Doe v. Cuomo
755 F.3d 105
2d Cir.2014Background
- Doe pleaded guilty in 1999 to attempted possession of a sexual performance by a child, classified as a level-one sex offender under SORA.
- SORA at the time required level-one offenders to register for ten years and allowed relief via a petition for relief; amendments later extended to twenty years and removed relief for level-one offenders.
- In 2006 New York amended §§ 168-h and 168-o, extending registration and eliminating relief, while preserving some petitioning options for court modification of level and notification.
- In 2009 Doe petitioned to be relieved from registration under amended § 168-o(2); Queens County Criminal Court denied relief under the amended regime.
- In 2011 Doe sued Governor Cuomo and DCJS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the amendments as applied to him; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended SORA as applied to Doe violates Ex Post Facto law | Doe argues amendments are punitive and retroactive retribution | State contends amendments are regulatory, not punitive | No Ex Post Facto violation; amendments nonpunitive under Doe I and Smith |
| Whether amendments violate procedural due process | Doe claims lack of hearing on petition modification | State validly imposes procedures by statute and notice | No due process violation; no factually disputed trigger requiring hearing |
| Whether the plea agreement was breached by retroactive amendments | Doe asserts the court promised relief and ten-year term | No binding promise restricting post-amendment changes | No breach; plea terms not construed to guarantee immunity from amendments |
| Whether equal protection and Fourth Amendment challenges have merit | Doe asserts rational basis or privacy harms from extended registry | Amendments rationally related to public safety; no Fourth Amendment violation | Equal protection and Fourth Amendment challenges rejected |
| Whether Doe has standing for substantive due process/privacy claims | Doe alleges privacy and travel rights claims | Doe lacks injury from specific asserted rights | No standing for substantive due process/privacy claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Pataki, 481 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2007) (Doe I; nonpunitive characterization of SORA as to notification/registration)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (upholds nonpunitive regulatory nature of registration/notification)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) (Ex Post Facto applies to penal statutes only)
- Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (due process limits on risk-based classification procedures)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (constitutionally adequate process by enacting law)
- Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (balance of interests in searches in regulatory schemes)
- Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (Fourth Amendment considerations in state-registry context)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (privacy interests and dissemination of information)