{
  "id": "RS21334",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS21334",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 103524,
      "date": "2003-03-24",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:49:58.790544",
      "title": "Sexual Offender Registration Acts: Supreme Court Review of the Connecticut and Alaska Statutes in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe and Smith v. Doe",
      "summary": "The United States Supreme Court has rejected constitutional challenges to two state sex offender\nregistration and notification statutes (SORA),  Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe ,\n123 S.Ct.\n1140 (2003);  Smith v. Doe , 123 S.Ct. 1160 (2002). In one, it concluded that as a matter\nof due\nprocess registrants under the Connecticut statute need not be afforded the opportunity of a hearing\nto establish that they should be released from the burdens of the statute because they are not currently\ndangerous. In the other, it held that the ex post facto clause does not ban application of the Alaska\nstatute to convictions for misconduct occurring prior to enactment of the statute. The Justices left\nopen the possibility that such statutes might be subject to constitutional attack on substantive due\nprocess grounds and possibly on equal protection grounds.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS21334",
          "sha1": "58fcdfc0153f6602de6746d1da81c16d922e8967",
          "filename": "files/20030324_RS21334_58fcdfc0153f6602de6746d1da81c16d922e8967.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20030324_RS21334_58fcdfc0153f6602de6746d1da81c16d922e8967.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}