FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 6, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10279

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 8 0 9 3 4 - C V- DT KH J O H N D O E , I , J O H N D O E , I I , J O H N D O E , I I I , J O H N D O E , I V , e t a l., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s J A M E S T . M O O R E , i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as C o m m is s io n e ro f

th e F lo r id aD e p a r tm e n t o f L a w E n f

o r c e m e n t, S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , b y s e rv in g J a m e s C r o s b y in h is o f f ic ia l capaci ty a s S ec re t ary of the F l ori da D e p a r tm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s , F R E D O . D I C K I N S O N , I I I ., i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s E xecut i ve D i re ct or of the F l ori da D epartm entof H ig h w a y S a f

e tya n d M o to rV e h ic le s , E D W A R D B I E L U C H , S h e r if f , i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s S heri ff o f P a lm B e a c h C o u n ty a n d a s c la s s d e f e n d a n t f o ra ll o th e rs im ila rlo c a l la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f ic e r s in th e S ta te o f

F lo r id a , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Honora ble Richard D . Cudahy, Circuit Judg e for the United States Court of Appe als for * the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( J une 6, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , K R A V IT C H an d C U D A H Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n thi s put a t i ve c l a s s a c t i on, i ni t i a t e d by t e n J ohn D oe s a nd one J a ne D oe ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ A ppe l l a nt s ” ) on be ha l f of the m s e l ve s a nd othe r s s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d, w e det erm i ne w hether F l ori da’ s s ex offe nd erre gi stra t i on /no t i fi ca t i on sc hem e ( “ S ex O f f e nde rA c t ” ) a nd D N A c ol l e c t i on s t a tut e ( “ D N A S t a tut e ” ) , c odi f i e d i n r e l e va nt p a r ts a t F LA . S TAT . § § 9 4 3 . 0 4 3 , . 0 4 3 5 , . 3 2 5 , 9 4 4 . 6 0 6 , v i o l at e th e A p p el l an t s’ co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h tt o d u e p ro cess, eq u al p ro t ect i o n , trav el , sep arat i o n o f p o w ers, an d fr ee d o m fr o m ex p o st fa cto leg islati o n . T h e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted th e s tate’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s be c a us e the S e x O f f e nde rA c ta nd the D N A S t a tut e di d not offe nd any provi si on of the C on st i tut i on . W e AF F I RM . I . B AC KG RO UN D3

I n r e s p o n s e to th e 1 9 9 4 ab d u c tio n , r ap e , a n d m u r d e ro f a s e v e n - y e a r - o ld g ir l, M e g a n K a n k a , b y h e rn e ig h b o r , ac o n v ic te d s e x o f f e n d e r , C o n g r e s s a lo n g w ith a ll 50 st at es enac t ed l aw s r equi ri ng se x o ff enders t o regi st erthei r r es i dence w i th l ocal l a w e nf or c e m e nt . S e e S m i th v. D oe , 538 U . S . 84, 89- 90, 123 S . C t . 1140, 1145 (200 3). C on ce rned by M egan’ s m urder a nd the hi gh nu m ber of r epea tse x of f e nde r s , s t a t e s e na c t e d the s e l a w s f orthe purpos e of

not i f y i ng the publ i c about l ocal se x o ff

enders and t o ai d l aw enforc em enti n i dent i fy i ng and l ocat i ng po t ent i al suspec t s i n l ocal se x-re l at ed cr i m es . S ee C on nect i cutD ep’ tof P ub . S af ety v. D oe, 5 3 8 U .S . 1 , 4 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T he S ex O ff

ender A ctre qu i re s a ny se x o ff ender t o regi st erw i th the l ocal s he r i f f’ s of f i c e w i thi n 48 hour s of

the i rr e l e a s e f

r om c us t ody orr e l oc a t i on t o a p e rm a n e n t o rte m p o r a ry r e s id e n c e in F lo r id a . F LA . S TAT . § 9 43 . 04 35 (2). T he S ex O f f e nde rA c tde f

i ne s a s e x of

f e nde ra s a pe r s on w ho “ ha s be e n [ c ] onvi c t e d of c om m i tt i ng, ora tt e m pt i ng, s ol i c i t i ng, orc ons pi r i ng t o c om m i t , a ny of the [f ol l ow i ng ] cr i m i nal offe nses . . . i n thi s s t at e or s i m i l aroffe nses i n ano ther j ur i s di c t i on: ” ki dnappi ng of a c hi l d; f

