teral consequence of the law which is primarily designed to protect the public and to assist police in tracking down SOs. Moreover, all that is contained in the public registry, and the Internet, is truthful factual information concerning the conviction, current whereabouts, etc. of respondent (p. 8).
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), held that a state law does not adversely impact an individual's liberty interest unless a "sigma plus" element was present and was causally related to the stigmatizing statement. Here "the registration requirements exist independently of the purported defamatory statement" (p. 9). The District Court disagreed with this reasoning and held that the "sigma plus" test was met by the combination of the registration requirements of the law and the stigmatizing effect of publication (p. 6).
Respondent argued that all convicted SOs, not just those convicted of violent offenses, must register under the law (pp. 9-10). A sex crime against a minor is not necessarily, and was not in the case of respondent, a violent crime. Law lumps together people who commit more minor sex offenses such as flashing, molestation, etc. The law imposes burdensome registration requirements that are not applied to other citizens. The stigma of registration and publication of the information required seriously impaired respondent's ability to live and work, etc.
Connecticut Department of Public Safety, et al., Petitioners
v. John Doe, No. 01-1231 Supreme Court of the United States, 2003
U.S. LEXIS 1951 (Decided March 5, 2003).
Holding. Supreme Court reversed 2d. Circuit's decision that
respondent's rights to procedural due process were violated. Decision was unanimous. Justices Antonin Scalia, John Stevens and David Souter filed concurring opinions. Justice Ruth Ginsburg joined in Souter's opinion.
Rationale of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Chief Justice said that the Court need n...