Doe v. Harris
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6787
9th Cir.2011Background
- In 1991 Doe pleaded guilty to one count of lewd act upon a child; five counts were dismissed in exchange for the plea, with penalties limited to probation, work furlough, fines, and sex-offender registration under § 290.
- § 290 confidentiality previously barred public inspection of registration information; Megan's Law later made registration public and retroactive to pre-enactment offenses.
- Doe sued, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process violation for disclosure of his sex-offender status contrary to the plea agreement.
- District court found confidentiality material to the plea and that the handwritten addition 'P.C. 290 registration' reflected the parties' understanding; no rights reserved for future changes.
- The court held that publicly disclosing confidential registration information would violate the plea, and enjoined the Attorney General from disclosure.
- The Ninth Circuit certified CA Supreme Court to resolve whether California law binds the parties to the law as of the plea or can be altered by later changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the default California contract interpretation rule for plea agreements? | Doe argues law at time binds parties. | Harris argues changes in law may affect terms. | Certification sought; no ruling on the substantive rule yet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swenson v. File, 3 Cal.3d 389 (Cal. 1970) (commercial contracts presume existing law governs; changes not part of agreement)
- People v. Acuna, 77 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (expungement not implied in plea absent express provision)
- People v. Gipson, 117 Cal.App.4th 1065 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (Three Strikes and recidivist enhancements may apply despite plea terms)
- In re Lowe, 130 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (parole procedures may be amended; public policy supports reserve power)
- People v. Arata, 151 Cal.App.4th 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (probation-based expungement can be implied in plea involving probation)
- Hatton v. Bonner, 356 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (publication of sex-offender registry not punishment under Ex Post Facto)