Appeals argument on sex-offender registry relief centers on how to read "low" and "relatively low" risk findings

The Appeals Court heard argument in an impounded petition from a registrant seeking relief from lifetime registration obligations. Attorney Burkholder argued the hearing examiner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because his expert testified the petitioner’s risk was "relatively low" and that the board failed to explain why that assessment did not equate to relief. Burkholder repeatedly cited a line of appeals decisions (DOE cases) and urged the court to treat the regulatory scheme as requiring meaningful explanation when the expert evidence points toward minimal risk.

Gabriela Lamano, arguing for the Sex Offender Registry Board, said the hearing examiner considered the expert report but concluded the petitioner nonetheless presented a concerning history, including multiple violent sexual-offense convictions, lengthy sentences, and prior civil-commitment. "This is a person who committed 4 very violent assaults," Lamano told the panel, and she said the examiner properly weighed risk-enhancing and mitigating factors and found the petitioner remains a low but non-negligible risk.

Counsel debated the meaning of "no cognizable risk" versus "low" or "relatively low" and whether a hearing examiner must accept an expert’s clinical phrasing. Burkholder pointed to decisions where courts have vacated board rulings when factual findings were insufficient to support a classification. The board responded that Jackson- and DOE-related precedent permits examiners to weigh evidence and that the record here contains affirmative facts supporting continued registration.

Both attorneys told the court the issue often turns on the weight the examiner gives risk factors and the record’s factual detail. The court took the matter under advisement.