Maryland Court of Appeals opinion holding that facts which require registration as a sex offender, in light of the punitive nature of registration, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in the adjudicatory phase of a criminal proceeding.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing dismissal of federal indictment for failure to register, finding that non-delegation principles were not violated, and that federal SORNA was not puntive.
4th Circuirt Court of Appeals opinion affirming in part a federal sentence for engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor in a foreign country, but reversing in part on the grounds that the district court failed to articulate reasons supporting computer-related conditions of supervised release.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a violation of South Carolina's voyeurism statute constitutes a "sex offense" for the purposes of federal SORNA.
Virginia Court of Appeals reversing trial court's imposition of general internet usage restriction as a condition of probation without articulating why such a condition would be narrowly tailored.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals opinion finding that state registration scheme was not vague, that a 10-25 year sentence for failing to provide a correct phone number pursuant to that scheme was not disproportionate, but that a recidivist life sentence enhancement did violate the 8th Amendment.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing a federal civil rights complaint alleging violations of state and federal constitutional provisions related to Ex Post Facto punishment and Due Process.
North Carolina Supreme Court opinion holding that imposition of mandatory, lifetime GPS monitoring imposed on individuals who North Carolina classified as recidivist offenders and who were no longer under state criminal supervision was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Virginia Court of Appeals affirming conviction and upholding state law that required registration of internet identifiers.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that district court lacked the authority to dismiss a commitment proceeding against someone who was not competent to stand trial, and that furthermore such a commitment proceeding would not offend Due Process protections.