Missouri Court of Appeals decision determining, contrary to prior Missouri appellate court decisions, that a “tier I” sex offender under both MO-SORA and SORNA, who is otherwise eligible for removal from the Registry after satisfying the requirements of relevant MO-SORA provisions, should not be required to remain on the Registry for the remainder of their life due to the purported “interplay” between the requirements of MO-SORA and SORNA.
Missouri Court of Appeals decision in an ineffective assistance of counsel case concluding that, unlike the risk of deportation assessed in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), civil commitment under Missouri's "Sexually Violent Predator" statute is a collateral consequence as opposed to a presumptively mandatory consequence and, therefore, plea counsel was not obligated to inform Appellant of the potential consequence of indefinite civil commitment prior to Appellant's guilty plea.
Missouri Supreme Court opinion affirming a conviction for residing within 1,000 feet of a school, holding that the distance measurements for Missouri's housing banishment laws are taken from property line to property line.
Missouri Court of Appeals opinion affirming the decision of a lower court that a Missouri resident was ineligble to seek removal from Missouri's sex offense registry despite his removal from Illinois' sex offense registry.
Missouri Court of Appeals opinion finding that offenses requiring registration under federal law would also require registration under state law, even if they are specifically exempted in the state's registration statute.
8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of class-action litigation concerning Missouri's sex offense civil commitment program in light of Karsjens.
Missouri Supreme Court opinion reversing a state trial court finding that Missouri's SORA violated as-applied ex post facto prohibitions.
Missouri Supreme Court held that state constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws applied only to civil, not criminal laws, therefore presence restrictions applied to people on the registry could be constitutionally applied retroactively.