a l s e i m pr i s onm e ntof

a c hi l d unde rthe a ge of 13; l ur i ng ore nt i c i ng ac hi l d unde r12 i nt o a s truc tur e , dw e l l i ng orc onve y a nc e f or a n unl a w f

ul purpos e ; s e xua l ba tt e ry ; pr oc ur i ng c hi l d pr os t i tut i on; l e w d a nd l a s c i v i o u s o f

f e n s e s c o m m i tt e d u p o n o ri n th e p r e s e n c e o f a p e r s o n u n d e r1 6 ; l e wdWh ena p er s o ni s co nv i ct edo f ki dn ap p i n g, fa l s e i mp ri s o nm ent , o r l uri n g o r e nti ci n g a 1 child into a dwellingor conveyance , theremust be a sexual component shown in addition to the predic ate of

fensebefore designatingthat person a s a sex offender. See Raine s v. State, 805 So. 2d 99 9, 10 03 (F la . D ist . Ct . App . 2 00 1) . M ore ov er, wh en th ec rimeis kidn a pp ing , f alse imprisonment, or luring or enticinga child into a dwe lling or c onveyance , the per son is not a sex offender if they

arethe parent of the child. § 943.0435(1)(a)(1) . 4 and l as ci vi ou s batt ery, m ol es t at i on , or cond uct ; l ew d and l as ci vi ou s off ense s c om m i tt e d i n the pr e s e nc e of a n e l de r l y pe r s on, ba tt e ry , a nd m ol e s t a t i on; prom ot i ng a s exual perf orm ance by a c hi l d; show i ng ob sc ene m at er i al t o a m i no r; pos s e s s i ng c hi l d c om put e rpornogr aphy ; tr a ns m i tt i ng c hi l d pornogr aphy ; buy i ng or s e l l i ng am i norw i th know l e dge the m i norw i l l be por tr a y e d a s e nga gi ng or ap p e a r in g to e n g a g e in s e x a c ts . § 9 4 3 .0 4 3 5 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) . F u r th e r , a n y o n e m o v in g to 1 F l ori da w ho has bee n con vi ct ed of si m i l arcr i m es or has bee n d es i gn at ed as a s ex o f f e n d e rin a n o th e rs ta te w ill a ls o b e c o n s id e r e d a s e x o f f e n d e rin F lo r id a . § 9 4 3 .0 4 3 5 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 2 ) - ( 3 ) . U pon r e gi s t e r i ng w i th the l oc a l s he r i f f’ s of f i c e , a s e x of

f e nde rm us tpr ovi de th e f o llo w in g : n a m e , d a te o f

b ir th , s o c ia l s e c u r ity n u m b e r , r a c e , s e x , h e ig h t, w e ig h t, h a ir a nd e y e c ol or , t a tt oos orothe ri de nt i f y i ng m a rks , oc c upa t i on a nd pl a c e of e m pl oy m e nt , a ddr e s s of pe rm a ne ntorl e ga l r e s i de nc e ora ddr e s s of a ny c urr e ntt e m por a ry r e s i de nc e , . . . da t e a nd pl a c e of e a c h c onvi c t i on, a nd a bri ef desc ri pt i on of the cr i m e or c ri m es com m i tt ed by the offender. § 943. 0435( 2) . W i thi n 48 hour s of hi s orhe rc ont a c tw i th the s he r i f f’ s of f i c e , the s e x of f e nde rm us t“ r e por ti n pe r s on a ta dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e of f i c e of the D e pa r tm e ntof5

H i gh w ayS af

ety a nd M ot or V ehi cl es ” w here he or she m usti dent i fythem se l ves a s as e x of f e nde r , obt a i n adr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e ori de nt i f i c a t i on c a r d, a nd s ubm i tt o a ph ot og raph and fi ng erpri nt i ng . § 9 43 . 04 35 (3). T he D epartm entof H i gh w ay S a f e ty a nd M ot orV e hi c l e s ( “ D H S M V ” ) w i l l the n s e nd the phot ogr aph a nd a ny f u r th e rin f

