article: On September 22, 2016, this complaint was filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983 on behalf of 104 unnamed sexual offenders, identified as John or Jane Does, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Idaho against the Idaho Attorney General, the Idaho Department of Corrections, and the Idaho State Police Force. The plaintiffs alleged that Idaho’s Sexual Offender Registration Notification and Community Right-to-Know Act was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process and the Ex Post Facto clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Sex Offender Registry and accompanying statutes further violated the Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, Double Jeopardy, Contracts, and Takings clauses of the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. The plaintiffs were from across the country. Most were convicted of sexual offenses in 1980s and 1990s. One of their major complaints was that subsequent amendments to Idaho’s sex-offender registry laws amounted to unconstitutional retroactive punishment. For example, John Doe 100, of Bannock County, was convicted of a misdemeanor sexual offense in Montana in 1996. His offense did not require registration in Montana. He moved to Idaho in 2005 and was not required to register until 2007, 11 years after his conviction, when Idaho authorities reclassified his offense as a felony rather than the original misdemeanor. The plaintiffs sought a permanent order to stop the state and its counties from enforcing specific provisions of the Sex Offender Registry and accompanying statutes and laws. An amended complaint was filed on Apr. 26, 2017, which argued that the defendants further violated the plaintiffs' rights to: acquire, possess and protect property; seek and obtain safety and happiness; travel, life and liberty; and freedom of association and religion protected by the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. The complaint argued that the Registry and accompanying laws were unconstitutional both facially and as-applied. The case was assigned to Judge David C. Nye on Aug. 2, 2017. On Nov. 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A hearing was held on March 6, 2018 before Judge Nye. On May 17, 2018, Judge Nye granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies identified. Specifically, the plaintiffs must identify actual harms suffered by one or more “Does” and present sufficient facts upon which the court can make a reasoned decision. 2018 WL 2275220. On August 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint against the defendants. The defendants filed another motion to dismiss on October 18, 2018. A hearing was held on March 12, 2019. On April 5, 2019, Judge Nye granted the motion to dismiss again and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs added facts with respect to twelve defendants in the second amended complaint but failed to tie such facts to specific constitutional violations and allege essential details that would allow the court to evaluate whether any of the allegations are plausible. The plaintiffs also ignored most of the arguments raised in the defendants’ motion to dismiss and failed to cite any binding authority to support their arguments. Accordingly, Judge Nye dismissed this case. 2019 WL 1508037. On May 5, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As of January 20, 2020, this case is pending in the Court of Appeals.
summary: More than 100 sex offenders are challenging Idaho’s laws that require registration and community notification of sex offenders, saying the laws violate an array of constitutional rights, from the prohibition on double jeopardy to freedom of religion. The lawsuit seeks a permanent order to stop the state and its counties from enforcing some portions of the law. On April 5, 2019, Judge Nye dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to tie facts to specific constitutional violations. On May 5, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As of January 20, 2020, this case is pending in the Court of Appeals.