law is so certified. CUNNINGHAM, NOBLE, SCHRODER, SCOTT, and VENTERS, JJ., concur. ABRAMSON, J., dissents by separate opinion in which MINTON, C.J., joins. 1 . Doe subsequently challenged the registration statute in state court on state law grounds, with the Alaska Supreme Court holding that the statute cannot be applied retroactively. Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008). 2 . The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that, as applied to those who committed their crimes before the statute was enacted, Indiana's sex offender residency restriction statute constitutes retroactive punishment forbidden by the ex post facto clause of the state's constitution. State v. Pollard, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind.2009). See also Mikaloff v. Walsh, No. 5:06-CV-96, 2007 WL 2572268 (N.D.Ohio Sept.4, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The Mikaloff ap peal was dismissed at the
holding retroactive application of idra would violate the ex post facto clause holding that retroactive application of ohios residency restriction statute violates the federal ex post facto clause holding that retroactive application of mvra does not violate the ex post facto clause because restitution is not a criminal punishment holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause