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

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…