Advertisement

Sex-Offender Case to Go Before Supreme Court

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

In the wake of a national crackdown on sexual predators, the Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide whether rapists and child molesters who are deemed dangerous can be kept in custody, even after they have completed their prison terms.

A ruling, due next year, likely will determine the fate of new laws in California and five other states that allow the indefinite confinement of pedophiles and repeat rapists. It could even affect “Megan’s Law,” the much-copied New Jersey statute that requires the public to be notified when a sexual offender is released into a community.

But both types of laws have been blocked in some lower courts. The Kansas Supreme Court in March ruled unconstitutional a law that permitted a 62-year-old convicted child molester from Wichita who had served his 15-year prison sentence to be forcibly held.

Advertisement

“We think this [law] is a common-sense approach to protect the public from people who have a history of brutal sex offenses,” said Kansas Atty. Gen. Carla J. Stovall, whose appeal of the case (Kansas vs. Hendrick, 95-1649) will be heard in the fall.

Washington state in 1990 passed the first law permitting sexual predators to be detained. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, California and Arizona followed suit.

The California law took effect Jan. 1. It has been struck down by judges in five counties but upheld in several others, officials said.

Prosecutors have referred to the California law as a stopgap measure that allows them to convince a jury that a convicted sex criminal represents a danger to the community if he is released. But defense lawyers have maintained that it violates basic constitutional principles of due process of law and double jeopardy to hold a prisoner after he has served his time.

Last month, President Clinton signed into law a new federal measure to make “Megan’s Law” a national policy. It requires state officials to inform communities when released sex offenders settle nearby. But federal judges in New Jersey, where the law originated, have barred its enforcement there, contending that it is an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment.

The Kansas case may resolve that issue, too. “If this law [allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders] is upheld, it seems to me you would have a hard time arguing that a notification law is invalid,” said University of Kansas law professor Stephen McAllister.

Advertisement

In a second case involving sex crimes, the justices agreed to rule on whether women have a constitutional right to be free of sexual assaults by public officials.

The answer to that question is apparently not as easy as it might appear. In January, a federal appeals court threw out a 25-year prison sentence imposed on an elected Tennessee state judge who was convicted of forcing sex on five women in his chambers.

No federal law specifically makes it illegal to commit a sexual assault. The judge was tried under a Reconstruction-era law that makes it a crime for officials acting “under color of law” to deprive persons of their “rights, privileges or immunities” protected by the Constitution.

*

It was this law that allowed federal prosecutors to try Los Angeles police officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell for beating motorist Rodney King. The beating violated the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” the court said.

Since 1981, the Justice Department has used the same law to bring sexual assault charges in 29 cases.

But the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the “right not to be assaulted” has not been declared a “constitutional right.” It voided felony convictions of former Judge David W. Lanier, a member of a politically prominent Tennessee family who was not charged by local prosecutors.

Advertisement

Clinton administration attorneys appealed; the justices said they would hear the case (U.S. vs. Lanier, 95-1717) in the fall.

“This is a blatant abuse of power, just like with the cops who beat Rodney King,” said Mary-Christine Sungaila, a Newport Beach lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the California Women’s Law Center urging the justices to reinstate Lanier’s conviction.

For a Monday in mid-June, it was an odd day at the court. The justices released only one written ruling, involving a minor sentencing issue. But they reversed two lower courts in controversial cases and agreed to take on eight new cases.

Among the actions, the justices:

* Agreed to rule on a constitutional challenge to the Brady Act, which requires a waiting period before guns can be purchased (Printz vs. U.S., 95-1478). A Texas court said that it violates states’ rights for Congress to force sheriffs to do background checks on buyers.

* Reinstated part of a Utah law restricting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy (Leavitt vs. Jane L., 95-1242). On a 5-4 vote, the court said these late-term restrictions can stand even though other provisions in the 1991 law cannot.

* Overturned at least tentatively a Cincinnati charter amendment that blocks antidiscrimination measures benefiting gays and lesbians. In Equality Foundation vs. Cincinnati, 95-239, the justices on a 6-3 vote told a lower court to reconsider the issue under the terms of their recent Colorado ruling striking down an anti-gay civil rights initiative.

Advertisement

* Agreed to hear the government’s appeal of its policy that bars Vietnamese boat people who fled to Hong Kong from seeking visas here without first returning home (U.S. Department of State vs. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese, 95-1521). An appeals court said that this was illegal discrimination.

Advertisement