Lifetime Registration for Sex Offenders Limited to Recidivists

The lifetime sex offender registration requirement that applies to persons convicted of “two or more” sex offenses does not apply to offenders who have multiple charges in their first prosecution

A.S. v. Pa. State Police, 2016 BL 263364, Pa., No. 24 MAP 2014, 8/15/16

Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison, 2016 BL 263370, Pa., No. 28 MAP 2015, 8/15/16.

   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the state’s rule that places a sex offender on a lifetime registry for committing two or more sex offenses, now only requiring sex offenders who have been prosecuted two or more times to be placed on the registry. Before, state police were requiring first-time sex offenders with multiple charges to register with the lifetime sex offender registry in the state.

   The court found that the lifetime registration should be reserved for repeat offenders who have failed to reform themselves, while first-time offenders and those who commit less serious crimes can still have a chance through rehabilitation. The court further held that the structure of the schemes, with the graduated tiers of registration requirements, reveal that the legislature had a “recidivist philosophy” in mind.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/AS_v_Pa_State_Police_No_24_MAP_2014_2016_BL_263364_Pa_Aug_15_2016.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Commonwealth_v_LutzMorrison_No_28_MAP_2015_2016_BL_263370_Pa_Aug_.

Automatic Standing Rule Allowing Suppression of Evidence Limited for Multiple Charges

A defendant cannot use the state’s automatic standing rule to suppress evidence for one charge where the evidence was not an essential element, even if it can be used in a different charge

Commonwealth v. Miller, 2016 BL 266206, Mass, SJC-10640, 8/17/16.

   The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state’s automatic standing for defendants in suppressing evidence seized on someone else’s property does not extend equally across multiple charges. In the case, a murder suspect was not able to suppress evidence gathered from someone else’s property in relation to his murder charge because the evidence was not essential to the elements of the crime. The same evidence, however, was suppressible in an unlawful possession of a large capacity weapon charge because it was relevant to the charge.

   The court held, “Standing to contest a search is gauged by looking at the individual charges and evaluating whether the items taken were essential to prosecution of the charge.” Although the rule was properly used by the defendant for his unlawful possession charge, the evidence was not essential to the murder charge, thereby not requiring suppression.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Commonwealth_v_Miller_475_Mass_212_2016_Court_Opinion.