determining that public dissemination of certain information about life registration for certain sexual offenders under the Sex Offender Registration Act did not violate the ex post facto clause of West Virginia Constitution or procedural due process protections afforded by West Virginia Constitution
How later courts described this case
- determining that public dissemination of certain information about life registration for certain sexual offenders under the Sex Offender Registration Act did not violate the ex post facto clause of West Virginia Constitution or procedural due process protections afforded by West Virginia Constitution
- holding that "[t]he application of W. Va. Code § 15-12-4 (2000), which requires life registration for certain sexual offenders, or W. Va. Code § 15—12—5 (2001
- observing that legislation which is civil “would not implicate the ex post facto clause,” whereas legislation which is punitive “would violate the clause.”
- same from appeal of denial of motion to dismiss indictment for alleged failure to comply with OCGA § 42- 6-20, Article IV (e)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STARCHER, C.J., concurring.
(Filed Dec. 10, 2003)
I join the Court’s unanimous opinion and write separately to highlight a distinct and important point made by the Court in its opinion — that our decision does not address the substantive due process and equal protection aspects of the Sex Offender Registration Act.
My own judgment is that in an appropriate case, substantive due process and equal protection would require that an offender who could clearly demonstrate rehabilitation be able to go before a circuit court and show that they have no risk of re-offending, and request removal of the registration requirement. That is, such an individual might have grounds to challenge provisions of the Act as applied to him or her. See majority opinion, 215 W.Va. at 100, 593 S.E.2d at 850. In such a case, a circuit court in the first instance should take evidence, make a full record, and rule on the substantive due process and equal protection issues. If such a case is ever brought, I hope that it is a case that has compelling equities and merit, so as not to poison the well of justice with “bad facts.”