"All Other Claims Against Defendants Are Dismissed With Prejudice" - Well, At Least The Court Terminology Is Honest - USA

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Doe v Raemisch

"Plaintiffs' affidavits explain in detail the difficulties and embarrassment they and their families have endured as a consequence of complying with these new restrictions, even though their convictions are now almost twenty years in the past and they have led completely law-abiding, if not exemplary, lives in the interim. Their stories raise substantial questions as to the wisdom and fairness of subjecting them and similarly situated individuals to lifetime registration and notification requirements with their attendant obligations and restrictions. But given the previous decisions addressing the issues Plaintiffs raise, I conclude that the relief, if any, must come from the legislative branch. With one limited exception, the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. For the most part, the amendments to the Wisconsin sex offender registry system do not depart in any meaningful way from the systems already found to be constitutional by the Bollig and Smith Courts.

The lone exception I find to this is the $100 fine provision, which I have concluded cannot be constitutionally imposed on them. With this exception, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment declaring that imposition of the $100 annual fee on Plaintiffs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 301.45(10) constitutes punishment in violation of their rights under the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions and enjoining Defendants from assessing or collecting such amount from Plaintiffs. All other claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice."

September 25, 2013

Federal Court of Appeals: Sex Offender Registry Fee Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Violation Under Certain Circumstances

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html

Doe v Raemisch

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8848008220643270891&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/doe-v-raemisch.html

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/federal-court-of-appeals-sex-offender_25.html