40 F. Supp. 3d 278
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiffs, nine sex-offenders, allege state registration and residency restrictions violate Ex Post Facto and equal protection; they also challenge a county trailer program.
- SORA imposes registration with risk-based tiers; amendments in 2002, 2006 extended duration and altered relief rights; retroactivity and ongoing enforcement are central to their claims.
- State residency restrictions (2001/2005 amendments) prohibit residence near schools, day care, and related facilities; county and town restraints mimic these limitations within their jurisdictions.
- Plaintiffs' residency challenges focus on potential homelessness and displaced living arrangements due to these restrictions; standing analysis addresses who is personally affected.
- The court grants motions to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice, finding the restrictions non-punitive and not ex post facto under Smith/Pataki framework; state law preemption claims dismissed without prejudice.
- New York Department of Social Services is dismissed from the case; official-capacity claims are treated as against the respective government entities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge state registration | Plaintiffs have concrete injuries from ongoing registration. | Arguments lack individualized injury for some; only some plaintiffs are impacted. | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge current state registration requirements. |
| Standing to challenge state residency restrictions | Restrictions cause imminent, concrete injury to plaintiff(s). | Not all plaintiffs are affected; standing limited. | Aiello, Blunt, and Factor have standing; others lack standing. |
| Standing to challenge county and town residency restrictions | Restrictions cause imminent/in fact injuries to plaintiffs. | Lack of injury or redressability for some plaintiffs. | Plaintiffs generally have standing; Tirado lacking sufficient injury pleadings; others have standing. |
| Ex post facto challenge to state registration | Current 2006 registration regime retroactively punishes prior conduct. | Smith framework shows non-punitive, civil purpose; not retroactive punishment. | Ex post facto claim relating to current state registration dismissed; not punitive under Smith/Pataki. |
| Ex post facto challenge to state residency restrictions | Residency restrictions punish past conduct by displacing offenders. | Restrictions serve public safety; not punitive; retroactivity analyzed under Smith. | State residency restrictions not punitive; ex post facto claim dismissed; similarly addressed for County/Town with similar reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 1997) (SORA does not implicate Ex Post Facto; nonpunitive regulatory framework)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (framework for determining punitive vs non-punitive regulatory schemes)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (housing opportunity injury can support standing)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S., 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing requirements and injury-in-fact full articulation)
- Weems v. Little Rock Police Dept., 453 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2006) (residency restrictions and equal protection considerations)
- Doe v. Cuomo, 755 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2014) (Second Circuit on ex post facto challenges to state registration)