The Nebraska Supreme Court Friday rejected two men's challenge of the way the state classifies sex offenders.

Kelvin Lein and James D. Olson argued the Sex Offender Registry classification method was subjective and unscientific.

Lein, 47, and Olson, 36, are classified in the registry as "Level 3" offenders, or offenders who have been assessed as most likely to commit sex crimes again.

Both men challenged the point system used to sort offenders into either low, moderate or high risk groups, arguing the system was developed by a biased group of professionals.

Lein and Olson's attorney, Dean S. Forney of Omaha, argued in court papers the risk assessment method was flawed because "a stakeholder group … consisting of representatives from law enforcement, victim advocacy and defense attorneys was brought in to determine the scoring cut-offs used to determine risk level."

At an earlier hearing, an expert witness for the men testified, "whenever you have a stakeholder group (research) becomes more subjective as opposed to objective."

Lein pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault on a child in 1994 in Sheridan County. Olson pled guilty to one count of sexual assault on a child in 1998, also in Sheridan County.

Both men were later evaluated as Level 3 offenders under the Nebraska State Patrol's sex offender risk assessment instrument. They challenged the classifications in administrative hearings but lost, and then filed appeals in Lancaster County District Court.

When the district court rejected their claims, Lein and Olson filed appeals with the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Judge Kenneth C. Stephan, writing for the court Friday, said a federal appeals court has ruled in another case that the absence of perfection in tests designed to measure the likelihood of reoffending does not invalidate those tests. In addition, he said, the "stakeholders" referred to by Lein and Olson were not involved in the research on which the risk assessment test was based.

Instead, Stephan wrote, the stakeholders only determined the three level's cutoff scores, "a decision which by its very nature requires some level of subjectivity."

The judge also wrote that sex offenders did not have a constitutional right to be divided into risk classifications.

"(I)f the State of Nebraska chose to, it could conclude that every conviction for a sex offense provide evidence of a substantial risk of recidivism," he wrote.

All states are required to maintain sex offender registration laws that require offenders to notify local authorities of their addresses upon their release from prison.

The registries were prompted by the 1994 kidnapping, rape and murder of Megan Kanka, 7, of New Jersey. The man who killed her was a convicted sex offender who lived in her neighborhood.

Lein and Olson's case was the fourth recent challenge to Nebraska's law.  Past challenges — all unsuccessful — have included claims the assessment test did not include mitigating factors and that the law violated constitutional provisions against double-jeopardy.

"The law … is going to stand up to scrutiny," Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said in an interview Friday. "It's the right thing for Nebraska."

Forney, Lein and Olson's attorney, could not be reached for comment.

Reach Butch Mabin at 473-7234 or at bmabin@journalstar.com.