Forum Database Glossary
Library Home » Topics » Criminal Law Discourse » sex offender registration Case Law Summary-USA

sex offender registration Case Law Summary-USA

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #111844 Reply
      mana
      Guest

      Alaska v. Wright, 141 S. Ct. 1467 (2021) (per curiam) . . . failure to register, habeas corpus, “in custody”

      Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) . . . Sixth Amendment, jury trial, Apprendi/Alleyne

      Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) . . . Sixth Amendment, jury trial, Apprendi/Alleyne

      Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) . . . failure to register, interstate travel, ex post facto

      Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) . . . Sixth Amendment, ineffective assistance of counsel

      Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) . . . Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process

      Denezpi v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1838 (2022) . . . Indian Country, Fifth Amendment, double jeopardy

      Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) . . . tiering, modified categorical approach

      Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) . . . ineffective assistance of counsel, guilty plea/plea agreement

      Hillsborough Cty., Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) . . . Supremacy Clause

      Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) . . . civil commitment, punitive/regulatory, ex post facto

      Kennedy v. Martinez-Mendoza, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) . . . punitive/regulatory

      Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, (1989) . . . habeas corpus, “in custody”

      Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) . . . “sex offense,” categorical approach, modified categorical approach

      McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) . . . Indian Country

      McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) . . . Fifth Amendment, self-incrimination

      Nichols v. United States, 578 U.S. 104 (2016) . . . duty to register, updating information, failure to register

      Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, 2022 WL 2334307 (U.S. June 29, 2022) . . . Indian Country

      Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) . . . First Amendment, internet

      Reynolds v. United States, 565 U.S. 432 (2012) . . . retroactivity

      Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) . . . punitive/regulatory, retroactivity, ex post facto

      Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) . . . Sixth Amendment, ineffective assistance of counsel

      United States v. Bryant, 579 U.S. 140 (2016) . . . Indian Country, Fifth Amendment, procedural due process, Sixth Amendment, right to counsel

      United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) . . . civil commitment, Necessary & Proper Clause

      United States v. Gamble, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) . . . Fifth Amendment, double jeopardy

      United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989) . . . Fifth Amendment, double jeopardy

      United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) . . . Sixth Amendment, jury trial, Apprendi/Alleyne, conditions, supervised release

      United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011) (“Juvenile Male II”) . . . duty to register, independent duty, retroactivity, ex post facto

      United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013) . . . military, Necessary & Proper Clause, retroactivity, ex post facto

    • #111845 Reply
      Giga
      Guest

      Ex Post Facto

      Sex offender registration and notification laws are meant to serve a regulatory function, and the majority of courts that have addressed the issue, including every circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, except the Federal Circuit, have held that sex offender registration is nonpunitive and/or a collateral consequence of a conviction. However, some courts have interpreted state registration and notification requirements to constitute punishment.[188] This interpretation impacts how courts analyze constitutional challenges to offenders’ duty to register, such as ex post facto challenges and challenges under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

      There has been extensive debate regarding whether the retroactive application of SORNA’s registration requirements violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the retroactive application of criminal laws.[190] Notably, all of the U.S. Court of Appeals—except the District of Columbia and the Federal Circuit, which have not addressed the issue—have held that the federal version of SORNA does not violate the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.

      Retroactive application of state sex offender registration and notification laws has also been addressed at both the federal and state level, and while many state laws have been found not to violate state or federal ex post facto prohibitions, multiple state and federal courts have held that retroactive application of their state’s sex offender registration and notification laws violate their respective constitutions and/or the U.S. Constitution.

      Ex post facto challenges often arise when an offender who was convicted prior to passage of SORNA is required to register or where a jurisdiction makes changes to its sex offender registration requirements resulting in an offender’s registration requirements beginning, or becoming more burdensome, after the offender has been sentenced,[194] where an offender’s classification is changed,[195] or when an offender’s information is made publicly available on a jurisdiction’s public registry.

Viewing 1 reply thread
Reply To: sex offender registration Case Law Summary-USA
Your information: