{"id":1089,"date":"2018-12-19T13:19:08","date_gmt":"2018-12-19T19:19:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1089"},"modified":"2018-12-19T13:19:08","modified_gmt":"2018-12-19T19:19:08","slug":"doe-v-city-of-albuquerque-10th-cir-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/12\/19\/doe-v-city-of-albuquerque-10th-cir-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. City of Albuquerque (10th Cir. 2012)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 667 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff, individual required to register in New Mexico, brought civil rights lawsuit in response to City’s imposition of ban on all registrants from public libraries. City failed to put on any evidence as to the constitutionality of the statute, and district court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. City Appealed.<\/p>\n


\nHolding:\u00a0<\/strong> Tenth Circuit held that city’s ban was facially unconstitutional under the 1st and 14th Amendments. Court opinion took pains to express that the outcome may have been different if the City put on evidence in the district court as to the propriety and tailoring of the ban.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n