Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 582.5 (2026)

Sex offender level assignment committee – Requirements

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

to override or increase level assignment – Release of records. A. The Department of Corrections shall establish a sex offender level assignment committee composed of at least five members, each of whom is a state employee whose service on the committee is in addition to the regular duties of the employee. The committee, to the extent feasible, should include the following: 1. One member having experience in law enforcement; 2. One member having experience as a sex offender treatment provider; 3. One member having experience working with victims of sex offenses; and 4. One member who is a social worker with a graduate degree in social work. B. The sex offender level assignment committee functions in an oversight capacity. The committee shall determine, based on federal law, the level a person subject to registration pursuant to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall be placed on. C. The offense for which the person is convicted shall serve as the basis for the level assigned to the person. In selecting the level assignment, the sex offender level assignment committee shall use the following general guidelines: 1. Level one (low): a designation that the person poses a low danger to the community and will not likely engage in criminal sexual conduct; 2. Level two (moderate): a designation that the person poses a moderate danger to the community and may continue to engage in criminal sexual conduct; and 3. Level three (high): a designation that the person poses a serious danger to the community and will continue to engage in criminal sexual conduct. D. The sex offender level assignment committee, the Department of Corrections, or a court may override and increase the level assignment only if the entity: 1. Believes that the level assignment assessed is not an accurate prediction of the risk the offender poses to the community; and 2. Documents the reason for the override in the case file of the offender. Provided, in no event shall the sex offender level assignment committee, the Department of Corrections, or a court override and reduce a level assigned to an offender as provided in subsection C of this section. E. All records and files relating to a person for whom a court, or the Department of Corrections is required under this act to determine a level assignment, shall be released to the court or the

Department of Corrections as appropriate, for the purpose of determining the level assignment of the person. F. Upon receiving registration information from a local law enforcement agency of a person who has entered this state and who has registered as a sex offender, as required in Section 583 of this title, the sex offender level assignment committee shall review the registration information and make a determination of the level assignment of the person. The Department of Corrections Sex Offender Registry Unit shall provide written notification to the person and the local law enforcement agency of the level assignment that has been assigned to the person. G. The provisions of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act do not apply to a meeting of the sex offender level assignment committee. Added by Laws 2007, c. 261, § 26, eff. Nov. 1, 2007. Amended by Laws 2008, c. 94, § 1, emerg. eff. April 29, 2008; Laws 2009, c. 404, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017).
Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 4× “109, 114); 57 O.S.2011 § 584(N)(2) (amended by Act of Apr.”
Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 8× “See 57 O.S.Supp.2007 § 582.5(C)-(D) (originally enacted as Act of June 4, 2007, ch.”
Davis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “57 O.S.2011 § 582.5. For purposes of the Department's motion to dismiss, we must take as true Davis's allegation that he is not a habitual sexual offender.”
Davis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016). “" 57 O.S.2011 § 582.5(C)@B). 3 Davis filed his petition seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, He alleged that the Registration Act constituted an ex post facto law and denied him the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.”
Donaldson v. City of El Reno, 2025 OK 9 (Okla. 2025). · cites it 2× “Alas, the Legislature ultimately only used the risk levels to assign different lengths of time for registration, with 15 years of registration for level 1 offenders, 25 years of registration for level 2 offenders, and life registration for level 3 offenders.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 582.5(C) — 3 cases
Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017). “109, 114); 57 O.S.2011 § 584(N)(2) (amended by Act of Apr.”
Davis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016). “" 57 O.S.2011 § 582.5(C)@B). 3 Davis filed his petition seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, He alleged that the Registration Act constituted an ex post facto law and denied him the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.”
Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017). “See 57 O.S.Supp.2007 § 582.5(C)-(D) (originally enacted as Act of June 4, 2007, ch.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 582.5(C)(3) — 1 case
Davis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016). “57 O.S.2011 § 582.5. For purposes of the Department's motion to dismiss, we must take as true Davis's allegation that he is not a habitual sexual offender.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 582.5(D) — 2 cases
Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017). “109, 114); 57 O.S.2011 § 584(N)(2) (amended by Act of Apr.”
Fry v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 2017 OK 77 (Okla. 2017). “See 57 O.S.Supp.2007 § 582.5(C)-(D) (originally enacted as Act of June 4, 2007, ch.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.