Published on:

Appellate Division Upheld the Constitutionality of Provisions of SORA. People v. Cassano, 34 AD3d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)


Sex offender registration laws aim to enhance public safety by monitoring convicted sex offenders. However, their application often raises complex constitutional questions. One such case that has come under scrutiny is People v. Cassano, which revolves around the constitutionality of requiring individuals to register as sex offenders. In this blog post, we will dissect the case, examining the factual background, the court’s holding, the ensuing discussion, and ultimately, the implications of this decision on sex offender registration laws.

Factual Background
In 1996 defendant Cassano was convicted of attempted kidnapping in the second degree. As a result of this conviction, Mr. Cassano was subject to adjudication as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), a legal framework in New York aimed at registering and monitoring sex offenders. Specifically, Mr. Cassano’s adjudication was carried out under Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a) (i), which includes certain abduction-related crimes committed against children by individuals other than their parents within the definition of “sex offenses.”

However, Mr. Cassano, who had initially sought to be adjudicated as a level two offender under SORA, later argued that he should not have been categorized as a sex offender at any level. He contended that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because his crime had no sexual aspect or motive. In his view, requiring him to register as a sex offender did not align with the objectives of SORA.

The court upheld Mr. Cassano’s adjudication as a level three sex offender, dismissing his constitutional challenge. The court ruled that Mr. Cassano’s claim challenging the constitutionality of the statute as applied to him was raised improperly for the first time on appeal. As such, it declined to address this argument.

Furthermore, the court suggested that even if they were to consider the claim, the statute would be found constitutional as applied to Mr. Cassano. This determination was based on several factors: Mr. Cassano’s prior felony conviction related to sex crimes against two children, the presence of a diagnosed personality disorder, and the circumstances surrounding his attempted kidnapping of a child, which did not necessarily rule out a possible sexual motive.

People v. Cassano delves into the heart of an ongoing debate surrounding sex offender registration laws. These laws, although well-intentioned in their goal of protecting communities from convicted sex offenders, have often faced challenges on constitutional grounds. In this instance, Cassano’s argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him raises crucial questions about the scope and purpose of sex offender registration.

First, it’s important to note that Cassano’s constitutional challenge was brought forth on appeal, a procedural move that the court did not entertain. Typically, legal issues must be raised at the appropriate stage of a case, and appellate courts are generally reluctant to address claims that were not properly presented during the trial. However, the court did not completely dismiss Cassano’s argument, signaling its significance.

The heart of the matter lies in whether sex offender registration laws are being applied justly. Critics argue that these laws often result in individuals being labeled as sex offenders when their crimes may not have had a sexual aspect or motive. In Cassano’s case, his conviction for attempted kidnapping was the focal point of contention. He contended that the circumstances of his crime did not suggest a sexual motive, making his registration as a sex offender unjust.

However, the court’s ruling suggests that the presence of prior convictions related to sex crimes and diagnosed personality disorders can be factors that tilt the scales toward categorizing an individual as a sex offender. This raises questions about the criteria used to determine who should be registered as a sex offender and whether these criteria align with the original objectives of sex offender registration laws.

People v. Cassano serves as a reminder of the ongoing debate surrounding the constitutionality of sex offender registration laws. While these laws aim to protect communities from potential harm, their application can raise complex constitutional questions, particularly when it comes to individuals like Mr. Cassano, whose crimes may not have an apparent sexual aspect.

This case highlights the importance of carefully examining the circumstances of each case and ensuring that sex offender registration laws are applied in a manner that respects individuals’ constitutional rights. Ultimately, the decision in People v. Cassano raises crucial questions about the fairness and constitutionality of sex offender registration laws and underscores the need for continued scrutiny and legal analysis in this complex area of criminal justice. It also underscores the importance of working with an experienced New York sex crime lawyer if you are charged with a sex crime.


Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information