Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe
| Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe | |
|---|---|
 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001) | |
| Holding | |
| The Second Circuit's judgment must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State's statutory scheme. Mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Souter, joined by Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
| This article is part of a series on the |
| Sex offender registries in the United States |
|---|
 |
|
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Connecticut sex offender registration requirement which required public disclosure of information on sex offenders after they had been released from incarceration.[1]
Background
A state statute required
The website contained the following disclaimer:
The registry is based on the legislature’s decision to facilitate access to publicly-available information about persons convicted of sexual offenses. [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.[1]
John Doe, a convicted sex offender who was thereby subject to the law, filed suit in Federal court, claiming that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The District Court issued an injunction regarding the law's public disclosure provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that such disclosure did indeed violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because registrants were not provided with a hearing prior to the public disclosure.[2][3]
The Supreme Court granted
Opinion of the Court
In a unanimous opinion, the Second Circuit Court's judgment was reversed on the basis that due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State's statutory scheme. Injury to reputation in itself, even if defamatory, does not constitute deprivation of liberty.[3]
References
Further reading
- Wright, Richard G. (2003). "Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Public Attention, Political Emphasis, and Fear". Criminology & Public Policy. 3 (1): 97–104. .
External links
- Text of Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Brief for the Unisted States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner
- ACLU Brief for the Respondents in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (10/2/2002)
- Amicus brief in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe - Urging the court to find that governmental dissemination of truthful information about a person does not trigger "due process" requirements.