THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY S. WARD, Appellant. JOHN DOE PAROLEE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Norm Maleng, et al, Respondent.
Nos. 59542-9; 59625-5
En Banc.
March 17, 1994
Reconsideration denied May 31, 1994.
123 Wn.2d 488
ANDERSEN, C.J., and UTTER, DOLLIVER, DURHAM, SMITH, GUY, JOHNSON, and MADSEN, JJ., concur.
Reconsideration denied May 31, 1994.
Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney for King County, and Regina Cahan, Deputy; John W. Ladenburg, Prosecuting Attorney for Pierce County, and Barbara L. Corey-Boulet and Kyron Huigens, Deputies, for respondent.
GUY, J. — Appellants Jeffrey Ward and John Doe seek review of superior court decisions holding the sex offender registration statute,
BACKGROUND
In 1989, then Governor Booth Gardner formed a task force to study community protection. See Governor‘s Task Force on Community Protection, Final Report, at I-1 (1989). As a result of the Task Force‘s recommendations, the Legislature passed the Community Protection Act of 1990. Laws of 1990, ch. 3. Part 4 of the act provides for the registration
The legislature finds that sex offenders often pose a high risk of reoffense, and that law enforcement‘s efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses, are impaired by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders who live within the law enforcement agency‘s jurisdiction. Therefore, this state‘s policy is to assist local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities by regulating sex offenders by requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies as provided in [
RCW 9A.44.130 ].
Laws of 1990, ch. 3, § 401. The requirement for sex offender registration, codified at
The statute requires all persons residing in Washington who have been convicted of any sex offense, as defined by
Each of the appellants was convicted of a sexual offense as defined in
Jeffrey S. Ward. On March 18, 1988, Jeffrey S. Ward was convicted of first degree statutory rape, which he committed in 1987, and was sentenced to 41 months in the Department of Corrections. Ward was released from custody on April 3, 1990. On May 7, 1990, Ward was advised by his community corrections officer that he was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to
Ward moved to dismiss the charge, claiming the sex offender registration statute violated constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. The Pierce County Superior Court denied Ward‘s motion, holding that the sex offender registration statute, retroactively applied to Ward, did not violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws because it is not punitive in purpose or effect. The court found Ward guilty of failing to register as a sex offender, sentenced him to 30 days’ confinement, and assessed a fine of $178. Ward‘s sentence was stayed pending appeal. Ward appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified Ward‘s appeal to this court pursuant to RAP 4.2. We accepted certification.
John Doe Parolee.2 In 1980, John Doe pleaded guilty to and was convicted of first degree rape. The rape occurred in 1979. Doe was paroled on active supervision in late 1987, was conditionally released from supervision on June 21,
Doe commenced an action in King County Superior Court pursuant to
ISSUE
The central issue before us is whether the sex offender registration statute,
Ward and Doe claim that the requirement to register as sex offenders under a statute that had not yet been enacted at the time they committed their offenses violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws of both the federal and state constitutions. In addition, Doe claims that the statute as applied to him violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
While appellants claim the sex offender registration statute violates provisions of both the state and federal constitutions, there is no suggestion that analysis under both constitutions should not be the same.
A statute is presumed constitutional and the party challenging it has the burden to prove it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Diversified Inv. Partnership v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 113 Wn.2d 19, 23, 775 P.2d 947 (1989); State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 193, 751 P.2d 294 (1988).
I
Ex Post Facto Clause
The ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions forbid the State from enacting any law which imposes punishment for an act which was not punishable when committed or increases the quantum of punishment annexed to the crime when it was committed.
” ‘[c]ritical to relief under the Ex Post Facto Clause is not an individual‘s right to less punishment, but the lack of fair notice and governmental restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.’ ”
In re Powell, supra at 184-85 (quoting Weaver, 450 U.S. at 30).In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 1 L. Ed. 648 (1798), the United States Supreme Court established the framework for ex post facto analysis. This framework,
“in relation to the offence or its consequences, alters the situation of a party to his disadvantage.”
Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 228-29, 27 L. Ed. 506, 2 S. Ct. 443 (1882) (quoting United States v. Hall, 26 F. Cas. 84, 86 (C.C. Pa. 1809) (No. 15,285)), overruled by Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 111 L. Ed. 2d 30, 110 S. Ct. 2715 (1990). In overruling Kring, the United States Supreme Court rejected such an expansive reading of the ex post facto clause. Collins, at 50. The effect of the Collins decision was to reestablish the Calder categories as the controlling definition of an ex post facto law. Applying the Calder categories, the Court summarized that a law violates the ex post facto clause if it (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission; or (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available according to the law at the time the act was committed. Collins, 497 U.S. at 42-43, 52 (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 70 L. Ed. 216, 46 S. Ct. 68 (1925)). After Collins, the proper inquiry is not whether the law is a burden, or “disadvantageous” to the defendant, but whether it makes more burdensome the punishment for the crime.A law violates the ex post facto clause if it: (1) is substantive, as opposed to merely procedural; (2) is retrospective (applies to events which occurred before its enactment); and (3) disadvantages the person affected by it. See Weaver v. Graham, supra at 29; Collins v. Youngblood, [497] U.S. [37], 111 L. Ed. 2d 30, 110 S. Ct. 2715 (1990).
(Some italics ours.) We do not depart from this pronouncement of the ex post facto test. However, in light of the Supreme Court‘s holding in Collins v. Youngblood, supra, we clarify that the sole determination of whether a law is “disadvantageous” is whether the law alters the standard of punishment which existed under prior law. In re Powell, 117 Wn.2d at 188; Johnson v. Morris, 87 Wn.2d 922, 927, 557 P.2d 1299 (1976); State v. Taylor, 67 Wn. App. 350, 354-55, 835 P.2d 245 (1992).
Taking the second part of the test first, we conclude that the sex offender registration statute is retrospective. It was enacted after Ward and Doe committed their offenses and it is being applied to them.4 See In re Powell, 117 Wn.2d at 185; Weaver, 450 U.S. at 32-33. As to whether the statute is substantive or procedural, we assume, without deciding, that it is substantive.5 We hold, however, that appellants are not “disadvantaged” by the statute because it
The ex post facto prohibition applies only to laws inflicting criminal punishment. Johnson v. Morris, 87 Wn.2d at 928; In re Young, 122 Wn.2d 1, 857 P.2d 989 (1993). To determine whether the sex offender registration statute is punitive or regulatory, we look first to the Legislature‘s purpose in adopting the law. De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1109, 80 S. Ct. 1146 (1960); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 96, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630, 78 S. Ct. 590 (1958). When it enacted the statute, the Legislature unequivocally stated that the State‘s policy is to “assist local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities by regulating sex offenders by requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies as provided in [
Our inquiry, however, does not end with the Legislature‘s stated purpose. We also examine whether the actual effect of the statute is so punitive as to negate the Legislature‘s regulatory intent. United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-49, 65 L. Ed. 2d 742, 100 S. Ct. 2636 (1980). We turn to the factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644, 83 S. Ct. 554 (1963) for assistance in determining whether the effect of a statute is regulatory or punitive. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249; In re Young, 122 Wn.2d 1, 857 P.2d 989 (1993). These factors are:
Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. . . .
1. Registration and Limited Disclosure as an Affirmative Disability or Restraint.
Appellants argue that because registration carries with it the right of law enforcement agencies to disseminate information to the public, the registration requirement amounts to a “badge of infamy“. We disagree.
