On September 28, 2016 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally decided several consolidated cases addressing thissue. In Commonwealth v. Martinez, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 2183 (Sep. 28, 2016), the Court resolved the legality of the 2012 reclassification scheme against otherwise compliant registrants. Three combined cases present the question of whether the state police can extend or re-enroll in the sexual registry defendants who satisfied all terms and conditions of an original guilty pleagreement and were not under probation or parole supervision as of December 20, 2012. The individuals may still have had to register under Megan’s law I-V. These cases do not apply to open pleagreements or sentences handed down after a jury or bench trial.Factually, after December 20, 2012 the state police sent letters out to Megan’s Law registrants compelling re-enrollment or extension of their registration requirements. Registration requirements were extended from 10 to 25 years and 25 years to life depending on the criminal conviction. If registration had been completed but the convicted offense registration was changed to 25 years instead of 10 years, re-enrollment was demanded. Martinez and other individuals around the Commonwealth contested reclassification because they complied with all aspects of their criminal pleagreement, may have concluded probation/parole supervision before December 2012, and may have even completed their registration responsibilities. Some Cases were filed against the state police as injunctions, writs of mandamus, or a petitions to enforce guilty pleagreements. Many of these cases failed for any number of reasons. Case rulings allow reclassification against defendants who violated any term or condition of their guilty pleagreement. Another basis for allowing reclassification is being charged with violating the registration requirements of their original sentence. Even being charged for a reporting violation after 2012 became a reason for further reclassification.