Kansas Supreme Court affirming the commitment of an individual who was the subject of a second SVP petition in the wake of technical violations of his supervision, rejecting res judicata, collateral estoppel and Due Process arguments.
Virginia Supreme Court holding that Due Process does not require the state appoint expert witnesses for indigent respondents in the context of SVP hearings.
Alaska Supreme Court opinion holding that requiring sex offense registration without providing individuals with an opportunity to rebut a presumption of dangerousness violated state constitutional Due Process protections regarding privacy.
After remand from Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit addresses Due Process challenge to civil commitment evidentiary standard, holding that it is not unconstitutional in light of prior decisions distinguishing civil and criminal proceedings.
Several individuals confined to North Dakota's hospital as sexually dangerous individuals filed § 1983 suit alleging various unconstitutional violations. In ongoing litigation, District Court has thus far ruled that state statutory scheme is facially unconstitutional in that it placed no affirmative duty on state authorities to discharge those who no longer met criteria.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that as applied to juveniles, SORN scheme was unconstitutional in that it deprived them of due process rights.
Ohio Supreme Court declared unconstitutional automatic, lifetime registration for juveniles under both state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment as well as denial of due process.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that preponderance of the evidence standard no longer sufficed for comporting with Due Process for tiering of sex offenders, clear and convincing standard would be required.
As-applied challenge to New Hampshire sex offender registration, alleging due process and ex post facto violations. NH Supreme Court found ex post facto violation, and required hearing to determine dangerousness as a remedy.
California Supreme Court affirmed holding of lower court ruling on state habeas that blanket enforcement of California's residency restrictions violated Due Process under the 14th Amendment.