Registration alone imposes no significant additional burdens on offenders. The statute requires an offender to provide the local sheriff with eight pieces of information: name, address, date and place of birth, place of employment, crime for which convicted, date and place of conviction, aliases used, and Social Security number. In addition, the local sheriff must obtain two items: the offender‘s photograph and fingerprints. We note that at least one criminal justice agency routinely has all of this information on file at the time of an offender‘s conviction and sentencing. See
We also find that the physical act of registration creates no affirmative disability or restraint. Collecting information about sex offenders in order to aid community law enforce-
Appellants contend, however, that the dissemination of registrant information creates hostile publicity and, ultimately, has a punitive effect on registrants. They direct our attention to the record which contains three sexual offender notification bulletins received by a resident of Mill Creek, and copies of five newspaper articles, all of which they assert are illustrative of the nature and impact of publicity. No such disclosure, though, appears to have occurred in appellants’ cases. Nonetheless, we now examine whether the potential for disclosure of registrant information creates an affirmative disability or restraint.
We begin with the Washington State Criminal Records Privacy Act,
[o]verly restrictive confidentiality and liability laws governing the release of information about sexual predators have reduced willingness to release information that could be appropriately released under the public disclosure laws, and have increased risks to public safety. Persons found to have committed a sex offense have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public‘s interest in public safety and in the effective operation of government. Release of information about sexual predators to public agencies and under limited circumstances, the general public, will further the governmental interests of public safety and public scrutiny of the criminal and mental health systems so long as the information released is rationally related to the furtherance of those goals.
Therefore, this state‘s policy as expressed in [
RCW 4.24.550 ] is to require the exchange of relevant information about sexual predators among public agencies and officials and to authorize the release of necessary and relevant information about sexual predators to members of the general public.
(Italics ours.) Laws of 1990, ch. 3, § 116. The Legislature‘s pronouncement evidences a clear regulatory intent to limit the exchange of relevant information to the general public to those circumstances which present a threat to public safety.
The first limits to disclosure appear when an agency determines whether to disseminate registrant information. Because the Legislature clearly intended public agencies to disseminate warnings to the public “under limited circumstances“, in many cases, both the registrant information and the fact of registration remain confidential. This cannot impose any additional burdens to that of registration.
When disclosure is appropriate, the statute also limits what a public warning may contain. As stated above, the statute authorizes release only of “relevant and necessary” information. This standard imposes an obligation to release registrant information reasonably necessary to counteract the danger created by the particular offender. For example, release of an offender‘s Social Security number may be unnecessary in many cases, but critical where a potential employer must discover the offender‘s identity and criminal background. Furthermore, the statutory requirement of “necessary information” and, for that matter, the Legislature‘s primary goal of protecting the public, obligates the disclosing agency to gauge the public‘s potential for violence and draft the warning accordingly. An agency must disclose only that information relevant to and necessary for counteracting the offender‘s dangerousness.
Finally, the statute limits where an agency may disclose the registrant information. The Legislature dictated that disclosure must be “rationally related to the furtherance” of the goals of public safety and the effective operation of government. See Laws of 1990, ch. 3, § 116. Accordingly, the geographic scope of dissemination must rationally relate to the threat posed by the registered offender. Depending on
As the Legislature indicated, however, we leave to the appropriate agencies the specific decisions of whether, what, and where to disclose within the parameters outlined above. We find that the statutory limits on disclosure ensure that the potential burdens placed on registered offenders fit the threat posed to public safety. Any publicity or other burdens which may result from disclosure arise from the offender‘s future dangerousness, and not as punishment for past crimes. We conclude, therefore, that registration and limited public disclosure does not alter the standard of punishment which existed under prior law.
Our conclusion is supported by the Arizona Supreme Court‘s decision in State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171, 829 P.2d 1217 (1992), a case involving retroactive application of that state‘s sex offender registration statute. Applying the Mendoza-Martinez factors, the Noble court concluded that Arizona‘s registration statute did not affirmatively inhibit or restrain an offender‘s movement or activities; that some courts have viewed registration acts as punitive; that registration will have some deterrent effect; and that the registration requirement serves a valid regulatory purpose. Noble, at 176-77. The court held that, on balance, Arizona‘s sex offender registration requirement was not punitive. Noble, at 178.
