{"id":198,"date":"2017-07-26T09:47:56","date_gmt":"2017-07-26T14:47:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?page_id=198"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:47:26","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:47:26","slug":"people-v-diack-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/07\/26\/people-v-diack-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"People v. Diack (N.Y. 2015)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">People v. Diack, 26 N.E.3d 1151 (N.Y. 2015)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was required to register and convicted of violating local residence restriction law. Moved to dismiss on preemption grounds in the trial court, which was granted. New York Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and appellant appealed to New York Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nHolding: <\/strong> Court of Appeals held that doctrine of field preemption meant that county could not enact ordinance restricting where person on the registry could reside. Opinion of Supreme Court reversed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/07\/people-v-diack-ny-court-of-appeals-opinion.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Court of Appeals of New York Opinion<\/a> | view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=4714007859669574074&amp;q=26+N.E.3d+1151&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000006\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/07\/people-v-diack-ny-sc-opinion.pdf\">New York Supreme Court Opinion<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/07\/Appellants-Brief-3.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/07\/Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Reply Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/07\/Oral-Argument-Transcript.pdf\">Oral Argument Transcript<\/a>\u00a0(Court of Appeals of New York)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>New York Court of Appeals held that doctrine of field preemption meant that counties could not enact their own ordinances restricting where people on the sex offense registry could reside. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/07\/26\/people-v-diack-2015\/\" class=\"more-link\">People v. Diack (N.Y. 2015)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[132,114,105,127],"class_list":{"0":"post-198","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-residency-cases","7":"tag-2nd-cir","8":"tag-new-york","9":"tag-preemption","10":"tag-residential-banishment","11":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/242"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}