[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6077250,"mediaKeyId","2965044-552ee224a7ae4493c4d4527a7384ed5d","parentId",2965044,"title","Appeals court probes whether roommate relationship justifies internet dissemination in registry case 24P0181","audioSeconds",1495,"startMs",26375,"endMs",1521860,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2965044-552ee224a7ae4493c4d4527a7384ed5d&start=26&end=1521","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2965044-552ee224a7ae4493c4d4527a7384ed5d/thumbnail_26375.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6077250/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-probes-whether-roommate-relationship-justifies-internet-dissemination-in-registry-case-24P0181","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6077250-57da9df51f6601be77bf72eba6b47d53/orig.mp4?Expires=1775903077&Signature=AetXSkkQ-8OdlKFdFk7zboI82ieaCwGIy66U~MY2MPkSCKMzo8wC67KlXJ~lOyJ7fIUZQCPiEuxWub8hosvmn~NKSRuBLX0Z6nWApxk6TTRX2PZpzuRETInD8jjchUBN419qUfQlbw6xLvKQMseGR2UL8X2dkZQ5eNVIB69ETYR6QEEpLdBfzxm5QXXbth-AubkbPFKalEKbCckzC3ckfokanHEUG1e7J~tfH9D1KG~XkTEjXzMB34RUacTbwVydiJlLjsH01zR3DVwrx-Up8Z1K3~eUeVznwSdNehyY6zQUI37LwfAd~soXumlt2xKjJBTtjg-My3axsYb8birEqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-11T21:17:13.02Z","article","The Connecticut Appellate Panel heard argument in case 24P0181 concerning whether the Offender Registry Board properly classified John Doe (Docket No. 528140) and whether internet dissemination of registry information was reasonably necessary when the victim and defendant had lived together and had intermittent intimacy.

The issue boiled down to how to read the board’s “factor 7” language about a “familial household/live‑in relationship” and whether that term requires more than the length of cohabitation. \"An intra familial relationship isn't dependent solely upon the length of time in which someone is in the residence, but it also requires something more,\" Attorney Fred Burkholder told the court, arguing that the board had no record support for finding a familial relationship on the facts here. Burkholder pressed that the record showed the parties were \"roommates for 3 years with intermittent intimacy,\" not an established romantic partnership.

Stephen Killoley, representing the Appellatee Offender Registry Board, urged deference to the hearing examiner's factual findings. \"The merits turns on the substantial evidence supporting the hearing examiner's decision to classify Doe as a level 2 *** offender,\" Killoley said, arguing the examiner reasonably treated the pair as roommates and that dissemination could warn acquaintances and potential partners outside the household.

The panel questioned both sides about evidentiary scope and legal standards. Justices and counsel debated whether underlying articles cited in the board’s regulations — including the research that informs factor 7 and the Static‑99 coding rules — may be consulted by the court when a regulation uses an undefined term. Counsel discussed procedural steps such as a Rule 16 letter and whether studies cited in the board’s regulations are part of the administrative record for purposes of judicial review. Burkholder said he had not had an opportunity to introduce those studies at the administrative hearing and thus had not relied on them at the hearing level; the bench asked whether that procedural posture limited judicial review.

The panel also questioned which party bears the burden to prove whether a victim is intra‑familial or extra‑familial. Burkholder argued the status of the victim is a ‘‘subsidiary fact’’ for which the board must carry the preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence burden. Killoley responded that the hearing examiner explicitly considered the evidence before him, including police report statements, and reasonably concluded the relationship was a roommate relationship rather than a family‑substitute.

On dissemination, the board’s counsel argued that even if the victim denies an official romantic relationship, the board may reasonably conclude that an offender who engaged in on‑again, off‑again intimate conduct while cohabiting could also have conduct involving people outside the home; that inference, the board says, supports internet dissemination as a public safety measure. Defense counsel countered that if the record lacks proof about the victim’s status, the board could not reasonably apply factor 7 and that judicial deference ends when an agency decision lacks evidentiary support.

The panel took the matter under advisement after questioning and argument. \"Matter stands submitted,\" the clerk announced at the close of argument.