The Arizona and Washington statutes are not comparable in all respects. Unlike the Washington statute, the Arizona statute does not authorize dissemination of registration information to the general public. See Noble, at 176 n.8 (citing
In People v. Adams, 144 Ill. 2d 381, 581 N.E.2d 637 (1991), the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Illinois Habitual Child Sex Offender Registration Act imposed punishment for purposes of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court concluded registration under the act did not constitute punishment. Adams, 581 N.E.2d at 641. The court found that the Legislature designed the statute to aid law enforcement agencies by providing ready access to location information of known offenders. Adams, 581 N.E.2d at 640.
Similar to the Arizona statute, the Illinois statute does not permit dissemination of registrant information to the general public. Adams, 581 N.E.2d at 640. The information supplied is to be held in confidence by the law enforcement agency; the unauthorized release of the supplied information is a class B misdemeanor. Adams, at 640 (citing
While we agree with the holding in Adams, we depart from the court‘s analysis inasmuch as it implies that any dissemination of relevant and necessary information to the public is punitive. The Adams court did not analyze whether the effects of registration, including the potential
Appellants cite another Eighth Amendment case, In re Reed, 33 Cal. 3d 914, 663 P.2d 216, 191 Cal. Rptr. 658 (1983), for support. In In re Reed, supra, the petitioner was convicted of soliciting “lewd or dissolute conduct” and was ordered to register as a sex offender. In re Reed, supra at 917. Applying the Mendoza-Martinez factors, the California Supreme Court held that mandatory registration of sex offenders convicted under a misdemeanor disorderly conduct statute was an affirmative restraint and constituted punishment. In re Reed, supra at 920-22. Although the threshold determination in In re Reed, supra, was the same in this case — whether the duty to register as a sex offender constitutes punishment — the issue in In re Reed, supra, was whether the statute violated California‘s constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. In re Reed, supra at 919. Critical to the court‘s decision was its finding that the “continuing penalty of sex offender registration is out of all proportion to the [misdemeanor] crime of which petitioner was convicted.” In re Reed, supra
In summary, we hold that registration as a sex offender does not create an affirmative disability or restraint. While registrant information may be released under limited circumstances to the general public, we conclude the appropriate dissemination of relevant and necessary information does not constitute punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis.
2. Registration Historically Regarded as Punishment.
The second Mendoza-Martinez factor indicates that the statute is regulatory rather than punitive. Registration has not traditionally or historically been regarded as punishment. See generally Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 229, 2 L. Ed. 2d 228, 78 S. Ct. 240 (1957) (city ordinance requiring all felons to register was, at most, a law enforcement technique designed for the convenience of law enforcement agencies). Registration is a traditional governmental method of making available relevant and necessary information to law enforcement agencies. See, e.g.,
We note the Noble court found that registration traditionally has been viewed as punitive. Noble, at 176 (citing In re Birch, 10 Cal. 3d 314, 322, 515 P.2d 12, 110 Cal. Rptr. 212 (1973)). We disagree with the Noble court‘s conclusion on this point. We are not likewise persuaded by the Birch
3. Traditional Aims of Punishment.
The next relevant Mendoza-Martinez factor is whether the registration statute promotes the traditional aims of punishment. We acknowledge that a registrant, aware of the statute‘s protective purpose, may be deterred from committing future offenses. See State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. at 177. While deterrence is a traditional purpose of punishment, a registrant may be deterred from the fact of conviction and punishment served, whether he is required to register or not. See State v. Taylor, 67 Wn. App. at 357. Furthermore, the Legislature‘s primary intent is to aid law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities by providing a mechanism for increased access to relevant and necessary information. Even if a secondary effect of registration is to deter future crimes in our communities, we decline to hold that such positive effects are punitive in nature.
