## Facts

- New Jersey enacted “Megan’s Law,” creating (1) a sex-offender registration system and (2) a tiered community-notification system based on assessed risk of reoffense.
- Covered offenders had to provide identifying and locating information (including home, work, or school address), be photographed and fingerprinted, and periodically verify registration information.
- The Attorney General adopted Guidelines using a risk-assessment method to place registrants into tiers that determined the scope of disclosure: Tier 1 to law enforcement, Tier 2 to certain organizations, and Tier 3 to members of the public likely to encounter the offender.
- A registrant, using the name “John Doe,” filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of both laws and the Guidelines, including their application to persons convicted before enactment.
- The trial court upheld the statutory scheme but required a judicial hearing before Tier 2 or Tier 3 community notification; direct review was taken in the state supreme court.

## Issues

1. Whether registration and tiered community notification constitute “punishment,” making retroactive application unconstitutional under ex post facto, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, or bill of attainder provisions.
2. Whether the scheme violates equal protection by treating sex offenders as a separate class subject to special requirements.
3. Whether the collection, aggregation, and dissemination of registrants’ personal information (including home addresses) violates constitutional privacy protections.
4. Whether due process requires judicial review before Tier 2 and Tier 3 classification and community notification occur, and whether the Attorney General’s Guidelines are valid.

## Decision

- The court upheld the Registration Law and Community Notification Law as constitutional and regulatory rather than punitive.
- Because the scheme was deemed nonpunitive, retroactive application did not violate ex post facto, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, or bill of attainder prohibitions.
- The court rejected the equal-protection challenge under rational-basis review.
- The court held that although privacy interests are implicated (notably by disclosure of home addresses and government compilation of a personal “package” of information), the state’s compelling public-safety interest justified the disclosure structure.
- The court upheld the Attorney General’s Guidelines subject to modifications requiring an opportunity for judicial review before Tier 2 or Tier 3 notification is carried out.

## Legal Principles

- A statute aimed at public safety may be applied retroactively if it is reasonably designed to protect the public and is not designed to punish; harsh practical consequences alone do not convert regulation into punishment.
- Informational privacy analysis asks (1) whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information and, if so, (2) whether the government’s interest in disclosure outweighs the individual’s confidentiality interest.
- Even when many data points are publicly available, compiling and disseminating them as a consolidated profile may implicate a privacy interest, including heightened concerns regarding home-address disclosure.
- Classifications directed at sex offenders in a nonpunitive regulatory scheme are reviewed for rationality and are permissible when reasonably related to the objective of reducing risk of reoffense and protecting potential victims.
- Due process requires a meaningful opportunity for pre-notification judicial review of Tier 2 and Tier 3 risk classifications and the scope of proposed notification.

## Conclusion

New Jersey’s highest court sustained Megan’s Law as a nonpunitive public-safety regime that may apply to previously convicted offenders, while requiring pre-notification judicial review for higher-tier classifications to satisfy due process given the significant consequences of broader disclosure.


Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367 (N.J. 1995)