In 1995 and 1996 several convicted sex offenders filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the State of Connecticut, the Department of Corrections, and the Office of Adult Probation. The plaintiffs were incarcerated sex offenders ...
read more >
In 1995 and 1996 several convicted sex offenders filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the State of Connecticut, the Department of Corrections, and the Office of Adult Probation. The plaintiffs were incarcerated sex offenders and sex offenders on probation. The plaintiffs, who were represented by private counsel, sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. They alleged that a probation policy, which provided a sex offender notification policy, and a Connecticut statute, which required that convicted sex offenders submit a blood sample for analysis and inclusion in a DNA data bank, violated their right to privacy and the constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. The challenge to the sex offender notification policy and the challenge to the requirement of the blood sample for the DNA data bank began independently and were consolidated in September 1996.
One of the plaintiffs, a sex offender on probation, sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from disseminating information about the sexual offenses to which he plead guilty to his employer, neighbors, and the general community. On August 27, 1996, the District Court (Judge Dominic J. Squatrito) granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction. Roe v. Office of Adult Probation, 938 F. Supp. 1080 (D. Conn. 1996). The defendants appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Judge Jon O. Newman) vacated the District Court's grant of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. Roe v. Office of Probation, 125 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1997).
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part. The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' federal claims and declared the statute constitutional. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, leaving the plaintiffs free to re-file in state court.
The plaintiffs appealed only the equal protection and unreasonable search and seizure issues. On September 16, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Judge Rosemary S. Pooler) declared the Connecticut statute constitutional, reasoning that the governmental interest outweighed the intrusion of giving a blood sample. Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999). The court further held that the statute did not violate the guarantee of equal protection, reasoning that there was no evidence presented that demonstrated a compelling need to test other violent felons.
The case is closed.Kaitlin Corkran - 06/12/2006