4. Registration Is Not Excessive in Relation to Nonpunitive Purpose.
Under the final Mendoza-Martinez factor, the statute must not be excessive in relation to its nonpunitive purpose. We conclude the registration statute is not excessive in relation to its purpose.
Pursuant to
We are not persuaded by the argument that the registration statute would burden former offenders by making them the focus of every sex crime investigation. See In re Reed, 33 Cal. 3d at 920. “While a known sex offender living in a community where another sex offense occurs may well be a suspect, he has all of the due process and constitutional protections enjoyed by any other citizen and cannot be arrested simply because of his past conviction.” Taylor, 67 Wn. App. at 358. See Noble, 171 Ariz. at 177 (registration does not diminish registrant‘s general right to be free from unconstitutional law enforcement practices); Adams, 581 N.E.2d at 641 (registrant‘s constitutional safeguards will still be in place). We recognize, however, that a registrant may be the subject of prearrest suspicion and investigation. Taylor, at 359 (Agid, J., dissenting). Such attention is incident to the conviction and not a result of registration as a sex offender.
We are likewise unpersuaded by the argument that Washington‘s registration requirement amounts to a lifelong “badge of infamy” for those convicted of sex offenses. Unlike the California statute, Washington‘s statute only requires registration of felony sex offenders. In addition, the duty to register under
The Arizona and Illinois Supreme Courts held that their sex offender registration statutes are not excessive in relation to their nonpunitive, law enforcement purposes. Noble, at 177-78; Adams, 581 N.E.2d at 641-42. The fact that
On balance, we conclude that the requirement to register as a sex offender under
II
Due Process
Doe7 makes a threshold argument that the statute‘s registration requirement does not apply to him by its own terms. Doe correctly states that the 1990 statute provided that a sex offender register “within forty-five days of establishing residence in Washington, or if a current resident within thirty days of release from confinement, if any“. Former
First, the statute explicitly states that “[a]ny adult or juvenile residing in this state who has been found to have committed or has been convicted of any sex offense shall register“.
In 1980, Doe pleaded guilty to first degree rape. Doe argues that because he was not given written notification of the duty to register as a sex offender in his original plea form, the registration requirement breaches his plea agreement and thereby violates due process. Doe contends that the registration statute, if applicable to him, amounts to a more burdensome “hidden” parole term.
The federal and state constitutions require that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The court shall not accept a plea of guilty, without first determining that it is made voluntarily, competently and with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.
(Italics ours.)
A criminal defendant must be informed of all the direct consequences of his plea prior to acceptance of a guilty plea. State v. Barton, 93 Wn.2d 301, 305, 609 P.2d 1353 (1980). On the other hand, a defendant need not be advised of all possible collateral consequences of his plea. Barton, at 305; State v. Mace, 97 Wn.2d 840, 840, 841, 650 P.2d 217 (1982). “The distinction between direct and collateral consequences of a plea turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant‘s punishment.” Barton, at 305
In Barton, we held that a habitual criminal proceeding is a collateral, and not a direct, consequence of a guilty plea. We stated that such a proceeding is a collateral consequence because: (1) it is not automatically imposed by the court in which the defendant has entered a plea of guilty, and (2) it cannot automatically enhance a defendant‘s sentence. A defendant‘s status as a habitual offender is determined in a subsequent independent trial in which the defendant has all the constitutional rights inherent in the right to trial by jury. Barton, at 305-06. We concluded in Barton that the defendant need not be advised of the possibility of a habitual criminal proceeding in the plea because any enhancement of defendant‘s sentence is a collateral, rather than a direct, result of defendant‘s guilty plea. Barton, at 306. Subsequent deportation and parole revocation proceedings have also been found to be collateral effects. State v. Reid, 40 Wn. App. 319, 323, 698 P.2d 588 (1985) (citing State v. Malik, 37 Wn. App. 414, 416, 680 P.2d 770, review denied, 102 Wn.2d 1023 (1984); State v. Brown, 29 Wn. App. 770, 778, 630 P.2d 1378, review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1013 (1981)). We recently held that mandatory DNA testing of sex offenders is a collateral consequence of the defendant‘s guilty plea. State v. Olivas, 122 Wn.2d 73, 98, 856 P.2d 1076 (1993).
