Karsjens v. Piper
Karsjens v. Piper
16-1394
IN THE
___________
QUESTION PRESENTED
Does Minnesotas indefinite sex-offender civil-com-
mitment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendments
Substantive Due Process Clause?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv
INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT ......................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3
I. WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL,
MINNESTOTAS SEX OFFENDER
PROGRAM CONFINEMENT SHARES CORE
QUALITIES WITH PUNITIVE SENTENCES.... 3
A. Individuals Deemed to Be Sexually
Violent Predators Face Indefinite
Detention with No Hope of Release ................ 3
B. The Absence of Meaningful Treatment
Plans and Regular Risk Assessments
Distinguishes this Regime from
Constitutionally Compliant Civil
Commitment .................................................... 5
C. The MSOP Represents an Unrestrained
Expansion of Government Power that
Converts a Civil Commitment into an
Additional Criminal Sentence ......................... 9
II. THIS CASE PRESENTS PRESSING
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A SEX-
OFFENDER CIVIL-COMMITMENT
SCHEME CAN EVER BE DEEMED
PUNITIVE ........................................................... 11
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Commonwealth v. Baker,
295 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2009) ..................................... 13
Cooper v. Oklahoma,
517 U.S. 348 (1996) ................................................ 17
Dept of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch,
511 U.S. 767 (1994) ................................................ 11
Foucha v. Louisiana,
504 U.S. 71 (1992) .................................................. 17
Kansas v. Hendricks,
521 U.S. 346 (1997) ............................................ 9, 10
Karsjens v. Jesson,
109 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015) ........... passim
Karsjens v. Piper,
845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017) .............................. 3, 16
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez,
372 U.S. 144 (1963) ................................................ 12
Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) ................................................ 17
Mikaloff v. Walsh, 5:06-CV-96,
2007 WL 2572268 (N.D. Ohio 2007) ...................... 13
OConnor v. Donaldson,
422 U.S. 563 (1975) ................................................ 17
Packingham v. North Carolina,
No. 15-1194, slip op. (June 19, 2017) ................. 9-10
Reno v. Flores,
507 U.S. 292 (1993) ................................................ 18
v
State v. Pollard,
908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. 2009) .................................. 13
United States v. Ward,
448 U.S. 242 (1980) .......................................... 11, 12
Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997) ................................................ 16
Statutes
Minn. Stat. 253D ....................................................... 2
Other Authorities
Alan M. Dershowitz, Preventative Confinement: A
Suggested Framework for Constitutional
Analysis, 51 Tex. L. Rev. 1277 (1973) ................... 14
Bela August Walker, Essay: Deciphering Risk: Sex
Offender Statutes and Moral Panic in a Risk
Society, 40 U. Balt. L. Rev. 183 (2010) .................. 15
Bill Mears, Can sex offenders be held after serving
criminal sentences?, CNN, Jan. 12, 2010,
http://cnn.it/2rRWppE ............................................ 10
Brief for Seattle-King County Defender Association et
al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent,
State v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (No. 95-
1649), 1996 WL 473574.......................................... 11
Chris Serres, Appellate Court Affirms
Constitutionality of Minnesotas Sex-Offender
Program, Star Tribune, Jan. 4, 2017,
http://strib.mn/2rRXIVF ........................................ 14
Cynthia A. Frezzo, Note, Treatment Under Razor
Wire: Conditions of Confinement at the Moose
Lake Sex Offender Treatment Facility,
52 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 653 (2015) ............................. 7
vi
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
In 1994, Minnesota passed what has become argu-
ably the most aggressive and restrictive sex-offender
ARGUMENT
I. WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, MIN-
NESTOTAS SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM
CONFINEMENT SHARES CORE QUALITIES
WITH PUNITIVE SENTENCES
A. Individuals Deemed to Be Sexually Violent
Predators Face Indefinite Detention with
No Hope of Release
[T]he only way to get out is to die. Karsjens v. Jes-
son, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 1151 (D. Minn. 2015), revd
sub nom. Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir.
2017). So testified Craig Bolte, one person committed
4
2 Since the district court ruled, one individual (committed for of-
fenses committed as a minor) has been discharged. In addition,
four people have been provisionally discharged, though they con-
tinue to live under significant restrictions.
5
look back and recall that first, they came for the sex
offenders. Perry Grossman, First, They Came for the
Sex Offenders . . . , Slate, Mar. 1, 2017,
http://slate.me/2rROLvi.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and those stated by the
Petitioners, the Court should grant the petition for a
writ of certiorari and reverse a ruling that would oth-
erwise allow Minnesotas indefinite-civil-commitment
program to continue unreformed.
Respectfully submitted,
Bidish Sarma Ilya Shapiro
2126 Tenth Street Counsel of Record
Berkeley, CA 94710 CATO INSTITUTE
(504) 535-0522 1000 Mass. Ave. N.W.
[email protected] Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 842-0200
Manuel S. Klausner [email protected]
LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL
S. KLAUSNER
One Bunker Hill Building
601 W. Fifth St., Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 617-0414
[email protected]