As is evident from other blog articles and materials on our website, we represent a substantial number of registrants who seek to terminate their Megan’s Law registration and CSL or PSL obligations. As such, we are constantly tracking new decisions that affect a registrant’s ability to do so and, where possible, navigate around decisions that may appear adverse to the interests of our clients. Two recent decisions presents hurdles to removal that must be carefully considered when seeking relief from these onerous and burdensome obligations.
A. Standing and Out-of-State Registrants
In Matter of JR, decided earlier this year, the registrant was convicted in New Jersey in 1993 of child endangerment, sentenced to a 5-year probationary term, and required to register pursuant to Megan’s Law. He relocated to Montana in or around 2021. The issue was whether JR had standing to seek termination of his registration obligation in the New Jersey Superior Court because he currently lived in Montana. The trial court denied JR’s motion because he lacked standing to seek relief in New Jersey because neither he nor his registration obligation obligation had any connection to our State, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
In discussing the trial court’s findings and conclusions, the Appellate Division noted that “[i]n order to possess standing, the plaintiff must have a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation, a real adverseness with respect to the subject matter, and there must be a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will suffer harm in the event of an unfavorable decision.” (Citation omitted.) JR lacked a sufficient connection to New Jersey that would case him to suffer harm in New Jersey in the event of a denial of the relief sought because he was required to register in Montana. He did not live, work, or attend school, in New Jersey. Because he would not suffer harm in New Jersey as a result of our Superior Court’s possible denial of his motion, both the trial court and the Appellate Division found that he lacked standing to bring his motion in our Superior Court. Put somewhat differently, JR lacked standing to seek termination of his registration in the New Jersey Superior Court unless he would be harmed in New Jersey as a result of our trial court’s denial of his motion. At the time he made his motion, he had no registration obligation in New Jersey; rather, his entire registration obligation (indeed, his entire life) was Montana-based. Thus, he would not be harmed in New Jersey by our trial court’s denial of his motion.