United States v. Templin (D. Mont. 2019)
Federal trial court in Montana holding that while the court had the authority to terminate defendant’s obligation to register as a sex offender under federal law, he would have to seek relief in state court to deregister under Montana’s laws.Mon
State v. Kirby (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
Indiana Court of Appeals holding that change in laws that precluded father who was required to register as a sex offender from attending son’s school activities was not unconstitutional as applied.
People v. Diaz (N.Y. 2018)
New York Court of Appeals holding that individual who was not a “sex offender” in another state, but nevertheless required to register there, did not have to register in New York state.
People ex rel Negron v. Superintendent (N.Y. App. Div. 3rd 2019)
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, holding that SARA-related housing restrictions did not apply to individual who was serving a sentence for a non-sexual offense.
Mohamed v. Holder (4th Cir. 2014)
4th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that failing to register as a sex offender does not constitute a “crime involving moral turpitude” for immigration and removal purposes.
Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board (Mass. 2014)
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts holding that amendments to law altering classification could not constitutionally apply retroactively to certain individuals who were classified as “level two” offenders prior to enactment.
Gonzalez v. Duncan (9th Cir. 2008)
9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the denial of an Eighth Amendment challenge to a “third strike” California sentence for failing to register as a sex offender.
Meza v. Livingston (5th Cir. 2010)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that sex offender registration implicates a protected liberty interest and that Due Process is violated when someone not convicted of a sex offense is required to register as a sex offender without a hearing and other protections.
Meredith v. Stein (E.D. N.C. 2019)
Federal trial court in North Carolina Judgment and Consent Order precluding the registration of an individual convicted of out-of-state without an opportunity to be heard.
McKune v. Lile (2002)
United States Supreme Court opinion holding that consequences that stemmed from failing to comply with treatment program were not so severe as to violate the Fifth Amendment.
Doe v. Rausch (E.D. Tenn. 2019)
Eastern District of Tennessee federal trial court holding that 2014 amendment to Tennessee’s SORA violated the Ex Post Facto clause.
Fushek v. State (Az. 2008)
Arizona Supreme Court opinion finding that state constitution entitled defendant charged with misdemeanors to a jury trial, where potential existed for sex offense registration.
Farmer v. Swearingen (N.D. Fla 2016)
Florida federal trial court dismissing complaint alleging that Florida’s practice of perpetual registration of extraterritorial registrants was unconstitutional.
Doe v. Virginia State Police (4th Cir. 2013)
4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of civil rights complaint challenging’s Doe’s reclassification as a sexually violent offender on standing, ripeness, and Procedural Due Process grounds.
Doe v. State (Alaska 2008)
Alaska Supreme Court Opinion finding, on statute constitutional grounds, that its sex offense registration scheme violated the prohibition on retroactive punishments.
Doe v. O’Donnell (N.Y. App. Div. 3d. 2011)
New York Appellate Division affirming the decision of a trial court dismissing an administrative appeal wherein a former New York resident was required to continue registering as a sex offender in New York.
Doe v. Jindal (E.D. La. 2015)
Federal trial court in Louisiana dismissing a lawsuit alleging violations of Due Process and Equal Protection based on treatment of out of state conviction.
Connecticut Dept Public Safety v. Doe (2003)
United States Supreme Court Opinion holding that individuals required to register as sex offenders are not entitled to a hearing prior to registration to determine dangerousness, as dangerousness was not relevant to the statutory scheme.
Commonwealth v. Thompson (Ky. 2018)
Kentucky Supreme Court opinion finding that failure to advise as to sex offense registration in the context of a guilty plea constitutes deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment.
Commonwealth v. Wilmer (Mass. 2018)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversing a decision of the trial court which found that two convictions arising from the same proceeding required sex offense registration.
Doe v. Toelke (Mo. 2012)
Missouri Supreme Court opinion reversing a state trial court finding that Missouri’s SORA violated as-applied ex post facto prohibitions.
Lacy v. Butts (7th Cir. 2019)
7th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that Indiana’s treatment program for people incarcerated for a sex offense violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Bostic v. D.C. Housing Authority (D.C. Ct. App. 2017).
District of Columbia Court of Appeals opinion holding that the eviction of an individual who was convicted of a 1982 offense and subject to lifetime registration as a sex offender was proper in that it was not contrary to HUD regulations, and was not otherwise preempted.
Gonzalez v. Annucci (N.Y. 2018)
New York Court of Appeals holding that Department of Corrections and Community Supervision complied with statutory duty to assist people convicted of sex offenses in obtaining housing that was compliant with New York’s Sexual Assault Reform Act.
Commonwealth v. Feliz (Mass. 2019).
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts holding that state statute requiring the imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of probation was unconstitutional in the context of the case of an individual who was convicted of non-contact sexual offenses.
Park v. State (Ga. 2019)
Georgia Supreme Court holding that lifetime GPS monitoring of individuals designated as sexually violent predators under state law is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Iowa v. Aschbrenner (Iowa 2019)
Iowa Supreme Court Opinion affirming the conviction of Appellant who was charged with violating Internet Identifier reporting requirements over challenges based on Ex Post Facto Clause and First Amendment grounds.
Ex Parte Odom (Tex. Ct. App. 2018)
Texas Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s denial of a constitutional challenge to a provision of Texas law that requires people required to register as sex offenders also register their internet identifiers.
Does v. Simi Valley et. al. (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Federal district court granting application for temporary restraining order, enjoining local authorities from enforcing ordinance that would have forced those required to register to place a sign on the exterior of their homes on Halloween that there was no candy at the residence.
United States v. Paul (6th Cir. 2017)
Conviction for federal failure to register affirmed where Defendant-Appellant was not required to register as a sex offender under Tennessee state law, traveled internationally, then continued to not register on his return.