## Facts

- Washington enacted the Community Protection Act of 1990, including a sex-offender registration requirement codified at RCW 9A.44.130–.140.
- The statute required Washington residents convicted of a qualifying “sex offense” to register with the sheriff in their county of residence.
- Jeffrey S. Ward challenged the registration requirement in a criminal proceeding.
- A separate civil challenge was brought by a parolee proceeding under a pseudonym (“John Doe”).
- The matters were consolidated because both challenged the statute’s constitutionality.
- The superior courts rejected the constitutional challenges and upheld the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether applying the registration statute to persons whose qualifying convictions predated the statute violates ex post facto prohibitions by imposing punishment.
2. Whether mandatory registration and limited dissemination of registration information violate due process by infringing protected liberty or privacy interests without adequate procedures.
3. Whether singling out sex offenders for registration violates equal protection.
4. Whether registration constitutes multiple punishment or otherwise violates double jeopardy or cruel punishment protections.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the constitutionality of RCW 9A.44.130–.140.
- The court held the registration requirement is civil and regulatory, not punitive, and therefore does not violate ex post facto clauses when applied to pre-enactment offenders.
- The court held the statute does not violate due process because any affected interests are limited, and the registration duty is tied to an already-adjudicated conviction with sufficient procedural safeguards.
- The court held the statute survives equal protection review because the classification is rationally related to legitimate public-safety and law-enforcement objectives.
- The court rejected related claims premised on registration being “punishment,” including double jeopardy and cruel punishment theories.

## Legal Principles

- Ex post facto prohibitions apply only to laws that impose punishment; a registration law characterized as civil and regulatory is not invalid merely because it applies to prior convictions.
- Legislative statements of regulatory purpose receive substantial weight; a challenger must show the law is so punitive in purpose or effect that it overrides the civil label.
- In evaluating punitive effect, relevant considerations include whether the law imposes an affirmative restraint, resembles historical punishment, primarily serves retribution or deterrence, bears a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose, and is excessive relative to that purpose.
- Due process is not violated where the registration obligation is triggered by a prior conviction already obtained with full criminal process, and the statute’s disclosures are limited rather than indiscriminate.
- Where no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated, a sex-offender registration classification is reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny and may be upheld based on public-safety and investigative needs.
- If registration is not punishment, double jeopardy and cruel punishment claims premised on multiple or excessive punishment fail.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Washington’s sex-offender registration statute as a nonpunitive, public-safety measure, holding that its retroactive application and related disclosure mechanisms did not violate ex post facto, due process, or equal protection guarantees.


State v. Ward, 123 Wn.2d 488, 869 P.2d 1062 (Wash. 1994)