Megan's Law Tiers and Tier Hearings in New Jersey

Reviewed by William A. Proetta, Esq. · Updated October 2026

A New Jersey Megan’s Law tier is set by scoring the registrant on the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS): 0 to 36 points is Tier 1 (low risk), 37 to 73 is Tier 2 (moderate risk) and 74 to 111 is Tier 3 (high risk), under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8 and In re Registrant C.A., 146 N.J. 71 (1996). The county prosecutor proposes the tier, and if the registrant objects, a Superior Court judge decides it at a closed hearing where the State must prove the risk level and the scope of notification by clear and convincing evidence.

The tier decides who is told that a registrant lives nearby and, under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13, whether the registrant’s photograph and street address appear on the State Police internet registry. Registration duties are the same in every tier; see how Megan’s Law registration works.

What the Statute Tells Prosecutors to Weigh

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8 lists the factors that bear on a registrant’s risk of re-offense:

• conditions of release that minimize risk of re-offense
• physical conditions that minimize risk, such as age or illness
• criminal history factors indicative of high risk, including repetitive and compulsive behavior, serving the maximum term, and a sex offense against a child
• other criminal history
• psychological profiles
• response to treatment
• recent behavior
• recent threats

The prosecutors in the county of conviction and the county of residence make the assessment, using the RRAS to turn those factors into a number. Some factors are fixed by the past; others, such as treatment response, can change, which is what makes later re-tiering possible.

How the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale Works

The RRAS rates 13 factors. Each factor is scored 0, 1 or 3, and the factor scores are multiplied by the weight of the group they fall in:

The weighting means the offense and the registrant’s history drive most of the score. A single seriousness factor can move the total by 15 points, enough to cross a tier line.

The total places the registrant in one of the three tiers shown in the chart above.

In C.A., the Supreme Court called the RRAS a “useful tool” but “not a scientific device,” and held that a court should not rely solely on the point total. In re Registrant G.B., 147 N.J. 62 (1996), added that the score is presumptively reliable but may be departed from in the unusual case involving reliable facts the scale does not account for. Departures and later changes are covered on our page on Megan’s Law re-tiering.

Juvenile registrants. Registrants who are 18 or under at the time of tiering are scored on a separate Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale. For offenses committed before age 14, In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304 (2001), directs judges to “exercise special care and discretion in determining whether the RRAS score is a reliable basis for tier classification.” Our page on Megan’s Law for juveniles covers the rest of the juvenile rules.

Who Decides and on What Proof

In Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995), the Supreme Court upheld Megan’s Law but held that due process requires notice and an opportunity for a judicial hearing before Tier 2 or Tier 3 notification goes out. The process works the same way in every county:

1. Scoring. The county prosecutor’s office completes the RRAS from the record of the offense, the registrant’s criminal history and any evaluations, including the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (Avenel) report prepared at sentencing.
2. Notice of proposed tier. The prosecutor serves the registrant with the proposed tier and scope of notification.
3. Objection. The registrant may object and request a hearing. Notification waits for the court’s decision.
4. Hearing. A Superior Court judge hears the objection summarily and in camera, meaning in a closed proceeding rather than open court.
5. Proof. The State presents its evidence supporting the tier and the scope of notification, and the registrant may challenge it with records, testimony and expert evidence.
6. Final order. The judge enters a tier order, and only then does notification issue.

The burden is on the State. Doe v. Poritz had placed the burden of persuasion on the registrant, but later case law changed that. Under In re Registrant R.F., 317 N.J. Super. 379, 383-84 (App. Div. 1998), the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence both the registrant’s risk of re-offense and the scope of notification.

What a registrant can challenge. G.B. recognizes three grounds of objection, and bars attacks on the scale itself: the score was miscalculated; the case falls outside the “heartland” of cases the scale was designed for, so the score overstates the risk; or the proposed notification is excessive because of unique aspects of the case. A miscalculation argument often turns on whether points were assigned from allegations that were dismissed or never proven.

Notification Scope

Under 2C:7-8, Tier 1 and Tier 3 notice reaches those “likely to encounter” the registrant, and the State must prove the scope it proposes, not only the tier. Because excessive notification is a separate ground under G.B., a registrant can accept the tier and still contest how far notice extends.

The Public Internet Registry Under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13

The State Police registry website is not a complete list of registrants, because 2C:7-13 posts only some:

• Tier 3: always posted.
• Tier 2: posted unless one of three exceptions applies.
• Tier 1: not posted, unless the registrant’s conduct was found to be repetitive and compulsive.

The Tier 2 exceptions. A Tier 2 record is withheld where the registrant’s sole sex offense was (1) a juvenile adjudication; (2) a conviction under 2C:14-2 or 2C:14-3 where the registrant was related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree, or was a resource family parent, guardian or person in loco parentis within the household; or (3) a conviction under 2C:14-2 or 2C:14-3 where the victim assented but, because of age, could not lawfully consent. A “sole sex offense” means a single conviction, adjudication or acquittal involving one victim and one occurrence; for the household exception, the offenses may involve members of only one household.

When the exception is lost. The record is posted anyway if the conduct was repetitive and compulsive, or if the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that the registrant’s risk is substantially similar to that of a Tier 2 registrant who does not qualify for an exception.

What a listing shows. Name and aliases; the offense, date and place of disposition; a brief description, including whether the victim was under 18 or under 13; modus operandi; tier; physical description and photograph; vehicle details and plate; and street address, municipality and county.

Repetitive-compulsive findings. In In re Registrant R.S. (N.J. July 2, 2024), the Supreme Court addressed a Tier 2 registrant who would otherwise have qualified for the household exception and faced internet posting on a repetitive-compulsive finding. The State may rely on the Avenel report prepared at sentencing, a registrant receives an evidentiary hearing only by showing a genuine issue of material fact, and the judge must make independent findings by clear and convincing evidence rather than adopt the expert’s conclusion.

How We Help

We obtain the prosecutor’s RRAS worksheet and the documents behind each score, then rescore every factor, flagging points drawn from dismissed charges, unproven allegations or double counting. We retain a psychologist for an independent risk evaluation where the record supports one, and collect treatment, employment and residence records. For Tier 2 registrants, we test whether an internet exception applies. We prepare the written objection, exhibits and witnesses for the hearing. Our post on tier classification hearings and legal challenges gives more background.

Talk to a New Jersey Megan’s Law Lawyer

A tier objection is won or lost on the record assembled before the hearing. Send us the notice of proposed tier, your judgment of conviction and any evaluations or treatment records. Call William Proetta Criminal Law at (201) 793-8018 for a free, confidential case review, or contact us online. The firm has offices in Jersey City and Edison and handles tier hearings statewide.