Nathan Daniel Olsen v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0779
Filed November 21, 2023

NATHAN DANIEL OLSEN,
Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tom Reidel, Judge.

Nathan Olsen appeals the dismissal of an application to modify a

requirement to register with the Iowa Sex Offender Registry. AFFIRMED.

Philip B. Mears of Mears Law Office, Iowa City, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Heard by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.
2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Nathan Olsen, an out-of-state resident, appeals the dismissal of his

application to modify his requirement to register with the Iowa Sex Offender

Registry. He challenges the constitutionality of Iowa Code section 692A.128(3)

(2021), which requires an application to modify the registration requirements “be

filed in the sex offender’s county of principal residence.” Olsen contends that this

requirement limits modification actions to Iowa residents, violating both the

Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution and article I,

section 6 of the Iowa Constitution. Because the district court properly dismissed

Olsen’s application based on lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Olsen was convicted of a sex offense in Wisconsin in 2009. He was granted

a deferred judgment and placed on probation. Wisconsin does not require those

who receive a deferred judgment for sex offenses to register for the sex offender

registry.

Because Olsen was living in Iowa at the time of his sentence, he transferred

his probation to Iowa. Unlike Wisconsin, Iowa law treats a deferred judgment as

a conviction for purposes of its sex offender registry. See Iowa Code

§ 692A.101(7) (including “a person who has received a deferred . . . judgment” in

the definition of “convicted” under Iowa Code chapter 692A). Based on the nature

of his conviction, Olsen was required to register as a sex offender for ten years.

In 2017, while still living in Iowa, Olsen was convicted of a registry violation.

This conviction resulted in a ten-year extension of his requirement to register as a
3

sex offender. See id. § 692A.106(4). But Olsen then moved to Illinois later that

year, ending his requirement to register in Iowa.1 See id. § 692A.106(7).

In August 2021, Olsen applied for modification of the sex offender registry

requirement in the Scott County District Court. The application states his desire

“to return to Iowa, specifically Scott County, once he is no longer required to

register in Iowa.” To allow for his return to Iowa, Olsen asked the court to remove

the registration requirement.

The State moved to dismiss Olsen’s application, arguing the court cannot

grant relief because Olsen does not live, work, or study in Iowa. Citing the

section 692A.128(3) requirement that offenders file modification actions in their

county of principal residence,2 the State argued that the legislature limited or

restricted the ability of Iowa courts to entertain actions to modify the sex offender

registration requirement to offenders who live, work, or go to school in Iowa. It

also argued that the limitation “does not impede the immediate, necessary,

efficient, or basic functioning of the district courts. Rather it frees the courts from

litigation the legislature has deemed unwarranted.”

The district court found that “Iowa simply does not have the jurisdiction to

modify his registration requirement” and dismissed the application. The court did

not find the failure to comply with section 692A.128(3) requirement to file in the

applicant’s county of principal residence fatal. Rather, it found it could not modify

1 There is no requirement for Olsen to register as a sex offender in Illinois based

on the Wisconsin deferred judgment.
2 “Principal residence” is defined as “[t]he residence of the offender” or “[t]he place

of employment or attendance as a student, or both, if the sex offender does not
have a residence in the state.” Iowa Code § 692A.101(20).
4

the registration requirement because at the time of filing, Olsen did not need to

register:

As of right now, Olsen is not required to register in Iowa,
because he does not live, work, or go to school here. Iowa cannot
modify the requirement because he was not convicted in the state.
Olsen is not required to register in Illinois—where he is currently
living. He will only be required to register in Iowa if he decides to
move back. In his petition and brief, the only connection Olsen
claims to have to the state is that he used to live here and would like
to move back eventually. This is not enough for Iowa to modify the
registration requirement.
....
Olsen argues that to deny him the ability to use § 629A.128
based solely on his out-of-state residency would violate the
privileges and immunities clause. But his out-of-state residency is
not the thing preventing him from taking advantage of the statute. It
is the fact that Iowa is currently exercising no jurisdiction over Olsen
and has no connection to the conviction requiring him to register in
the first place. . . . Not any person can bring a case to any court.
The court must have some kind of connection to the controversy.
The reason for Olsen’s need to register did not arise in Iowa. Iowa
simply does not have the jurisdiction to modify his registration
requirement. As applied to Olsen’s case, Iowa Code § 692A.128(3)
does not violate the privileges and immunities clause.