The court did not issue a decision at argument; the panel will issue an opinion at a later date.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, April 11, 2025, Desmond, Sacks, Brennan, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","The Connecticut Appellate Panel heard argument in case 24P0181 concerning whether the Offender Registry Board properly classified John Doe (Docket No. 528140) and whether internet dissemination of registry information was reasonably necessary when the victim and defendant had lived together and had intermittent intimacy.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6077246,"Appeals court hears challenge to classification over \"grooming\" findings and PPG evidence in 24P0226",1744,1542409,3286435,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2965044-552ee224a7ae4493c4d4527a7384ed5d&start=1542&end=3286","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2965044-552ee224a7ae4493c4d4527a7384ed5d/thumbnail_1542409.jpg","/articles/6077246/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-classification-over-grooming-findings-and-PPG-evidence-in-24P0226","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6077246-6cefd9c6ce0cbf47f88d43a1d00138d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775903077&Signature=fl18TKNYA6XGwzfqnJW4KuHc2GxDIEQuTktpo5Gu8LtjQbR749FUq1WS-9Qw4NdhRahx~igKfKjLB3syNRFBhbNsG0PrbRGCM5huca6RCQELsmJgG94wzUKUOmzHhQCDEOt5bGDdRmdvF-9~ORb3CQgAxVOYEMgNdmD9fNZzG6qD4BAP3-HK4tmYxavwSf1b6zQlBnNMyBn9terzQeEF1xDF7-x9MQq-UZCP~aWoHXnOkvAlXxsOaeCs1tpmWNWwVUph0wJqur8QCoi7NuLbhN1oVcHFF4muMybXL4u1K43FNWjxm7Qg8Va2mgc05PqWgLsHF1-wBLpfAsO5p47AJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appellate Panel heard argument in docket 24P0226 (Doe No. 526715) on whether the Offender Registry Board’s classification should be vacated because the hearing examiner made unsupported findings about psychological tendencies, including \"grooming,\" and because certain risk factors and tests were misapplied.

\"The classification must be vacated for 3 reasons,\" counsel Ilsean Earing told the panel, arguing that the examiner's findings that Doe \"suffered from potential deviant ****** interest in minor females\" and that his behavior was \"in line with grooming\" were unsupported by substantial evidence and exceeded the hearing examiner's authority because the regulations do not authorize independent findings about psychological conditions.

Earing disputed factual findings about Doe’s prior roles and contacts with minors. Counsel noted that in February 2005 Doe worked a night shift at a residential program where his duties included walking the halls and checking that residents were in bed; Earing characterized the role as a monitor and argued the record did not support the hearing examiner's use of those incidents to infer a grooming pattern. The transcript includes allegations that the minor alleged Doe entered a room early in the morning and used a pillow repeatedly; counsel for the petitioner said some particulars were not credited in the DCF or hearing record and emphasized that certain alleged contacts were denied by Doe.

The panel also examined the role and weight of objective testing. Earing criticized the hearing examiner’s treatment of a penile plethysmography (PPG) result, noting the examiner observed \"no significant arousal to deviant stimuli\" and also said that the PPG data were not appropriate for statistical analysis of deviant preferences. Counsel argued that the examiner inconsistently assigned weight to actuarial instruments and the PPG, then used other record items to conclude an elevated risk.

The Board’s counsel responded that even without some contested facts the record contains multiple risk factors, including a later sexual‑offense conviction in 2018. Counsel emphasized the relevance of repeat conduct and positions of trust: the 2005 incident involved a residential program and later conduct alleged involved a travel‑basketball coach relationship with a teenage complainant. The board argued those facts, plus the conviction and other factors, supported the assigned level.

The panel pressed both sides on whether disputed factor applications — for example, apparent inconsistent weight given to substance‑abuse evidence and actuarial instruments — required remand. Counsel for the board said the remaining evidence would sustain the classification; petitioner’s counsel argued misapplication of several factors prejudiced the outcome and warranted vacatur and remand.

After extended questioning, the panel took the matter under advisement. The court did not announce a decision at argument.

","In 24P0226, counsel for the petitioner argued the hearing examiner's findings that Doe displayed grooming behavior and deviant sexual interest lacked substantial evidence and impermissibly relied on hearsay and psychological constructs; the board contended remaining evidence justified the high classification.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court probes whether roommate relationship justifies internet dissemination in registry case 24P0181

Appeals court hears challenge to classification over "grooming" findings and PPG evidence in 24P0226