Doe v. Thompson
373 P.3d 750
| Kan. | 2016Background
- John Doe pleaded guilty in 2003 to indecent liberties with a minor, completed probation in 2006, and initially complied with a 10-year Kansas offender registration requirement.
- In 2011 Kansas amended the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), expanding scope, increasing reporting duration from 10 to 25 years for many offenders, adding frequent in-person reporting, new data collection and disclosure requirements, fees, travel-notice rules, and a distinguished driver’s license marker.
- The KBI notified registrants that the 2011 amendments would be applied retroactively; Doe sued for declaratory relief under a pseudonym claiming the retroactive application violated the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The district court granted Doe summary judgment, finding the 2011 KORA amendments punitive in effect under Mendoza‑Martinez factors and therefore unconstitutional as applied retroactively; it ordered termination of the extended registration and deletion of publicly displayed information.
- The State appealed, challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings (denial of motion to strike affidavits and judicial notice of journal articles), the pseudonym ruling, and the Ex Post Facto holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the district court affidavits/journal articles properly considered? | Doe: affidavits and appended journal articles supported showing punitive effects and could be considered; journal articles are legislative facts. | State: affidavits contained inadmissible hearsay/speculation and articles were inadmissible substitute for testimony; judicial notice statute bars taking judicial notice of such legislative facts. | Court: denied remand; will conduct de novo review and may disregard inadmissible affidavit material; judicial notice statute K.S.A. 60-409 applies, but court need not rely on articles to reach result. |
| May Doe proceed pseudonymously? | Doe: substantial privacy interest (family, victim) outweighs public interest. | State: public interest favors disclosure; anonymous suit atypical. | Court: No abuse of discretion — district court properly applied balancing test (Unwitting Victim factors) and allowed pseudonym. |
| Does retroactive application of 2011 KORA violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? | Doe: amendments are punitive in effect (expanded scope, longer terms, in-person reporting, data dissemination, driver’s-license marking, felony penalties for violations) and retroactive application increases punishment. | State: KORA is a civil, regulatory public-safety scheme; Smith v. Doe and federal precedent support nonpunitive characterization and retroactive application. | Court: Affirmed district court — KORA as amended in 2011 is punitive in effect under Mendoza‑Martinez factors and cannot be applied retroactively to convictions before July 1, 2011. |
| Scope of decision — does ruling invalidate KORA prospectively? | Doe: seeks relief from retroactive extension only. | State: argued broader implications. | Held: Ruling only prohibits retroactive application to offenders convicted before July 1, 2011; legislature may apply KORA prospectively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (useful guideposts for determining punitive effect)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (intent-effects test for civil vs. punitive characterization of sex-offender registration laws)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (framework on civil confinement and regulatory intent)
- United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 (statutory-scheme punitive analysis cited by state and courts)
- State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 (Kansas precedent finding public disclosure punitive in effect)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (only clearest proof will override legislative intent)