John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 524656 v. Sex Offender Registry Board.

── John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 524656 v. Sex Offender Registry Board. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 24-P-811 JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 524656 vs. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 In 2017, appellant Doe pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and abuse of a child, G. L. c. 265, § 23, four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13B, one count of distribution of obscene matter to a minor, G. L. c. 272, § 28, and one count of posing or exhibiting a child in a state of nudity, G. L. c. 272, § 29A. These convictions arose out of Doe's sexual abuse of his daughter over a three-year period, from when she was ten years old until she was thirteen years old. In 2016, she disclosed the abuse to her school. Prior to his release from incarceration, Doe was notified by the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB or Board) of a duty to register as a level two sex offender, pursuant to G. L. c. 6, §§ 178C-178Q, and 803 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 1.00 (2016). Doe requested a hearing to challenge SORB's preliminary classification pursuant to G. L. c. 6, § 178L. A de novo hearing was held via videoconference on May 23, 2023, where Doe appeared with counsel. Thereafter, on June 29, 2023, the hearing examiner issued a twenty-nine-page decision classifying Doe as a level two sex offender. A level two designation means the Board concluded that Doe posed a moderate risk of reoffending and moderate degree of dangerousness, and that publication of his registry information, including via the Internet, served a public safety interest. G. L. c. 6, § 178K (2) (c). Doe challenged the decision by way of a complaint for judicial review brought pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14, and G. L. c. 6, § 178M. The decision of the hearing examiner was affirmed by a judge of the Superior Court, and Doe has now appealed to this court. We affirm. Discussion. 1. Arbitrary and capricious. Doe argues first that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. Doe argues that the hearing examiner took a "checklist approach" to analyzing the various factors relevant to his classification, arguing that the 2 hearing examiner's analysis was "perfunctory." Doe also emphasizes several mitigating factors like his lack of any disciplinary reports during his time in prison, excelling at sex offender treatment there, and completion of many educational programs including learning a fourth language, Spanish. He notes that he has no prior criminal history and likewise has never been the subject of any criminal harassment or abuse prevention orders. He also emphasizes the letters of support submitted on his behalf and the fact that he would be on probation after release, with a number of conditions, including having no unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of sixteen except for his biological son. The h