{"id":1943,"date":"2019-12-04T10:42:53","date_gmt":"2019-12-04T16:42:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1943"},"modified":"2020-01-01T10:52:37","modified_gmt":"2020-01-01T16:52:37","slug":"drobec-v-evans-mn-dist-ct-ramsey-county-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/12\/04\/drobec-v-evans-mn-dist-ct-ramsey-county-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Drobec v. Evans (Mn. Dist. Ct. Ramsey County 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Drobec v. Evans, No. 62- CV-17\u20133615 (Mn. Dist. Ct. Ramsey County 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Plaintiff brought claim against Minnesota state officials seeking relief from requirements that she register for crimes that she had been convicted of prior to amendments to Minnesota’s predatory offender registration law that would have required her to register. Plaintiff sought relief on grounds that the law’s retroactive application to her violated Ex Post Facto protections, presumption against retroactive application of laws and Due Process rights.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Minnesota state district court held that applying the law retroactively to the Plaintiff would have violated the presumption against the retroactive application of laws. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Because the issue was resolved on that basis, the Court declined to reach the Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to Ex Post Facto and Due Process rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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