{"id":1211,"date":"2019-02-17T09:21:21","date_gmt":"2019-02-17T15:21:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1211"},"modified":"2019-02-17T09:21:21","modified_gmt":"2019-02-17T15:21:21","slug":"doe-v-swearingen-n-d-fla-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/02\/17\/doe-v-swearingen-n-d-fla-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Swearingen (N.D. Fla. 2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Doe v. Swearingen, No. 16-cv\u2013459 (N.D. Fla. 2017)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff was convicted of a sexual offense in Connecticut and was required to register, though on a non-public registry. Plaintiff thereafter moved to Florida, who required his public registration, the fact that Plaintiff’s offense–if committed in Florida–would not have triggered public registration. Plaintiff brought suit alleging that state statute that undergirded this violated Equal Protection and implicated right of travel.<\/p>\n


\nHolding:\u00a0<\/strong> District Court held that, as applied, statute was unconstitutional. There was no rational basis for requiring Doe to register publicly, and therefore, Equal Protection was violated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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