{"id":2538,"date":"2021-06-16T12:34:14","date_gmt":"2021-06-16T17:34:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2538"},"modified":"2021-06-28T12:40:12","modified_gmt":"2021-06-28T17:40:12","slug":"desper-v-clarke-4th-cir-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/06\/16\/desper-v-clarke-4th-cir-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"Desper v. Clarke (4th Cir. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Desper v. Clarke, No. 19-7346 (4th Cir. 2021)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff, who was incarcerated for sex offenses in Virginia, was denied in-person visitation with his minor daughter pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Virginia Department of Corrections that prohibited such visits between those in prison convicted of sex offenses and minors without an exemption from the VDOC.<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiff filed a \u00a7 1983 lawsuit alleging that the denial deprived him of various constitutional rights, including substantive and procedural Due Process, as well as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The federal trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and the Plaintiff appealed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong> The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the denials and the regulation from which they stemmed did not violate Due Process or Equal Protection principles.<\/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\/2021\/06\/4th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Opinion.pdf\">4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=2610299885339756582&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000005&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholaralrt&amp;hist=dzTKkIsAAAAJ:9420905675477732165:AAGBfm2nRiVld2ZbGyaze4fKOBbfIxq3CA&amp;html=&amp;folt=kw\" 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\/2021\/06\/Appellants-Brief.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2021\/06\/Appellees-Brief.pdf\">Appellees&#8217; Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2021\/06\/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","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>4th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the lower court dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an individual incarcerated on a sex offense who sued alleging that Department of Corrections Regulations that resulted in him being denied in-person visitation with his minor daughter violated Equal Protection and Due Process.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/06\/16\/desper-v-clarke-4th-cir-2021\/\" class=\"more-link\">Desper v. Clarke (4th Cir. 2021)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","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":[9],"tags":[54,202,47,51,71,72,161,242],"class_list":{"0":"post-2538","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-4th-cir","8":"tag-conditions-of-confinement","9":"tag-due-process","10":"tag-equal-protection","11":"tag-procedural-due-process","12":"tag-substantive-due-process","13":"tag-virginia","14":"tag-visitation","15":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2538","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\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2538"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2538\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}