In Matter of the Welfare of C.C.F

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF THE WELFARE OF: C.C.F., Child

Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 18, 1997

No. C3-97-552 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 1997)

Opinion

No. C3-97-552.

Filed November 18, 1997.

Appeal from the District Court, Olmsted County, File No. J89651394.

Daniel J. Moulton, (for appellant C.C.F.).

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, (for respondent state).

Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney, David S. Voigt, Geoffrey A. Hjerleid, Richard W. Jackson Jr., Assistant County Attorneys, (for respondent state).

Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.^_

_ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

DAVIES, Judge.

This appeal is from a juvenile delinquency dispositional order that requires appellant C.C.F., following his adjudication of delinquency for fourth-degree and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, to register as a sex offender and provide a sample for DNA testing. We affirm.

DECISION

Appellant C.C.F. agreed to admit to the reduced charge of fourth- and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. He challenges the trial court's decision to require, as part of the dispositional order, that he register as a sex offender and provide samples for DNA analysis. Appellant argues that the sex offender registration statute and DNA sample statute are unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders and conflict with the confidential status of juvenile proceedings.

In reviewing a claim that a statute is unconstitutional, this court applies a de novo standard of review. In re Blilie , 494 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Minn. 1993). The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional. State v. Christie , 506 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Minn. 1993).

C.C.F. argues that the sex offender registration statute violates a child's right to due process under the state constitution. This court, however, has held that applying the registration statute to a juvenile offender does not violate due process. In re Welfare of C.D.N. , 559 N.W.2d 431, 433-34 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997). This court ruled that the registration requirement is not punitive nor is it inconsistent with the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court system. Id.

C.C.F. also argues that the sex offender registration statute violates the state constitution because it imposes dispositional terms that are beyond the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This argument also fails. The sex offender registration statute does impose a reporting requirement that extends beyond C.C.F.'s 19th birthday, when the juvenile court's jurisdiction ends. But a violation of the reporting requirement would not invoke juvenile court jurisdiction as a violation of the dispositional order; it is, rather, a new offense. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5 (1996) (person required to register who knowingly violates registration provisions is guilty of gross misdemeanor). C.C.F. cites no authority to support his argument that this violates the state constitutional guarantee of due process.

Nor is there any support for C.C.F.'s argument that the registration statute violates the "certain remedy" clause of our state constitution. See Minn. Const. art. I, § 8 (every person is entitled to a certain remedy for injuries received). The clause ensures that, if a common law right to a remedy is taken away, the legislature must replace it with a reasonable substitute. Schmidt v. Modern Metals Foundry, Inc. , 424 N.W.2d 538, 540-41 (Minn. 1988). This argument does not apply here; C.C.F. has shown no common law right abrogated by the registration statute. Further, because this court has held that the sex offender registration statute is not punitive, C.D.N. , 559 N.W.2d at 433-34; State v. Manning , 532 N.W.2d 244, 249 (Minn.App. 1995), review denied (Minn. July 20, 1995), we must also reject C.C.F.'s argument that the statute imposes cruel and unusual punishment.

C.C.F. argues that the sex offender registration statute violates the confidentiality of juvenile court files. See Minn. Stat. § 260.161, subd. 2(1996) (protecting juvenile records from public disclosure). Sex offender registration data are not public, but rather "private data on individuals," which may be released only selectively. See Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02, subd. 12 (1996) (definition of "private data on individuals"), 243.166, subd. 7 (1996) (classifying registration data as "private data on individuals"). The statute does not violate the confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings.

Affirmed.