Doe v. Raemisch
895 F. Supp. 2d 897
E.D. Wis.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are two adult male sex offenders (Doe I from Connecticut, Doe II from Florida) previously convicted in Wisconsin and subject to Wisconsin’s sex offender registry and notification laws.
- Wisconsin amended its registration regime in the 1990s, increasing duration, information required, and public access; the current regime includes a $100 annual fee, registration details, and internet/public access.
- Doe I and Doe II argue the amendments impose punitive ex post facto punishment, violate equal protection and substantive due process, and impair plea agreements; they also raise privacy and First Amendment challenges.
- The court grants summary judgment for the State on all issues except the $100 annual fee, which it finds unconstitutional ex post facto punishment; the fee is enjoined for these plaintiffs, and other claims are dismissed with prejudice.
- Defendants move for summary judgment; the court relies on Smith v. Doe and Wisconsin precedents (Bollig, Kaminski, Parmley, Smith) to assess the constitutional character of registration and notification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto—punitive effect of amendments | Doe I & Doe II allege amendments impose punishment | State argues nonpunitive regulatory scheme (Smith v. Doe) | No ex post facto violation except the $100 fee |
| Equal protection/substantive due process | Offenders still serving vs. completed sentences treated differently; lack of individualized risk assessment | Rational basis supports classifications; no fundamental right at stake | Rational basis; no equal protection violation; only fee deemed problematic |
| Other constitutional claims (plea impairment, privacy, First Amendment) | Registration and posting infringe privacy and speech rights; plea impairment claimed | Registration is civil; posting to Family Watchdog and email disclosures do not violate asserted rights | Most claims rejected; no First Amendment right to withhold email/internet data; plea impairment not shown; privacy claim rejected |
| Qualified immunity | Officers violated clearly established rights by applying fee | No clearly established right issue; Smith addressed but did not clearly show fee as unconstitutional in all contexts | Qualified immunity available; only the fee portion deemed unconstitutional on ex post facto grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (ex post facto analysis of registration laws; nonpunitive regulatory scheme)
- State v. Bollig, 605 N.W.2d 199 (Wis. 2000) (registration not punishment; public safety objective)
- Kaminski v. Schwarz, 245 Wis.2d 310 (Wis. 2001) (legislative intent: public safety/community protection)
- State v. Parmley, 785 N.W.2d 785 (Wis. App. 2010) (rational basis for registration categories; risk considerations)
- State v. Smith, 780 N.W.2d 90 (Wis. 2010) (legislative purpose and public safety; registration as nonpunitive)