A group of Maine sex offenders who have filed suit challenging the requirements of the state's sex-offender registry, may be eligible to have themselves removed from the public listing.  The opportunity comes as the result of a new law that goes into effect in September.

The criteria for placement on Maine's Internet-based sex offender registry have changed numerous times since it was first created.  In 2005, legislators changed the law to add sex offenders with records going back to 1982. That prompted 41 so-called John Does to issue a legal challenge.

"My client pled guilty to a sex offense about 25 years ago," says David Crook, an attorney who represents one of the John Does involved in the suit. "Since he's been out, he has been a model citizen. He has not so much as had a speeding ticket. He is sorry for what he did. He paid his debt. Frankly, my client - and I can say this because of my age - he's an old man who's rather harmless."

In their lawsuits, the John Does say registration under the state's sex-offender law violates their constitutional rights and imposes an additional penalty on crimes they committed up to 26 years ago. Some say they've been threatened, beaten and unable to work due to their placement on the list.
 
While those 41 lawsuits were pending, the Legislature passed a new law this year that allows some offenders to apply for removal from the registry. 

"It allows people who receive notice to apply to the registry to be excused from the requirement that they register," says Lenny Sharon, another defesne attorney involved in the suit.  He represents three of the John Does.

Lenny Sharon is another defense attorney involved in the suit. He represents three of the John Does. "My three plaintiffs fit the criteria of those that would be excused from registering. And we'll apply and if we receive notice that we are excused from registering, we'll dismiss the lawsuit."

The state Attorney General's office says that there were 30 plaintiffs eligible to apply.  To qualify, they must have been convicted of a sex offense between Jan. 1, 1982, and June 30, 1992, and their convictions cannot include more than one Class A sex offense or sexually violent offense. They cannot have had any subsequent sex or felony offenses and they must undergo national criminal background checks to confirm the information. They also must have fully completed their jail time and probation.

While Sharon says he's glad his clients have an opportunity to get off the sex offender registry, he says he still questions whether the new law is constitutional.

"I think that this bill has some problems with the type of classification of those that are not permitted to register. For instance, if you've been convicted of a drug offense since you were convicted of a sex offense, I don't see what relevency that has as to whether or not you should be on a sex offender registry," Sharon says.  "So I guess the ultimate question will be whether or not the differentiation made between those who can be excused and those who cannot be excused are constitutionally sound."

Sharon's concern with the law is shared by defense attorney David Crook, a former District Attorney, who says the Legislature still needs to involve more practicing lawyers and judges in decisions regarding the sex offender registry. "I think the legislature simply did not seek out the guidance of the everyday practitioner who's in court dealing with these cases on a regular basis. Let the people that are most knowledgeable in this area recommend legislation that would be effective, purposeful."

And one other defense attorney in the lawsuit, Stephen Schwartz, says that while he applauds the legislators who supported the law, he doesn't think they considered the importance of maintaining anonymity for the sex offenders who apply to be removed from the list.

"I think the application process will be smooth, frankly, and this is really where I think the Attorney General's office and the state Bureau of Identification are really working to ensure the smooth enforcement of the law,"  Schwartz says. "However, I still have ongoing concerns about the anonymity of my client and the anonymity of those people who are making application."
 
Attorneys for the John Does who are not eligible to apply for exemption from the registry could not be reached for comment.