{"id":1403,"date":"2019-06-12T08:46:49","date_gmt":"2019-06-12T13:46:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1403"},"modified":"2019-06-12T08:46:49","modified_gmt":"2019-06-12T13:46:49","slug":"moe-v-sex-offender-registry-board-mass-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/06\/12\/moe-v-sex-offender-registry-board-mass-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board (Mass. 2014)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 6 N.E.3d 530 (Mass. 2014)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff was classified as a “level two” sex offender in Massachusetts and, as such, was not subject to general community notification by way of the internet. Subsequent changes to state law mandated the disclosure of the identities and addresses of all individuals classified as “level two” offenders, and Plaintiff brought suit alleging that the change was not intended to be applied retroactively and — if it was — that retroactive application infringed upon his constitutional rights. Trial court denied requested relief, and Plaintiff sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that while the amendments to the law did apply retroactively, to apply them retroactively in the case of individuals who were classified as level two offenders at the time of the change would violate state constitutional protections related to Due Process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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