Applying the Barton analysis to this case, we conclude there was no constitutional requirement to advise Doe of his duty to register as a sexual offender at the time of his guilty plea. Although the duty to register flows from Doe‘s conviction for a felony sex offense, it does not enhance Doe‘s sentence or punishment. ”A defendant must understand the sentencing consequences for a guilty plea to be valid.” (Italics ours.) State v. Miller, 110 Wn.2d 528, 531, 756 P.2d 122 (1988). As we concluded under our ex post facto analysis, registration as a sex offender does not alter the standard of punishment. Because registration as a sex offender does not
Finally, Doe argues that he was not given written notice of the requirement to register as a sex offender pursuant to
Moreover, the Legislature was clear that actual notice of the duty to register triggers the requirement to register. See
Because registration was a collateral consequence of Doe‘s plea, we find no violation of Doe‘s due process rights.
III
Equal Protection
For purposes of establishing registration deadlines, the statute distinguishes between convicted sex offenders who are under correctional supervision and those who are no longer under supervision.
Constitutional equal protection guaranties require similar treatment under the law for similarly situated persons.
Doe contends that the strict scrutiny standard applies because the registration statute results in significant impairment of a registrant‘s right to earn a livelihood and to own land and shelter. We reject Doe‘s unsupported assertion that the strict scrutiny standard should be applied in this case. Sex offenders are not a suspect class for purposes of equal protection review. See generally In re Borders, 114 Wn.2d 171, 177, 786 P.2d 789 (1990). Liberty interests alone are not sufficient to subject a statute to strict scrutiny. State v. Danis, 64 Wn. App. 814, 818-19, 826 P.2d 1096, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1015 (1992). We conclude that Doe‘s challenge to the statute‘s classification of sex offenders is properly reviewed under the rational basis test.
As discussed, the Legislature has broad discretion to determine what the public interest demands and what measures are necessary to secure and protect that interest. State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d at 193. A statute is a valid exercise of police power if it tends to promote a valid state interest and bears a reasonable and substantial relationship to accomplishing its purpose. Brayman, at 193. The state interest in this case is to assist local law enforcement by requiring sex offender registration. Doe challenges the Legis
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we hold that as applied to both Ward and Doe, the requirement to register as a sex offender is not punitive and therefore does not violate the ex post facto prohibitions of the federal and state constitutions. As to Doe, we reject his due process and equal protections claims. The judgments of the trial courts are affirmed.
UTTER, DURHAM, SMITH, JOHNSON, and MADSEN, JJ., concur.
ANDERSEN, C.J. (concurring) — I am concerned lest the majority in “interpreting” the sex offender registration statute has rendered it, if not unworkable, then at least uncertain.
I agree with the majority opinion that the sex offender registration statute is constitutional. However, the majority opinion goes on (see discussion, majority opinion at 502-03) and, under the rubric of interpreting or construing the statute, imposes on public agencies the obligation to have “evidence of an offender‘s future dangerousness, likelihood of reoffense, or threat to the community” (majority, at 503) in order to justify disclosure to the public. That is both unworkable and unnecessary. The statute is plain and unambiguous on its face and therefore should not be subject
The statute clearly and expressly allows public agencies to authorize release of relevant and necessary information regarding sex offenders to the public “when the release of the information is necessary for public protection.”
BRACHTENBACH, J., concurs with ANDERSEN, C.J.
[No. 59946-7. En Banc. March 17, 1994.]
FRIENDS OF THE LAW, Appellant, v. KING COUNTY, ET AL., Respondents.
Notes
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
(Italics ours.) Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390, 1 L. Ed. 648 (1798).