T.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police

In an as-applied ex post facto challenge to Subchapter I of Act 29 — the legislative response to Commonwealth v. Muniz — the Commonwealth Court held that the registration scheme, while nonpunitive in legislative intent, was punitive in effect when applied to an offender who committed his triggering offense before any sexual offender registration scheme existed. Working through the Mendoza-Martinez factors as framed in Muniz and Butler II, the Court concluded that annual in-person reporting, the three-day update obligation, criminal penalties for noncompliance, and the Internet dissemination provision together impose an affirmative disability, resemble probation and historic shaming punishments, and are excessive in relation to the General Assembly’s stated public-safety purpose.