# Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe > Supreme Court of the United States · March 5, 2003 · 538 U.S. 1 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434382 ## Case - **Full name:** CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Et Al. v. DOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 5, 2003 - **Citations:** 538 U.S. 1; 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 140; 71 U.S.L.W. 4158; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1957; 123 S. Ct. 1160; 155 L. Ed. 2d 98; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1951 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens - **Cited by:** 481 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434382 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that Connecticut’s sex offender registry scheme, which was based upon previous convictions and did not provide hearings to determine current dangerousness, did not violate the federal Due Process Clause because “due process does not require the opportunity to prove a f… - holding that procedural due process claims against sex offender registration laws that turn on the fact of an individual’s conviction for a particular offense are not cognizable because “convicted offender[s] ha[ve] already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest… - holding that Connecticut's sex offender registry law does not violate procedural due process by not providing for a hearing on dangerousness because the registry is based on the conviction itself, which "a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportuni… - explaining that “[s]ex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. The victims of sex assault are most often juveniles, and when convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be re-arrested for a new rape or sexual ass… - holding that no additional hearing was necessary to retroactively require sex offender registration, because the registration requirement "turn[ed] on an offender's conviction alone-a fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to cont… ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion, and add that even if the requirements of Connecticut’s sex offender registration law implicate a liberty interest of respondents, the categorical abrogation of that liberty interest by a validly enacted statute suffices to provide all the process that is “due” — just as a state law providing that no one under the age of 16 may operate a motor vehicle suffices to abrogate that liberty interest. Absent a claim (which respondents have not made here) that the liberty interest in question is so fundamental as to implicate so-called “substantive” due process, a properly enacted law can eliminate it. That is ultimately why, *9 as the Court’s opinion demonstrates, a convicted sex offender has no more right to additional “process” enabling him to establish that he is not dangerous than (in the analogous ease just suggested) a 15-year-old has a right to “process” enabling him to establish that he is a safe driver. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434382. Public record. Not legal advice.