In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, the court addresses whether a New Jersey court may consider a motion to terminate the registration requirements of an individual subject to Megan's Law[1] in New Jersey but residing in another state. The court holds that although a New Jersey court may have jurisdiction to decide the motion, it must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the registrant has standing to bring the motion.
J.R. committed a sex offense in 1993 that subjected him to Megan's Law in New Jersey. Upon moving to Montana in 2021, J.R. was subject to registration there because Montana statute requires registration for individuals who committed a sexual offense in another state for which they were required to register. He then filed a motion to terminate his registration obligation in New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f).
The court agrees with the Megan's Law judge that J.R. no longer had a registration obligation in New Jersey and his obligation in Montana was dependent on his prior conviction in New Jersey, which would remain regardless of the outcome of the motion. The court rejects J.R.'s contention that he continued to have a Megan's Law "status" in New Jersey. He neither faced harm from the denial of the motion nor could he benefit from the granting of the motion because it would not alter his registration obligation in Montana. Because he was not suffering a harm that a New Jersey court could address, J.R. lacked standing to have a New Jersey court decide his motion, and we affirm the Megan's Law judge's decision.
Because registration requirements vary across the country, there may be instances where a registrant's obligation to register in another jurisdiction would be impacted by the outcome of a motion to terminate in New Jersey. Therefore, a court must examine the legislative scheme in the jurisdiction where the registrant resides to determine whether the motion presents a justiciable controversy that amounts to standing.
[1] N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23.