{"id":1643,"date":"2019-01-20T14:34:03","date_gmt":"2019-01-20T20:34:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1643"},"modified":"2019-08-20T14:38:57","modified_gmt":"2019-08-20T19:38:57","slug":"litmon-v-harris-9th-cir-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/01\/20\/litmon-v-harris-9th-cir-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"Litmon v. Harris (9th Cir. 2014)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2014)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offenses in California and, under California law, was designated as a “sexually violent predator.” State law required that people designated as such register in person every 90 days from the date of their release from confinement for the rest of their lives.<\/p>\n

Appellant brought a \u00a7 1983 lawsuit challenging the in-person requirement on Ex Post Facto, Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection grounds. Trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and Appellant sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s complaint. Classification and requirement of registration was not “punishment,” did not infringe on Appellant’s Substantive Due Process Rights, and he was not similarly situated to other individuals who had committed sexual offenses for Equal Protection purposes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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