Reaching the fifteen-year mark does not end the analysis. The applicant must also prove that ending lifetime supervision is consistent with public safety.
The Burden Is Clear and Convincing
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c) requires clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others if released from supervision.
That burden is higher than the preponderance standard generally applied to the related Megan’s Law termination provision.
The Current Published Rule Is Broad
In July 2025, the Appellate Division decided In re Registrant S.O.; In re Registrant G.N.. It held that the phrase “threat to the safety of others” is not limited to the risk of another sexual offense.
Under that published decision, the court conducts a holistic assessment of the person. Relevant evidence can include:
- the factual basis of later sexual and non-sexual offenses;
- tier classification and RRAS score;
- applications to modify tier classification;
- psychological or risk evaluations;
- treatment and counseling history; and
- other evidence bearing on present risk.
The Supreme Court Is Reviewing That Rule
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification on March 16, 2026. The issue presented is whether the statutory public-safety language reaches both non-sexual and sexual reoffense or should be limited to subsequent sexual reoffense.
As of September 22, 2026, the Supreme Court’s public docket lists the appeal as pending and does not show a merits decision.
What Makes the Showing Persuasive?
The statute does not prescribe a single form of proof. Depending on the history, useful evidence may include a qualified expert evaluation, treatment records, sustained compliance, employment and residential stability, support systems, evidence explaining later conduct, and an accurate account of the person’s current circumstances.
An expert is not expressly required by the statute in every case. But when current risk is genuinely disputed, a well-supported professional evaluation may carry significant weight.
The Application Should Address Weak Facts Directly
A long period without a sexual offense may be important, but the current published rule allows the court to consider much more. An application is stronger when later incidents, violations, treatment interruptions, or other concerns are confronted rather than omitted.