249 P.3d 1231
Nev.2011Background
- Donlan pleaded guilty in California in 1985 to lewd and lascivious behavior on a child; probation later terminated and conviction dismissed under California law.
- Donlan began registering as a California sex offender in 1986; moved to Nevada in 2005 and continuously registered there.
- In 2009 California terminated Donlan's California registration requirement via an executive action; Donlan sought to terminate Nevada registration instead.
- Nevada district court denied Donlan's petition to terminate Nevada registration; Nevada Attorney General opposed.
- Donlan appealed arguing Full Faith and Credit required Nevada to recognize California's termination; the state argued Nevada may protect its own public safety interests.
- Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding Full Faith and Credit does not compel Nevada to abandon its own sex-offender registration requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Full Faith and Credit require Nevada to recognize California's termination? | Donlan: full faith and credit demands recognition of California termination. | State: California cannot dictate Nevada's public policy; Nevada may protect its citizens. | No; FFC does not require Nevada to adopt California's action. |
| Can California's public action negate Nevada's registration obligations? | Donlan: California action should nullify Nevada duty. | State: California lacks power to override Nevada's regulatory scheme. | California action cannot override Nevada's registration requirements. |
| May Nevada enforce its own sex-offender registration regime despite California termination? | Donlan seeks termination of Nevada registration. | State asserts Nevada's police power supports continued registration. | Nevada may continue enforcing its registration duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2010) (FF&C does not force states to follow another state's public policy)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) (FF&C does not require substitution of another state's statute)
- Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Cal., 306 U.S. 483 (1939) (states retain authority to legislate within their borders)
- Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) (public acts and records principle under FF&C)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (2003) (state competence to legislate for its own citizens; FF&C limits, not commandeering)