Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217

John Doe, a registered Utah sex offender, was convicted in the military system and released after 13 months but remained subject to Utah’s sex-offender registry statute.
Utah Code § 77-27-21.5 required Doe to disclose all online identifiers and passwords used for internet sites, with limited exceptions.
Doe refused to provide the information, challenging the statute as violating First and Fourth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The district court invalidated the statute, leading Utah to amend it by removing password disclosures and narrowing sharing provisions.
Amended statute allowed certain information to be shared among law enforcement and made some information private under GRAMA; district court then vacated its prior order.
Doe appealed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the statute constitutional under First and Fourth Amendments and did not violate Ex Post Facto.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment: is statute content-neutral and permissible?	Doe argues it suppresses anonymous speech.	Shurtleff argues it is content-neutral and furthers crime-investigation interests.	Yes, content-neutral; intermediate scrutiny upheld.
Fourth Amendment: does reporting online identifiers violate privacy?	Doe claims reasonable expectation of privacy in identifiers.	State contends information is voluntarily transmitted to third parties; no reasonable expectation of privacy.	No substantial Fourth Amendment violation; district court properly denied.
Ex Post Facto: does amended registry transform civil remedy into punishment?	Doe contends the disclosure provisions are punitive.	State argues civil, not criminal, remedy; no ex post facto violation.	No ex post facto violation; civil nature preserved under Femedeer.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (anonymity as First Amendment protection)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (internet speech protected)
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (affidavits vs. time-of-speech identification constraints)
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (intermediate scrutiny framework)
Giani v. American Target Adver., Inc., 199 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2000) (content-neutral regulation guided by intermediate scrutiny)
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (chilling effects require more than mere knowledge of investigations)
Perrine v. United States, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties)
Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000) (ex post facto civil-versus-criminal analysis for notification schemes)
Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (probing civil remedies for punitive potential)
City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (overbreadth and applicability considerations)
D.L.S. v. Utah, 374 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2004) (First Amendment application to privacy and speech cases)