of a sex offender’s address, the offense for which he or she was convicted, and the date of the conviction. The statute further provides that this information is to be contained in searchable records available to the public. In addition, “[cjommunity notification may also include a photograph of the offender.” We note initially that most of this information is public in nature, particularly the offense an individual has been convicted of and the date of that offense. Some courts have expressed concern over the dissemination of an offender’s home address, since such information is not required to be public. See Paul P. v. Verniero, 3d Cir., 170 F.3d 396, 404 (1999) (noting “the general understanding that home addresses are entitled to some privacy protection”); Poritz, 662 A.2d at 409 (<HOLDING>). Delaware’s statute also provides for
holding that adult entertainers had established a constitutional privacy interest by offering proof that disclosing their names and current and past residential addresses would pose serious potential risks to their physical safety and wellbeing holding that in a prosecution against a physician for conspiracy to commit abortion records showing the names addresses and telephone numbers of patients did not fall within the patientphysician privilege holding that plaintiffs alleged a credible threat of real and immediate harm stemming from the theft of a laptop containing their unencrypted personal data which included their names addresses and social security numbers holding that disclosure of home addresses implicates privacy interests because although addresses are publicly available inclusion of addresses in the notification may expose offenders to harassment holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra