accuracy of the risk assessment as of the date of the initial scoring, then a reviewing officer charged with determining the appropriate level of classification for an offender could not consider evidence of events occurring after the initial scoring, even if those events involved actual sexual recidivism. In the NSP's original brief, it agreed that the rules governing SORA are not intended to work in such a manner and that the hearing officer is entitled to consider the latest [post-scoring] information because the hearing officer's task is not so much to decide whether the scorer erred, but to use the latest and best information in conjunction with the [risk assessment] Instrument and Manual in order to determine into which Risk Level Classification the offender should be placed. Brief for appellee at 12. Our review of the regulations existing at the time of the administrative review process in this case, considered in light of the protective purpose of SORA, supports the argument that a hearing officer may consider events occurring after the initial scoring of the risk assessment instrument in arriving at a recommendation of what risk assessment level should be adopted by the NSP. The rules provided that [n]o community notification based upon classification levels shall be made until the hearing and any subsequent appeals are final or eight (8) working days have passed since the classification notification was mailed to the offender and no request for a hearing has been received, whichever is later. 272 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 19, § 014.03. At a review hearing, the offender may present information which challenges the application of the classification instrument and which has a bearing on the risk of recidivism. 272 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 19, § 014.02. The rules permit reclassification if new information is received that would appear to have a bearing on the risk of recidivism. 272 Neb. Admin. Code, ch 19. § 015.01 (2000). Thus, we conclude that the orders setting aside McCray's three prior convictions could properly be considered by the hearing officer in resolving McCray's challenge to his Level 3 classification. We therefore must resolve the issue which we did not reach in McCray I : whether the hearing officer and the district court erred in determining that the non-sex-offenses could be used for purposes of scoring the risk assessment instrument, notwithstanding the fact that they had been set aside under § 29-2264.