{"id":1448,"date":"2010-06-12T10:29:37","date_gmt":"2010-06-12T15:29:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1448"},"modified":"2019-07-03T12:54:11","modified_gmt":"2019-07-03T17:54:11","slug":"rosin-v-monken-7th-cir-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2010\/06\/12\/rosin-v-monken-7th-cir-2010\/","title":{"rendered":"Rosin v. Monken (7th Cir. 2010)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2010)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong> Plaintiff was required to register in Illinois on the basis of a misdemeanor New York State conviction wherein the Plaintiff entered into a plea agreement on the assurance that he would not be required to register as a sex offender. Plaintiff thereafter moved to Illinois which required him to register, and he thereafter brought a \u00a7 1983 lawsuit challenging the registration on the basis of Full Faith and Credit. District Court dismissed the suit, and Plaintiff appealed.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The New York judgment was silent on whether or not sex offense registration would be required in other states, and even if it was not, Full Faith and Credit would not require other states to respect a New York state judgment that someone should not be registered as a sex offender under their statutory scheme.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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