{"id":496,"date":"2017-10-27T10:45:48","date_gmt":"2017-10-27T15:45:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=496"},"modified":"2018-06-22T10:11:30","modified_gmt":"2018-06-22T15:11:30","slug":"doe-v-cooper-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-cooper-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2016)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Doe v. Cooper, 842 F.3d 833 (4th Cir. 2016)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong>Plaintiffs, registrants in North Carolina, filed suit alleging that provisions of state law which prohibited them from being &#8220;within 300 feet of any location intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors.&#8221; District court held that provisions were unconstitutional. State appealed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the challenged provisions were violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments in that they were overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.<\/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\/10\/doe-v-cooper-opinion.pdf\">4th Circuit Opinion<\/a> | view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18027808879572214449&amp;q=16-6026+cooper&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000003\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Doe-v-Cooper-Appellants-Brief.pdf\">Doe v Cooper &#8212; Appellant&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Doe-v.-Cooper-Brief-for-Appellees.pdf\">Doe v. Cooper &#8212; Brief for Appellees<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Doe-v.-Cooper-Supplemental-Brief-for-Appellees.pdf\">Doe v. Cooper &#8212; Supplemental Brief for Appellees<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu\/sex-offender-premises-restrictions-revised-response-doe-v-cooper\/\">Sex Offender Premises Restrictions Revised in Response to Doe v. Cooper<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>4th Circuit affirmation of district court finding that North Carolina presence restrictions were unconstitutional on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-cooper-2016\/\" class=\"more-link\">Doe v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2016)<\/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":[14,54,53,17],"class_list":{"0":"post-496","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-1st-amendment","8":"tag-4th-cir","9":"tag-presence-restrictions","10":"tag-void-for-vagueness","11":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496","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=496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}