Quote Quoting flyingron
View Post
And as near as I can tell, the law has not changed since 2006. You were required to register back in 2008 as well.
It's not that simple. Indiana is state that take a different position from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether sex offender registration laws are subject to ex post facto prohibitions. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the U.S. constitution such lawas are not punitive and ex post facto concerns are not implicated. But the Indiana Supreme Court has held that under the Indiana Constitution those laws do indeed fall under the ex post facto restriction:

In summary, of the seven factors identified by Mendoza–Martinez as relevant to the inquiry of whether a statute has a punitive effect despite legislative intent that the statute be regulatory and non-punitive, only one factor in our view—advancing a non-punitive interest—points clearly in favor of treating the effects of the Act as non-punitive. The remaining factors, particularly the factor of excessiveness, point in the other direction.

Conclusion


Richard Wallace was charged, convicted, and served the sentence for his crime before the statutes collectively referred to as the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act were enacted. We conclude that as applied to Wallace, the Act violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws contained in the Indiana Constitution because it imposes burdens that have the effect of adding punishment beyond that which could have been imposed when his crime was committed. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 384 (Ind. 2009).

As a result, a sex offender who was not required to register at the time he committed the offense cannot be required to register thereafter when the state law was changed to include the offense he committed. The offender in this case was convicted in 2000. So the crime was committed no later than that. I don't have a copy of the Indiana Code from 2000 to tell if the offense of criminal confinement was one that required the offender here to register based on the way the code was at the time of his conviction. And, of course if the offense was committed prior to 2000, one would need to look at the law at that time. But the OP may be correct that it was not required at the time the offense was committed. The Wallace court noted that that specific offense is one that got added some time later as the state continually expanded its registration laws from the first enactment in 1994. If the law did not require the offender to register when the offense was committed the under the Wallace decision he cannot be required to register now.

The offender would want to consult a criminal defense attorney and find out whether the law required registration at the time the offense was committed and get advice as to the impact of the Wallace decision in his case. It may well be that he is not required to register, but it requires more information than I have here to determine that.