The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. Gautier's procedural-due-process rights and may not be enforced unless there is a hearing regarding his current dangerousness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.
He was given a two-year suspended sentence and required to register as a sex offender "for a period of ten 10 years from the date of registration.
In , the statute was amended to clarify that the registration period runs from the ending date of the sentence. Thus, Gautier's registration requirement was set to end in March Gautier does not challenge this amendment, and appears to suggest that he had anticipated at the time of his plea that the registration period would be counted from the end of his two-year sentence.
It required the Department of Corrections to "establish a risk assessment review committee" that would develop and employ "a sex offender screening tool. The purpose of the tool was to identify an offender's "level of risk" based on "an objective point system," with the convicted offense "serv[ing] as the basis for the minimum numeric risk level.
The tool was to be calibrated to three risk levels: Effective November , the risk assessment review committee was replaced by a "sex offender level assignment committee," and the screening tool was discarded, with the offender level being determined by "federal law" and the offense of conviction. Each of the three risk levels was then given a specific registration period. Specifically, level-one offenders were given a fifteen-year period; level-two offenders were given a twenty-five year period; and level-three offenders were given a lifetime period.
Shortly after the changes to the OSORA took effect, the Department of Corrections notified Gautier that he scored a level three on its newly developed screening tool, which considered only "the severity of the sex crime and the number of sex crime convictions.
The screening tool in the record provides a level-three score for "Sexual Battery to [a] Person Over 16," Gautier's offense. Accordingly, Gautier was notified of the lifetime registration requirement. Gautier filed a civil-rights suit against Jones in federal court. He then sought summary judgment on the basis that the lifetime-registration requirement violated his plea agreement and his ex-post-facto and due-process rights.
The district court rejected Gautier's arguments, except in regard to procedural due process, which, it determined, mandated a hearing before Gautier could be classified as a level-three sex offender. Consequently, the district court granted Gautier summary judgment on that point and enjoined Jones from enforcing the OSORA against Gautier without such a hearing. Standards of Review "We review de novo the grant of summary judgment to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact were in dispute and, if not, whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law at issue.
Procedural Due Process "The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake. Gautier contends that he has a liberty interest in not being labeled a level-three sex offender, i. Dep't of Public Safety v. In other words, a convicted sex offender who challenges a registration requirement on the ground that he was not given a hearing to determine whether he is currently dangerous, must at least show that current dangerousness is relevant to the registration requirement.
Here, the OSORA directed the development and use of a three-level screening tool that assigned a " minimum numeric risk level" based on the offense of conviction. The tool that was ultimately developed and used in Gautier's case identified his crime as an offense warranting the highest risk level, three.
Thus, Gautier's conviction alone was sufficient to place him in the highest level, without regard to any extraneous circumstances bearing on his proclivity to re-offend. Consequently, even if Gautier could prove he is not currently dangerous, it would not change his risk level, which, at a minimum, is level three.
Dep't of Public Safety, U. The district court reasoned that Connecticut Department of Public Safety is not controlling because the OSORA uses the offender's conviction as "the starting point to assess future dangerousness, not the sole factor.
But that reasoning ignores the fact that, in this case, the starting point Gautier's conviction was necessarily the ending point, given that the prescribed minimum risk level is the highest level. No other factor could have had any bearing on the assignment of Gautier's risk level. While this case was on appeal, the district court entered an order staying its procedural due-process ruling as to non-party sex offenders.
That stay order is moot in light of our reversal.