{"id":1454,"date":"2019-06-17T02:15:51","date_gmt":"2019-06-17T07:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1454"},"modified":"2019-08-12T07:46:03","modified_gmt":"2019-08-12T12:46:03","slug":"doe-v-dept-of-public-safety-alaska-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/06\/17\/doe-v-dept-of-public-safety-alaska-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Dep\u2019t of Public Safety (Alaska 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Doe v. Dep\u2019t of Public Safety, No. S-16748 (Alaska 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Doe was convicted out of state sex offenses and subsequently moved to Alaska, where state officials required him to register for life. Doe thereafter brought a civil rights challenge, alleging both that (1) Alaska lacked jurisdiction to apply ASORA to him and (2) that without a hearing to afford him an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not a threat, ASORA violated his state constitutional rights related to due process.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Alaska Supreme Court held that while Alaska had jurisdiction to impose ASORA onto someone who committed their offense outside of the state, imposing it without providing Doe with a hearing at which he could demonstrate that he was not dangerous violated state Due Process protections related to privacy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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