Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
430 Md. 535
| Md. | 2013Background
- Petitioner pled guilty in 2006 to one count of child sexual abuse for conduct during the 1983-84 school year.
- Maryland’s sex offender registration statute was enacted in 1995 and amended several times thereafter.
- The 2009 and 2010 amendments retroactively required registration for certain pre-1995 offenses, including Petitioner's.
- Petitioner was not under custody or supervision in 2001, but was later directed in 2009 to register as a child sex offender.
- Petitioner sought declaratory relief challenging the registration requirement; the trial court denied removal from the registry.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court granted certiorari to address ex post facto, due process, and plea-agreement queries, ultimately reversing and remanding to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto violation under Article 17 | Petitioner argues retroactive registration punishes him for pre-existing conduct. | State contends amendments were permissible retroactive regulatory changes aligning with federal law. | Retroactive application violates Article 17; petitioner's removal from registry ordered. |
| Due process concerns | Petitioner alleges a hearing or individualized risk assessment is required before registration. | Registration triggered by conviction; no individualized danger hearing required. | Due process not violated; no individualized dangerousness hearing required. |
| Plea agreement enforcement (specific performance) | Registration was not contemplated in the plea; relief should enforce the plea terms. | Registration is a collateral consequence, not a term of the plea; no specific performance. | Declined in majority; separate concurrence addresses the scope of relief and enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (two-part Smith v. Doe test for ex post facto: intent and effects; civil regulatory schemes may be punitive in effect.)
- Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 430 Md. 535 (Md. 2013) (Maryland ex post facto due process standard; control of Maryland Article 17 analysis.)
- Anderson v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 310 Md. 217 (Md. 1987) (retrospective laws may violate ex post facto when they disadvantage the offender.)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1990) (rejected broader Kring/Weaver-disadvantage standard; ex post facto limited to Calder categories.)
- Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400 (Md. 2004) ( Maryland ex post facto analysis; Article 17 interpreted in light of federal standard but with state authority.)
- Demby (Dept. of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Demby), 390 Md. 580 (Md. 2006) (parallel ex post facto protections in Maryland and federal law; in pari materia approach.)
- Frost v. State, 336 Md. 125 (Md. 1994) (early articulation of ex post facto requirements in Maryland cases.)
- Young v. State, 370 Md. 686 (Md. 2002) (previously held sex offender registration not punishment; now distinguished under Smith analysis.)
- Raines v. State, 383 Md. 1 (Md. 2004) (application of Smith v. Doe framework to Maryland DNA collection act.)