LAS Attys/ Offices: Thomas O’Brien (CDP/SLU)
Other Counsel: None
Date Filed: 1996
Class Action: In effect, although not technically
Nature of Claims: This action originally challenged the registration public notification law for previously convicted sex offender as violative of the ex post facto clause, and subsequently challenges the failure to provide adequate due process to those persons when assigning risk levels.
Current Status: The federal courts ultimately denied the ex post facto challenge but held that the process by which sex offenders under SORA had received their risk level classifications violated due process of law.
The parties in 2004 finalized a settlement, the terms of which created a special hearing process for thousands of SORA registrants.
In January 2006, the Legislature increased the length of registration for persons currently subject to SORA, including many of the plaintiffs in Doe. The District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement’s 10-year limit on the duration of registration, and also granted plaintiffs’ application to enjoined expanded notification measures passed by the Legislature in June 2006.
The Second Circuit upheld the statute, thus allowing the State to apply longer periods for registration to SORA registrants. Some 2,000 affected individuals, however, were afforded the right to a new hearing to challenge their risk level.
Last Reported Decision: Doe v. Pataki, 481 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2007)