{"id":1415,"date":"2019-06-12T09:19:47","date_gmt":"2019-06-12T14:19:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1415"},"modified":"2019-06-12T09:19:47","modified_gmt":"2019-06-12T14:19:47","slug":"piasecki-v-court-of-common-pleas-3rd-cir-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/06\/12\/piasecki-v-court-of-common-pleas-3rd-cir-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas (3rd Cir. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas, 917 F.3d 161 (3rd Cir. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging aspects of his continuing requirement to register as a sex offender pursuant to a state court petition. District court noted that Petitioner’s criminal sentence had expired, and thus he was not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court” as required for habeas relief. Petitioner sought review in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Pennsylvania’s sex offense registration scheme had become so burdensome and onerous so as to constitute “custody” for habeas purposes. Additionally, the requirements were imposed pursuant to the judgment of a state court and not merely a collateral consequence of the conviction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n