A Carey man is asking a court to reverse an order requiring that he register as a sex offender for the rest of his life following a conviction in 2008 for having sex with a minor under 16.

Brian Jake Adamson, now 32, was convicted when he was 20 and the minor was 13. Judge Barry Wood sentenced him to a “rider” program, which he successfully completed by June 2009 and was put on a five-year probation, from which he was released a year early. However, due to the type of felony conviction, Adamson is required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. In March, he filed a petition asking to be released from his duty to register.

Ten years after a sexual offender is released from incarceration or placed on probation, state law allows him or her to petition the court for a release from the duty to register.

In an affidavit, Adamson stated that finding employment in the software development field has been difficult because of his criminal background.

“I have had experiences where I have gone through the interview process, been successfully hired, then upon disclosing my background to the employer lost the opportunity to work with the company,” Adamson wrote. “My hope, is that even though I will always remember my past and the damage it has caused. Is that I can take a step forward in my life and make it possible to find better employment. …”

In Idaho, the Sexual Offender Registration Notification and Community Right-To-Know Act requires that sexual offenders register with the sheriff’s office in the county they live in within two days of moving there. Information provided to the public includes the person’s name and physical address, as well as a photo, physical description and the offense he or she was convicted of.

A lawsuit against Idaho filed in 2016 by 134 anonymous petitioners contended that the state law requiring them to register as sex offenders for life violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution on several grounds. U.S. District Judge David Nye rejected the suit in May 2018, stating that the arguments made that the requirement is “embarrassing, invasive and burdensome … have been unavailing as none are based on recognized fundamental rights.”

The case was filed for appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit in May. Briefs in that case are due by mid-September.

Adamson’s case will be heard on Sept. 30 in 5th District Court.