Shaw v. Patton, 823 F.3d 556 (10th Cir. 2016)
Nature of Case: Appellant had been convicted in 1998 in Texas of a sex offense and then moved to Oklahoma after the Oklahoma legislature enacted sex offense registry laws and related restrictions that were then applicable to him. He brought suit in federal court alleging that the restrictions which included, inter alia, residence restrictions, weekly check-in requirements for transient registrants, and presence restrictions violated the Ex Post Facto clause as-applied to him.
Holding: 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that, as applied, the challenged restrictions were not so punitive as to negate the civil intent of the legislature and therefore did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause in Appellant’s case.