State v. Hardwick, 150 Idaho 580

Defendant enticed children over the internet, a felony, on June 15, 2004 and pled guilty.
A withheld judgment was granted on February 23, 2005 with a five-year supervised probation.
Probationers were required to register as sex offenders under Idaho law.
Idaho Code § 19-2604 provided a path to withdraw a guilty plea and dismiss the case if conditions were met.
In 2006, § 19-2604(3) was amended to prohibit dismissal or reduction for offenses requiring sex offender registration.
On July 1, 2009, defendant moved to terminate probation, withdraw the plea, and dismiss; the district court denied relying on the 2006 amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2006 amendment violates ex post facto protections	Hardwick argues the amendment increases punishment	Hardwick contends the amendment is punitive	No ex post facto violation; amendment nonpunitive

Wheeler v. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, 147 Idaho 257 (2009) (ex post facto analysis set forth for punishment burden)
State v. Parkinson, 144 Idaho 825 (2007) (expungement scope and civil rights restoration discussed)
Ray v. State, 133 Idaho 96 (1999) (registration statute not punitive; remedial purpose)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (ex post facto punitive standard; nonpunitive characterization of registration)
Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998) (federal firearms prohibition linked to civil rights restoration)