{"id":1333,"date":"2019-04-28T08:13:13","date_gmt":"2019-04-28T13:13:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1333"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:39:43","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:39:43","slug":"doe-v-odonnell-n-y-app-div-3d-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/04\/28\/doe-v-odonnell-n-y-app-div-3d-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. O\u2019Donnell (N.Y. App. Div. 3d. 2011)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Doe v. O\u2019Donnell, No. 511541 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d. 2011)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Petitioner was convicted of a sex offense in New York in 1997 and was required to register. Thereafter, he moved to Virginia and was subsequently removed from Virginia’s sex offense registry in 2008. New York continued requiring him to register, despite not living or working in the state.<\/p>\n

Petitioner requested that he be removed from the obligation to register in New York, and this was denied by the Division of Criminal Justice Services. Petitioner then appealed that decision in the trial court, arguing that his continued registration violated the constitution. Trial court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioner’s continued registration did not violate Full Faith and Credit Clause, and was not an extraterritorial application of the statute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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