Appeals court reviews whether registry board adequately explained level‑3 offender classification
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
In an appeal by a registrant identified as John Doe 473226, counsel argued the Offender Registry Board failed to explain why static and dynamic factors justified a level‑3 classification; the board defended its weighing of static factors and the examiner's explicit findings.
Fred Burkle, representing John Doe 473226 (case 2024P920), asked the panel to find the Offender Registry Board’s level‑3 classification unsupported because the hearing examiner did not sufficiently explain how the applicable factors, in context, justified the higher level rather than a lower one.
Burkle said many examiner decisions simply list applicable factors without individualized analysis and that the board’s discretion requires more explicit findings mapping facts to the degree of dangerousness. He told the court there is no clear benchmark distinguishing level‑2 from level‑3 classifications and urged the court to require more explanation to make the decision intelligible on appeal.
Mohammed Yasin, counsel for the registry board, replied that the hearing examiner provided explicit findings and explained the predictive weight placed on static factors—particularly crimes involving strangers and child victims—and that substantial evidence supports the level‑3 outcome. He argued the law requires deference to the board’s considered predictive judgments unless unsupported by the record.
The panel questioned whether the passage of time, incarceration and prospects for reclassification should alter weight given to static factors. Both sides acknowledged the difficult line‑drawing inherent in the classification scheme. The case was submitted for decision.