{"id":521,"date":"2017-10-27T10:56:18","date_gmt":"2017-10-27T15:56:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=521"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:31:01","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:31:01","slug":"doe-v-department-of-public-safety-and-correctional-services-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-department-of-public-safety-and-correctional-services-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Dep&#8217;t of Public Safety and Correctional Services (Md. 2013)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Doe v. Dep\u2019t of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 62 A.3d 123 (Md. 2013).<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong>State civil suit in which plaintiff, a registrant, who was convicted of sex offenses which took place prior to enactment of Maryland&#8217;s sex offender registration scheme, alleged application of SORN to him was a violation of prohibition on retroactive punishments.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>Court of Appeals of Maryland held, on state constitutional grounds, that SORN was a violation of prohibition against retroactive punishments.<\/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-dept-public-safety-and-corrections-opinion.pdf\">Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion<\/a> | view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12585813939945102316&amp;q=62+A.3d+123&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\/10\/Respondents-Brief.pdf\">Respondent&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Reply-Brief-of-Petitioner.pdf\">Reply Brief of Petitioner<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Amici-Brief.pdf\">Amici Brief<\/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:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/local\/sex-offender-removed-from-md-registry-could-be-first-of-many\/2013\/06\/21\/abdc1bae-d9f4-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.cd672dc02f58\">Sex offender removed from Md. registry; could be first of many<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>State court civil suit, Maryland Court of Appeals held SORN was violation of ex post facto punishments on state constitutional grounds.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-department-of-public-safety-and-correctional-services-2013\/\" class=\"more-link\">Doe v. Dep&#8217;t of Public Safety and Correctional Services (Md. 2013)<\/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":[54,36,210],"class_list":{"0":"post-521","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-4th-cir","8":"tag-ex-post-facto","9":"tag-maryland","10":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/521","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=521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}