University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Does, 1-104 v. Wasden CJ-ID-0003
Docket / Court 1:16-cv-00429 ( D. Idaho )
State/Territory Idaho
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Case Summary
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 ... read more >
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 case was assigned to Judge Lynn Winmill. 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 violates 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 state and the country. Most were convicted of sexual offenses in 1980s and 1990s. One of their major complaints was that amendments since then to Idaho’s sex-offender registry laws amount to retroactive punishment, which is unconstitutional. 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/laws.

On December 21, 2006, a status report was filed by the plaintiff's attorney that Amended Complaint will be filed within 30 days.

This case is on-going.

Ginny Lee - 02/09/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Ex Post Facto
Takings
Defendant-type
Corrections
Law-enforcement
General
Classification / placement
Confidentiality
Records Disclosure
Sex offender regulation
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) John and Jane Does 1-104
Plaintiff Description More than 100 sex offenders from across the state and around the country. Most were convicted of sexual offenses in the 1980s and 1990s.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None yet
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
Date: Aug. 11, 2014
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
1:16-cv-00429 (D. Idaho)
CJ-ID-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
CJ-ID-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Winmill, B. Lynn (D. Idaho)
CJ-ID-0003-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brown, Daniel S. (Idaho)
CJ-ID-0003-0001 | CJ-ID-0003-9000
Fuller, Greg J. (Idaho)
CJ-ID-0003-0001 | CJ-ID-0003-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -