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 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.