Former Registrants are Being Advised They Must Begin Registering Again
Under the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registration Act’s (INSORA) “other-jurisdiction” provision, “a person who is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction” is required to register in Indiana for the length required under Indiana law or under the other jurisdiction’s law, whichever is longer. See Ind. Code section 11-8-8-5(b)(1), 11-8-8-19(f). In June 2025, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the provision applied only where a person had a current registration requirement in the other jurisdiction. Consequently, an Indiana registrant who vacationed in Florida for a week and registered with Florida while there did not assume a continuing obligation to register in that state once he returned home.
During the 2025-26 legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly seemingly closed this loophole. Effective July 1, 2026, INSORA now requires the following persons to register in Indiana:
“a person who has been designated: (A) a sex offender; (B) a sexually violent predator; or (C) with a substantially equivalent designation; in another jurisdiction and who was or would be subjected to the sex offender registration reporting requirements in the other jurisdiction if the person resided, worked, volunteered, attended school, or owned real property in that jurisdiction, as determined by the department.”
Ind. Code section 11-8-8-5(b)(2) (2026).
Unfortunately, the new statute does not define what it means to be “designated” in another jurisdiction. According to the new statute, it appears the D.O.C. will initially decide whether such a designation has been made.
Under a new section added to INSORA, registrants are afforded a process to request that the D.O.C. reconsider its determination that a person must register under the other-jurisdiction designation provision. The process can be found in Indiana Code section 11-8-8-7.5 (2026).
The process will be as follows:
STEP ONE: the registrant must file a written request for reconsideration. The written request must meet two requirements. First, it must be verified. To verify a document is pretty simple. The person who signs the document (here, the registrant) simply adds the following language before his signature: “I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” Second, the written request must include a concise explanation of why the person is entitled to relief from the registration requirement. The person may include with the request all relevant evidence.
STEP TWO: the D.O.C. must issue a written “ruling” within 30 days of receipt of the request. To ensure that deadline is met, a registrant should send the request by delivery confirmation or by certified mail. However, if the D.O.C. fails to meet this deadline, there are no penalties provided in the statute. The D.O.C. must grant relief if the registrant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that relief from registration is warranted.
With all due respect to the General Assembly, these new provisions have a lot of problems that will inevitably lead to litigation. As mentioned earlier, the statute establishing a new registration requirement is vague and overbroad. It does not define “designated",” the term upon which the entire application of the statute rests.
Moreover, this law will impose a new registration obligation. I have been contacted by several people already who thought their registration obligations were satisfied, only to learn they must now register anew. This may trigger an ex post facto violation under the Indiana Constitution.
The law claims to provide an administrative “reconsideration” process, but it too is rife with concerns. First, the D.O.C. acts as the judge in deciding whether a registrant has satisfied the burden of proof (by a preponderance of the evidence). Essentially, the D.O.C. reviews its own decision; no neutral arbiter is involved. The statute requires the D.O.C. to “issue a written ruling” within 30 days but provides no sanction if the D.O.C. fails to do so. In fact, the D.O.C. is incentivized not to respond; doing nothing means the registrant continues to register. Finally, the statute fails to provide an appellate remedy. If a registrant believes the D.O.C.’s reconsideration was erroneous, the registrant has no statutory right to appeal.
Former registrants have started receiving letters informing them of a new obligation to register. Notably, the letter claims that there is an exception to the statute for people who were only in another state temporarily. Yet this exception is nowhere to be found in the law. I have reached out to the D.O.C. to find out whether this is an internal policy and if there are other internal policies registrants should be aware of related to this matter.
If you receive one of these letters or otherwise have questions about this, please contact me.