U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

• Residency requirements:
  • Does I, II, III v. Miller et al, number 3:03-cv-90067
    • The Court declined to review the Iowa Appellate case that restricts where sex offenders with victims under 18 can live, without providing a reason for refusing the case. It may have been that the case/subject is too new and that they are waiting for more lower case decisions to be made and appealed or for more evidence that true harm has come to some because of the law. The Court left the door open for other aspects of the registry to be challenged. May feel that the topic will be before the court again.
      • https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/298/844/2564151/
  • The Court declared that § 692A.2A was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. See: Doe v. Miller, 298 F.Supp.2d 844 (S.D. Iowa 2004).
    • https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2004/dec/15/iowa-sex-offender-residence-restrictions-unconstitutional/
• Registry:
  • Smith v Doe, 2003 (Alaska), 2002
    • The Court found that the registry law does not violate the U.S. Constitution because it is not intended to be punitive, but is a civil plan for public safety and does not therefore violate the ex post facto clause. Being on the registry did not seem to cause any significant punishment to any one. [Note: since that time four murders of registered sex offenders have occurred which have all been traced to the killers having access to information thereon. Thus further challenges are now expected.
      • https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2002/01-729.pdf
      • https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-729
  • Connecticut et al v Doe, 2003
    • Connecticut’s class action lawsuit decision says the state’s registry is illegal “because it labels registrants as dangerous without giving them an opportunity to show they are not dangerous and ought not to have to register. The court did not agree. Left open the possibility of an equal protection challenge.
      • https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2002/01-1231.pdf
      • https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1231
• Mandatory Minimum Sentencing:
  • United States v. Booker, 04-104, 2004
    • Court declared that the way judges have been sentencing defendants is unconstitutional. Mandatory minimum sentences should be considered advisory only. Effect on state laws is still unclear.
      • https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-104.ZS.html
      • https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-104
• Sentence Enhancement:
  • Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632
    • The case, following the line of Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny, held that no sentence in a criminal case can be enhanced beyond the statutory maximum for an offense unless the fact is found by a jury or the defendant waives the jury (or pleads guilty to it).
      • https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2003/02-1632.pdf
      • https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1632

Current TN sex offender law

For Tennessee Code sections containing most sex offender laws:

https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-40-criminal-procedure/tn-code-sect-40-39-201.html

https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-39-criminal-offenses/tn-code-sect-39-13-501.html