Opinion ID: 1232067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Risk Assessment Instrument

Text: Welvaert argues that the risk assessment instrument is invalid because it is a flawed indicator of recidivism. Welvaert raises seven general complaints concerning the risk assessment instrument and the assessment process. First, Welvaert contends that the instrument is invalid because [t]oo much variability presently exists between the states so that no uniformity [or] consistency exists in this classification process. Brief for appellant at 5. Welvaert does not explain, however, how the absence of nationwide uniformity in sex offender registration statutes makes the NSP's risk assessment instrument invalid. We decline to speculate on possible arguments in this regard and find Welvaert's first contention to be without merit. Second, Welvaert contends that the instrument is invalid because NSP investigators score the instrument, lending to yet more subjective scoring and classification. Id. The record does not support Welvaert's contention. During Welvaert's prenotification hearing, the clinical director of the NSP Sex Offender Registry, Shannon Black, Ph.D., under questioning by Welvaert's attorney, testified regarding the reliability of assessments completed by investigators. For example, Black noted that the instrument's author tested it for inter-rater reliability prior to allowing the investigators to do assessments individually. In addition, Black stated that prior to completing assessments, the investigators attend training specific to the risk assessment of sex offenders and that she is available to help investigators with questions during the completion of an assessment. Moreover, Black stated that she no longer reviews every assessment because the investigators score the instrument consistently. Furthermore, we note that even if an investigator errs during the completion of an assessment, the offender has the opportunity to correct these errors by contesting his or her classification level to a hearing officer and then to the courts if necessary. Third, Welvaert contends that the instrument is invalid because the investigators do not conduct interviews prior to assigning offenders their presumptive classifications. However, Welvaert fails to explain why the absence of a preclassification interview invalidates the instrument. In any event, we note that Welvaert was given the opportunity to put on evidence and testify at his prenotification hearing. Therefore, prior to the public dissemination of his registry information, Welvaert was given a meaningful opportunity to contest his classification, and his argument is without merit. See Slansky v. Nebraska State Patrol, ante p. 360, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2004) (determining that SORA's prenotification hearing comports with due process). Fourth, Welvaert contends that the instrument is invalid because it never takes into account the particulars of the crime in terms of the counting of convictions or the occasion of the acts that led to the convictions. Brief for appellant at 5. Similarly, in his fifth argument, Welvaert states that it is [t]roublesome . . . that the offender is never offered an opportunity to offer any mitigation in this process of classification. Id. These arguments are without merit. As an initial matter, an investigator doing the initial classification has the authority to depart from an offender's presumptive classification if the records that he or she reviews justify such a departure. Moreover, if offenders choose to contest their classification, they may present evidence of mitigation, including the circumstances surrounding the underlying crime, during the hearing. Therefore, offenders not only have an opportunity to rebut the facts that led to their presumptive classification level, but they also have the opportunity to present mitigating facts which may justify a downward departure. Sixth, Welvaert contends that the instrument is invalid because definitions used by the [NSP] in this classification process also allows [sic] the assessor to double score an individual for the same behavior. Id. Essentially, Welvaert's argument stems from his disagreement with his score for item 9 (use of force). Item 9 explores the nature of the sexual assault and is broken down into seven subcategories. Relevant here, Welvaert was assessed 5 points for fondling and 25 points for using physical violence or force against a victim. At Welvaert's prenotification hearing, the investigator for the NSP was questioned about the assessment of 5 points for fondling and 25 points for physical force or violence. The investigator testified that Welvaert was assigned 5 points for fondling because a police report states that Welvaert fondled two of the victims. A review of the record reveals that the main victim stated that Welvaert tickled and fondled her, and fondled a second underage girl. Similarly, the investigator discussed a different police report wherein a third victim reported that Welvaert `got on top of her and pulled her pants down around her knees. He was also placing his hand under her shirt and fondling her breasts.' When asked why Welvaert was assessed 25 points for physical violence or force, the investigator again pointed to the third victim's statement that Welvaert `[g]ot on top of her and pulled her pants down around her knees.' On appeal, Welvaert argues that the instrument's vague definitions allowed the instructor to improperly assign him 5 points for fondling and 25 points for physical force for the exact same conduct, i.e., getting on top of and pulling down the pants of the third victim. As an initial matter, we note that Welvaert does not explain why the same conduct could not lead to multiple assessments of points under different items or subcategories. Moreover, because the presence of conduct that corresponds with an item or subcategory correlates to an increased risk of recidivism, it is only logical that conduct that falls under multiple items or subcategories should be scored accordingly. In any event, the record shows that the assessment of 25 points for the use of physical violence or force was not justified solely on the basis of the aforementioned statement concerning pulling down the third victim's pants. The record reveals that after Welvaert got on top of the third victim and pulled her pants down, she `placed both hands on his chest and attempted to push him off.' At this time, the victim is reported to have told Welvaert `no,' to get off, and to `Stop it.' In sum, the district court's decision to uphold the NSP's assessment of points under item 9 is supported by competent evidence and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Seventh, Welvaert contends that the instrument is invalid because it has a statistical error rate of 12 percent. This argument was analyzed and rejected in Slansky v. Nebraska State Patrol, ante p. 360, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2004). No further discussion is warranted in the present appeal.