o rm a tio n to th e D e p a r tm e n t o f L a w E n f

o r c e m e n t ( “D L E ” ) f

o rp u b lic no t i fi ca t i on by pu bl i ca t i on t o, am on g o ther thi ng s, the i nt ernet . § 9 43 . 04 35 (4). I f as e x o f f e n d e rc h a n g e s r e s i d e n c e , h e o rs h e m u s tr e p o r tt o th e D H S MV w ith in 4 8 h o u r s to o b ta in a n u p d a te d d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e o rid e n tif ic a tio n c a r d . I d . W hen a se x o ff

ender m ov es ou tof F l ori da, he or she i s r equi re d t o n ot i fythe l ocal sher i ff’ s off

i ce 48 ho urs bef

ore l ea vi ng and g i ve the address of hi s or heri nt ended r e s id e n c e o u t o f

s ta te . § 9 4 3 .0 4 3 5 ( 7 ) . A se x o ff

ender m ustcom pl y w i th the re gi stra t i on st atut es for l i fe . T he se x of f e nde r , how e ve r , m a y be r e l i e ve d of hi s orhe rr e gi s tr a t i on obl i ga t i on i f he ors he i s pa r done d orpe t i t i ons ac our t20 y e a r s a f t e rr e l e a s e f

r om c us t ody ors upe rvi s i on and, am on g o ther thi ng s, the courtfi nd s them t o n otbe “ a c urre ntor po t ent i al th r e a t to p u b lic s a f

e ty .” § 9 4 3 .0 4 3 5 ( 1 1 ) . T he D N A S t a tut e r e qui r e s a ny pe r s on w ho i s c onvi c t e d of c e r t a i n c r i m e s a nd i s i nc a r c e r a t e d oron s upe rvi s ory r e l e a s e t o s ubm i ttw o bl ood ort i s s ue s a m pl e s f or D N A t es t i ng . § 9 43 . 32 5(1)(a ). R es ul t s of the t es t i ng i dent i fy i ng the pers on ar eThose convic ted of a ny felony offense will be re quired to submit to DNA testing 2 beg inning in Jul y

2005. § 943.325(1)(b)(4) . 6 k e p t o n f ile w ith th e D L E a n d u s e d b y la w e n f o r c e m e n t f

o rid e n tif ic a tio n in subsequentcr i m es . T he cr i m es thatcurr ent l y r equi re D N A col l ec t i on ar e s exual b att ery, l ew d n ess an di n d ecen tex p o su re, m u rd er, ag g rav at ed b att ery, b u rg l ary, c a r j a c ki ng, hom e i nva s i on r obbe ry , r obbe ry , r obbe ry by s udde n s na t c hi ng, a ggr a va t e d c hi l d abus e , a ggr a va t e d abus e of a n e l de r l y ordi s abl e d pe r s on, a nd a ny fe l on y i nv ol vi ng the use of afi re arm . § 9 43 . 32 5(1)(b). 2 H e r e , A p p e lla n ts a lle g e in th e irc o m p la in t th a t th e y a r e a ll F lo r id ar e s id e n ts r e qui r e d by F l or i dal a w t o r e gi s t e ra s s e x of f e nde r s a nd a l l ha ve the i rphot ogr aphs and i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on po st ed on F l ori da’ s s ex offender w ebsi t e. F ur the r , the c om pl a i nta l l e ge s tha tf

i ve of the A ppe l l a nt s ha ve “ be e n f ound by the i rr e s pe c t i ve tr ia l c o u r ts n o t to b e lik e ly to r e o f f e n d .” E i ghtw e r e r e qui r e d t o s ubm i tbl ood or t i ssu e sam p l es fo r D N A an al ysi s. A pp el l ant s f i l ed thei r c as e i n the di stri ctcourt s e e k in g r e lie f

f r o m th e r e g is tr a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts . T h e y c la im e d th a t th e s ta te vi ol a t e d s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s by i nf r i ngi ng the i rl i be r ty i nt e r e s ti n good r e put a t i on, the i rr i ghtt o tr a ve l , pr i va c y , e m pl oy m e nt , a nd f r e e dom of

r e l i gi ous a s s oc i a t i on. F ur the r , the y c l a i m e d the a c t s a r e unc ons t i tut i ona l on e qua l pr ot e c t i on grou nd s bec ause they have grea t erpo st -r el ea se re po rt i ng bu rdens than o ther co n v i ct ed fel o n s. T he A ppe l l a nt s a l s o a r gue d tha tthe a c t s vi ol a t e d the s e pa r a t i on7

