Dissent 1 - DELBERT W SMITH and BRUCE M BOTELHO PETITIONERS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
DELBERT W. SMITH and BRUCE M. BOTELHO, PETITIONERS v. JOHN DOE I et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [March 5, 2003] Justice Stevens, dissenting in No. 01—729 and concurring in the judgment in No. 01—1231.* These two cases raise questions about statutes that impose affirmative obligations on convicted sex offenders. The question in No. 01—729 is whether the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is an ex post facto law, and in No. 01—1231 it is whether Connecticut’s similar law violates the Due Process Clause. The Court’s opinions in both cases fail to decide whether the statutes deprive the registrants of a constitutionally protected interest in liberty. If no liberty interest were implicated, it seems clear that neither statute would raise a colorable constitutional claim. Cf. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976). Proper analysis of both cases should therefore begin with a consideration of the impact of the statutes on the registrants’ freedom. The statutes impose significant affirmative obligations and a severe stigma on every person to whom they apply. In Alaska, an offender who has served his sentence for a single, nonaggravated crime must provide local law enforcement authorities with extensive personal information–including his address, his place of employment, the address of his employer, the license plate number and make and model of any car to which he has access, a current photo, identifying features, and medical treatment–at least once a year for 15 years. If one has been convicted of an aggravated offense or more than one offense, he must report this same information at least quarterly for life. Moreover, if he moves, he has one working day to provide updated information. Registrants may not shave their beards, color their hair, change their employer, or borrow a car without reporting those events to the authorities. Much of this registration information is placed on the Internet. In Alaska, the registrant’s face appears on a webpage under the label “Registered Sex Offender.” His physical description, street address, employer address, and conviction information are also displayed on this page. The registration and reporting duties imposed on convicted sex offenders are comparable to the duties imposed on other convicted criminals during periods of supervised release or parole. And there can be no doubt that the “[w]idespread public access,” ante , at 12 (opinion in No. 01— 729), to this personal and constantly updated information has a severe stigmatizing effect. See Brief for the Office of the Public Defender for the State of New Jersey et al. as Amici Curiae 7—21 (providing examples of threats, assaults, loss of housing, and loss of jobs experienced by sex offenders after their registration information was made widely available). In my judgment, these statutes unquestionably affect a constitutionally protected interest in liberty. Cf. Wisconsin v . Constantineau
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/15/2011 for the course CJ 471 taught by Professor Christophersmith during the Fall '10 term at Michigan State University.

Page1 / 3

Dissent 1 - DELBERT W SMITH and BRUCE M BOTELHO PETITIONERS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online