{"id":2136,"date":"2021-04-19T13:07:31","date_gmt":"2021-04-19T18:07:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2136"},"modified":"2021-05-03T13:20:40","modified_gmt":"2021-05-03T18:20:40","slug":"hearn-v-vasquez-w-d-tex-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/04\/19\/hearn-v-vasquez-w-d-tex-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Hearn v. McCraw (5th Cir. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Hearn v. McCraw (5th Cir. 2021)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiffs who pled guilty to various offenses and were subsequently required to register as sex offenders in Texas brought a civil rights lawsuit, alleging that their subsequent registration was not a part of their original plea agreements, and thus violated their Due Process rights.\u00a0District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit, finding that their Due Process rights were not violated since the registration was non-punitive in nature, and that in any event their claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs thereafter sought review from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong>5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred, and that their ongoing registration did not qualify as a continuing violation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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