California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Government Law
Table of Contents

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Government Law Case Summaries
 

■ Doe v Cal Dept of Justice D053176
 

 Under California's version of "Megan's Law," 2004 legislation allowed persons convicted of specified sex crimes to, on successful completion of probation, apply to have their names, pictures and other identifying information excluded from an Internet Web site maintained by the California Department of Justice (the Department).[1]  As amended in 2005, however, the exclusion is available only to a parent, stepparent, sibling or grandparent of the victim, when the crime did not involve oral copulation or any penetration.  In 2006, the Legislature expressly made the amendment retroactive.

            G.G. Doe and B.M. Doe, convicted child molesters, appeal a judgment in which the court denied their petition for an order prohibiting the Department from posting their information on the Megan's Law Web site.  They contend the Department is equitably estopped from doing so because they detrimentally relied on exclusions they received in the summer of 2005 before the law changed.  Further, they contend the 2006 amendment making the new law retroactive constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto law, and violates their constitutional rights in numerous other respects. 
Judgment affirm.

Foot Note

[1]          "Megan's Law" is named after Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old New Jersey girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered in 1994 by a neighbor who, unknown to her family, had prior convictions for sex offenses against children.  As a result of the crime, by 1996 each state, the District of Columbia and the federal government had enacted some version of Megan's Law, requiring the registration of sex offenders and community notification.  (Smith v. Doe (2003) 538 U.S. 84, 89.)

HELD:

Trial court order denying plaintiffs petition for an order prohibiting defendant from posting their information on the Megan's Law Web site is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied plaintiffs' argument that defendant was equitably estopped from rescinding their exclusions from disclosure of personal information on the Megan's Law Web site as plaintiffs provided no evidence they detrimentally relied on the exclusions; 2) plaintiffs' constitutional arguments fail as the measure rescinding their exclusions does not take away fundamental vested rights without due process of law, does not constitute a forbidden ex post facto law, does not violate their liberty interests in privacy and does not violates their equal protection rights; and 3) the posting of plaintiff's information on the Web site does not violate the penal code section under which his conviction was previously dismissed.
Doe v. Cal. Dept. of Justice -D053176-5/7/09 CA4/1
Doe v. Cal. Dept. of Justice -D053176-5/7/09 CA4/1-pdf

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory