{"id":393,"date":"2020-08-24T15:14:27","date_gmt":"2020-08-24T20:14:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=393"},"modified":"2020-08-24T15:43:41","modified_gmt":"2020-08-24T20:43:41","slug":"millard-et-al-v-rankin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/08\/24\/millard-et-al-v-rankin\/","title":{"rendered":"Millard v. Rankin (10th Cir. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Millard et al., v. Rankin, No. 17-1333 (10th Cir. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong>Plaintiffs, individuals required to register in Colorado, filed an as-applied civil rights challenge alleging that Colorado’s SORA was unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments to United States Constitution. After bench trial, federal district court held that, as applied, Colorado SORA violated 14th Amendment substantive and procedural Due Process requirements, as well as 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Colorado state authorities appealed.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Colorado’s sex offense registration scheme was non-punitive and thus it could not implicate 8th Amendment constitutional protections. Furthermore, the Court found that CSORA did not violate substantive nor procedural Due Process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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