Smith v. Doe
| Smith v. Doe | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 13, 2002 Decided March 5, 2003 |
|
| Full case name | Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho, Petitioners v. John Doe I et al. |
| Citations | 538 U.S. 84 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Because the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the ex post facto clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Souter |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer |
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), was a court case in the United States which questioned the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive requirements. Under the Act, any sex offender must register with the Department of Corrections or local law enforcement within one business day of entering the state. This information is forwarded to the Department of Public Safety, which maintains a public database. Fingerprints, social security number, anticipated change of address, and medical treatment after the offense are kept confidential. The offender's name, aliases, address, photograph, physical description, driver's license number, motor vehicle identification numbers, place of employment, date of birth, crime, date and place of conviction, and length and conditions of sentence are part of the public record, maintained on the Internet.
Smith v. Doe questioned the constitutionality of the act's retroactive requirements. John Does I and II were convicted of aggravated assault before the act's passage and filed suit, claiming the act was punitive and violated the ex post facto clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The district court ruled against the Does, ruling that the act was nonpunitive. The appeals court sided with the Does that the act was in fact punitive and violated ex post facto.
...
Wikipedia