Olsen appeals.

II. Scope of Review.

We review rulings on a motion to dismiss for correction of errors at law.

O’Hara v. State, 642 N.W.2d 303, 305 (Iowa 2002). We also review the court’s

interpretation of Iowa Code section 692A.128 for correction of errors at law. See

Fortune v. State, 957 N.W.2d 696, 702 (Iowa 2021). But we review rulings on

constitutional challenges to a sex offender registration statute de novo. State v.

Hess, 983 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Iowa 2022).
5

III. Discussion.

On appeal, Olsen reasserts that prohibiting an out-of-state resident from

seeking modification of a sex offender registry requirement violates the Privileges

and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution and article I, section 6 of

the Iowa Constitution. But the district court did not dismiss the application because

of Olsen’s status as a non-resident; it dismissed the application based on lack of

jurisdiction.

Iowa law requires a person to register with the Iowa Sex Offender Registry

when two requirements are met. See Iowa Code § 692A.103(1). First, one must

be convicted of a sex offense. See id. Second, the offender must reside, be

employed, or attend school in Iowa. Id. Olsen’s 2009 Wisconsin conviction

satisfies the first criterion. While Olsen lived in Iowa, he satisfied the second

criterion. But the registration requirement ended when Olsen moved to Illinois in

2017. See Iowa Code § 692A.106(7) (“If a sex offender ceases to maintain a

residence, employment, or attendance as a student in this state, the offender shall

no longer be required to register . . . .”). The requirement will not resume unless

Olsen lives, works, or attends school here. See id. (“If the sex offender

subsequently reestablishes residence, employment, or attendance as a student in

this state, the registration requirement under this chapter shall apply . . . .”). So

although the court would have jurisdiction over Olsen if he lived in Iowa, his non-

resident status does not determine the jurisdiction issue. The court would also

have jurisdiction if Olsen worked or studied in Iowa despite his non-residence.

Because Olsen does not live, work, or attend school in Iowa, he need not

register with the Iowa Sex Offender Registry. In fact, he does not meet the most
6

basic requirement for modification, which is that he be a sex offender within the

meaning of chapter 692A. See id. § 692A.128(1) (only permitting a “sex offender”

to file an application for modification); see also id. §§ 692A.101(26) (defining “sex

offender” as “a person who is required to be registered under this chapter”),

692A.103(1) (requiring a person to register under chapter 692A only if “the offender

resides, is employed, or attends school in this state”). His application seeks to

modify a hypothetical requirement based on an anticipated future move to this

state. To be ripe for adjudication, an action must involve “an actual, present

controversy, as opposed to one that is merely hypothetical or speculative.” State

v. Tripp, 776 N.W.2d 855, 859 (Iowa 2010). “If a claim is not ripe for adjudication,

a court is without jurisdiction to hear the claim and must dismiss it.” Iowa Coal

Mining Co. v. Monroe Cnty., 555 N.W.2d 418, 432 (Iowa 1996).

The facts before us are like those in State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728, 734

(Iowa 2002), in which the sentencing court ordered the defendant to register as a

sex offender for life. On appeal, the defendant argued the order was erroneous

because the nature of his conviction required that he register for only ten years.

Bullock, 638 N.W.2d at 734. But the supreme court noted that (1) the registration

requirement triggers after an offender is released from prison and (2) how long an

offender must register is decided by the Iowa Department of Public Safety, not the

court. Id. at 735. Because the defendant in Bullock was still incarcerated and the

department had not determined his registration requirements, the supreme court

held the issue was not ripe for review:

Until the Department has made a decision on the defendant’s term
of registration, there is no concrete controversy. Any adjudication by
the district court prior to an administrative decision and a request for
7

judicial review of that decision is premature. Therefore, the nature
and extent of the defendant’s registration obligation are issues that
are not ripe for our review.

Id.

As in Bullock, the event Olsen anticipates will require him to register again—

his relocation to Iowa—has not occurred. Olsen has stated his desire to return to

the state. But until he does, there is no registration requirement. Without a

registration requirement, there is nothing for the court to modify, and Olsen’s

application to modify the sex offender registration requirement is not ripe for

review. Because the district court properly dismissed Olsen’s application based

on lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.