{"id":428,"date":"2017-09-19T10:44:06","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T15:44:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=428"},"modified":"2018-09-25T12:34:34","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T17:34:34","slug":"state-v-doe-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/09\/19\/state-v-doe-2008\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Doe (Alaska 2008)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">State v. Doe, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong>Doe, registrant in Alaska, filed suit subsequent to his losses in US Supreme Court in <em>Smith v. Doe<\/em>\u00a0and 9th Circuit. Doe alleged violations Alaskan state constitutional provisions prohibiting ex post facto laws.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>Alaska Supreme Court held that, in light of broad dissemination, affirmative conduct that was required, and gave no opportunity to demonstrate lack of risk, Alaska&#8217;s sex offender registry violated prohibition on ex post facto laws.<\/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\/09\/state-v-doe-ak-opinion.pdf\">Supreme Court of Alaska Opinion<\/a> | view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=7122500246538658794&amp;q=s-12150+doe&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000006\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Alaska Supreme Court finds, on state constitutional grounds, that state sex offender registration scheme is punitive and cannot be applied retroactively. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/09\/19\/state-v-doe-2008\/\" class=\"more-link\">State v. Doe (Alaska 2008)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"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":[60,36],"class_list":{"0":"post-428","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-alaska","8":"tag-ex-post-facto","9":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/428","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=428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}