Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Doe v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 22, 2016No. 110318Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiles, J.

I agree with the majority that our legislature intended for the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) and its 2011 amendments to be a civil regulatory scheme for public safety that was nonpunitive. I also agree the proper retroactivity test boils down to whether the 2011 amendments that prompt the present controversy render KORA so punitive as applied to sex offenders as to negate that intent. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 155 L. Ed. 2d *329164 (2003) (applying intent-effects test for federal Ex Post Facto Clause purposes). Our state constitution does not contain a…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. State v. SeeringSupreme Court of Iowa · 2005

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API