## Facts

- Marcus Brown pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and first-degree unlawful imprisonment after robbing his aunt at gunpoint in her home while his 10-year-old cousin was present.
- The conduct was undisputedly nonsexual, and the SORA court found Brown was not a sex offender and posed no sexual threat.
- New York law treats unlawful imprisonment of a minor by a nonparent as a SORA-eligible offense, triggering “sex offender” status by statutory definition even without sexual conduct or motive.
- The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders assessed Brown as a presumptive level-two registrant, while correctional authorities concluded he did not need sex-offense counseling or treatment due to the nonsexual nature of the offense.
- The SORA court ordered registration, stating it was constrained by prior precedent interpreting the statute.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the registration order.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits requiring sex-offender registration under SORA for a concededly nonsexual offense where the defendant is not a sex offender and poses no sexual threat.
2. Whether, as applied to Brown, SORA’s registration and designation requirements bear a rational relation to SORA’s purpose of protecting the public from actual sex offenders.
3. Whether prior precedent compelled registration notwithstanding a finding that registration does not advance SORA’s public-safety objective in the defendant’s circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.
- The Court held that requiring Brown to be designated and registered as a sex offender under SORA violated due process as applied.
- The Court granted Brown relief from SORA designation and registration obligations.
- The Court did not invalidate SORA on its face; the ruling was limited to Brown’s circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Due process limits the application of sex-offender registration statutes when the designation and its burdens impair a protected liberty interest without a rational connection to the statute’s public-safety purpose.
- SORA’s legislative aim is protection of the public from actual sex offenders; applying SORA to a person found not to be a sex offender and not to pose a sexual threat may fail constitutional review as applied.
- Prior decisions upholding SORA for certain nonsexual, child-related offenses do not categorically bar as-applied challenges where the connection between the statutory classification and SORA’s purpose is too attenuated.
- A court may grant as-applied relief from registration where the record establishes the offense is nonsexual and the State’s asserted justification for registration is disconnected from the defendant’s actual risk.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that imposing SORA registration on Brown, despite findings that his offense was nonsexual and that he posed no sexual threat, violated due process because the designation and burdens of registration lacked a rational relationship to SORA’s purpose of protecting the public from actual sex offenders.


People v. Brown, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05973 (N.Y. 2023)