{"id":1319,"date":"2019-04-28T07:46:33","date_gmt":"2019-04-28T12:46:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1319"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:59:22","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:59:22","slug":"connecticut-dept-public-safety-v-doe-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/04\/28\/connecticut-dept-public-safety-v-doe-2003\/","title":{"rendered":"Connecticut Dept Public Safety v. Doe (2003)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Connecticut Dept Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Doe was an individual convicted of a sex offense and required to register purusuant to Connecticut state law. He brought suit alleging that the state was required to provide him with a hearing to establish that he was dangerous prior to disclosing his identity to the public. The District Court enjoined the disclosure, finding that Doe was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that disclosure without a pre-deprivation hearing violated Procedural Due Process. Supreme Court granted petition for certiorari.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> United States Supreme Court reversed. Because the Connecticut statute at issue did not require people to be dangerous in order to be listed on the public sex offense registry, the proposed hearing would be a hearing to establish a fact that is not material to the statute, and therefore does not violate Procedural Due Process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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