{"id":434,"date":"2017-09-19T10:51:27","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T15:51:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=434"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:36:49","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:36:49","slug":"doe-v-state-of-new-hampshire-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/09\/19\/doe-v-state-of-new-hampshire-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. State (N.H. 2015)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Doe v. State, 111 A.3d 1077 (N.H. 2015)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong>As-applied challenge to state sex offender registration scheme alleging violations of Ex Post Faco clause and Procedural Due Process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>New Hampshire Supreme Court held on state constitutional grounds that state sex offender registration scheme was punitive as applied, that appropriate remedy was for Doe to be provided a hearing at which to demonstrate he should not be subject to lifetime registration, but that procedural due process was not violated.<\/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\/doe-v-state-opinion.pdf\">Supreme Court of New Hampshire Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18076145444431387567&amp;q=2013-496+Doe&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000006\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/09\/doe-v-state-plaintiff-reply-brief.pdf\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Reply Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/09\/doe-v-state-state-brief.pdf\">State&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/09\/doe-v-state-amicus-2.pdf\">Amicus Curiae Brief &#8211; Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/09\/doe-v-state-amicus-1.pdf\">Amicus Curiae Brief &#8211; NH Association of Crimina Defense Lawyers<\/a>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/boston.cbslocal.com\/2014\/05\/04\/new-hampshire-sex-offender-challenging-constitutionality-of-registry-rules\/\">New Hampshire Sex Offender Challenging Constitutionality of Registry Rules<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As-applied challenge to New Hampshire sex offender registration, alleging due process and ex post facto violations. NH Supreme Court found ex post facto violation, and required hearing to determine dangerousness as a remedy.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/09\/19\/doe-v-state-of-new-hampshire-2015\/\" class=\"more-link\">Doe v. State (N.H. 2015)<\/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":[179,59,47,36,213],"class_list":{"0":"post-434","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-1st-cir","8":"tag-as-applied","9":"tag-due-process","10":"tag-ex-post-facto","11":"tag-new-hampshire","12":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434","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=434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}