{"id":2276,"date":"2020-10-24T12:07:18","date_gmt":"2020-10-24T17:07:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2276"},"modified":"2021-11-04T18:02:25","modified_gmt":"2021-11-04T23:02:25","slug":"state-v-hill-la-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/10\/24\/state-v-hill-la-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Hill (La. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

State v. Hill, No. 2020-KA-0323 (La. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> The Appellee was previously convicted of a sex offense and, under Louisiana state law, was required to carry identification that bore a mark clearly identifying him as a “sex offender.” He was charged with altering his identification to obscure the mark, and argued at the trial court level that the state law was unconstitutional. The trial court agreed, finding that the law was unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. The state sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that the state law violated the 1st Amendment as compelled speech, and could not survive a strict scrutiny analysis.<\/p>\n

The state subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in May 2021.\u00a0 The U.S. Supreme Court denied the state’s petition<\/a> without comment in October 2021.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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