The Sex Offender Registry has been around in Iowa since 1995. Prior to 2009, very few individuals were eligible to be modified with respect to the registry. The only individuals who could possibly be modified prior to 2009 were individuals with juvenile adjudications that got them on the registry.
In 2009, the Iowa legislature substantially rewrote the Sex Offender Registry statute (Chapter 692A). It may be that the primary reason for redoing the statute was to address the 2000 foot rule; however, several other provisions were changed as well. Section 692.128 was an entirely new section providing for modification.
Here is the full text of the statute 692A.
Several things regarding modification as provided in Section 692.128 were clear from the beginning:
1) First, in order to be modified, one had to be on the registry for a certain period of time. The length of time depended on your tier level. The least serious tier, tier 1, required being on the registry for only two years. Everybody else had to be on the registry for at least five years.
2) Second, the person had to have completed all treatment “required.” In most cases that requirement was easily understood. Whether it was part of your probation or time in prison, you had a sex offender treatment obligation and you either completed it or you did not. A certificate was issued when you completed the sex offender treatment program in prison.
3) Third, you had to be evaluated as being what is called “low risk to reoffend.” There are several “tools” used by sex offender assessors that measure certain factors and give you points. You add up the points and see where you fit on the grid. In order to be modified, you need to fit on the grid in the “low risk to reoffend” category.
4) Finally, whether you could qualify for modification had something to do with whether or not you were still under supervision, even though as of 2009 it seemed like some people could get modified if they were under supervision. Some people could not get modified if they were still under supervision (someone adjudicated as a juvenile might not be able to be modified if they were under supervision of any kind). This last criterion seemed to be applied inconsistently and was a big problem.
In 2014, Iowa Supreme Court decided State v. Iowa District Court Story County, which straightened out the “under supervision” requirement. In that case the person had an adult conviction requiring registration but was no longer under supervision. Under the provision above, the person was not eligible for modification only for the reason that the person was no longer under supervision.
The Iowa Supreme Court changed that essentially finding that the modification provision was in fact available to individuals with adult convictions requiring registration even if they were not currently under supervision. Any such person can now be considered for modification unless they are actually incarcerated.