New Offender Registration Law Declared Unconstitutional

In an earlier blog post (here), I discussed a new offender registration law that took effect on July 1st of this year. Many people who were taken off the registry found themselves being told they had to begin registering again.

Jared Lacey was one of those people. In 2008, he began a ten-year period of registration. Just before Lacey’s registration requirement was set to expire, the D.O.C. conducted a review and changed Lacey’s registration obligation to life, claiming that Lacey had two unrelated convictions that triggered registration.

Lacey brought a declaratory judgment action to challenge his lifetime registration requirement. In February 2026, the D.O.C. agreed it had made a mistake and removed Lacey from the registry, in exchange for him dismissing his lawsuit.

At the same time that the D.O.C. made that deal, it was working with the legislature to pass a law that would require Lacey and other former registrants to once again begin registering. The D.O.C. did not disclose to Lacey or to the court that once the law took effect the D.O.C. would require Lacey to begin a new registration obligation.

Lacey attempted to correct the registration error through the new statute’s reconsideration process, but he was unsuccessful. Consequently, he sued the D.O.C. in federal court for violating his civil rights.

The federal district court found that because Lacey’s registration period had expired, the new statute imposed a new registration obligation. And this new obligation was punitive in effect, or akin to punishment, under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the State and Federal Constitutions.

Based on my reading of the case law, this would likely be the result in state court as well. But, at least for now, this decision is only helpful for people who had been removed from the Indiana registry before the law took effect but were being told to begin registering as a result of the new law.

The federal district court’s opinion can be found here.