of pow e r s doc tr i ne be c a us e the y nul l i f y j udi c i a l s e nt e nc i ng. F i nal l y, they a rgued thatthe ac t s w er e a n u ncon st i tut i on al i m pai rm entof contra ctbecause they a l t er ed p le ab a r g a in s m a d e b y s e x o f f e n d e r s w h o w e r e s e n te n c e d p r io rto th e ire n a c tm e n t. O n 1 5 D ecem b er 2 0 0 3 , th e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed al l o f A p p el l an t s’ cl ai m s. T he courthel d thatno fund am ent al ri gh t s prot ec t ed by the U ni t ed S t at es C o n s titu tio n h a d b e e n a f f e c te d b y th e S e x O f

f e n d e rA c t, th e r e f

o r e th e c o u r t w o u ld o n l y ap p l y a rat i o n al b asi s t estt o th e su b st an t i v e d u e p ro cess cl ai m s. T he court c o n c lu d e d th a t th e S e x O f f e n d e rA c t w a s r a tio n a lly r e la te d to a le g itim a te gove rnm e nte nd. S i m i l ar l y, the courtappl i ed the ra t i on al basi s t es tt o the equal prot ec t i on cl ai m s of i m perm i ss i bl e tre atm entof tho se i n the se x o ff ender c la s s if ic a tio n . T h e c o u r t a g a in c o n c lu d e d th a t th e S e x O f f e n d e rA c t’s s e p a r a te c l a s s i f i c a t i on di d notvi ol a t e the C ons t i tut i on. F urther, the courtdi sm i ss ed A ppe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m s f

ors e pa r a t i on of

pow e r s a nd i m pa i rm e ntof c ontr a c t , f

i ndi ng no v i o l at i o n o f th e co n st i tu t i o n al p ro v i si o n s. F i nal l y, the courtfoun d n o con st i tut i on al e rr ori n F l or i da ’ s D N A S t a tut e a nd uphe l d i t s va l i di ty w i th l i tt l e di s c us s i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he A pp el l ant s app ea l ar gu i ng thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tdi sm i ss ed th e irc o m p la in t. W e r e v ie w th is m o tio n to d is m is s o r d e rd e n o v o a n d v ie w a ll f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true a nd i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the8

A ppe l l a nt s . S e e S pa i n v. B r ow n & W i l l i a m s on T oba c c o C orp. , 363 F . 3d 1183, 1187 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . I n or de rt o s uc c e e d on a42 U . S . C . § 1983 c l a i m , the A ppe l l a nt s m us ts how , a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tthe r e w a s a vi ol a t i on of a r i ght s e c ur e d by the C ons t i tut i on orf e de r a l l a w . S e e S ki nne rv. C i ty of M i a m i , 62 F . 3d 344, 347- 48 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . H e r e , the y a r gue tha tthe c om pl a i nts t a t e s a s uf f i c i e nt § 1983 c l a i m tha tthe S e x O f f e nde rA c tvi ol a t e s the i rc ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s t o due p r o c e s s , e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , tr a v e l a n d s e p a r a t i o n o f p o we r s , a n d th a tth e DN A S t a tut e vi ol a t e s the i rc ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s t o s e pa r a t i on of pow e r s , due pr oc e s s a nd to b e f r e e o f e x p o s t f a c to le g is la tio n . W e d o n o t a g r e e . A . S ex O ff

en d er A ct 1 . D u e Pr o c e s s Cl a i ms T he U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on gua r a nt e e s tha t“ [ n] o S t a t e s ha l l . . . de pr i ve a n y p e r s o n o f

l i f e , l i b e r ty , o rp r o p e r ty , w i th o u td u e p r o c e s s o f l a w . ” U . S. C ON ST . am end. X IV , § 1 . T hi s provi si on has bee n i nt erpret ed t o h ave both a procedural a nd s ubs t a nt i ve c om pone ntw he n r e vi e w i ng s t a t e a c t i on. T he m or e c om m on procedural com po nentgu ar ant ee s thata s t at e w i l l no tdepri ve a pers on of l i fe , l i berty, or prop erty w i tho utsom e f orm of no t i ce and o pp ortun i ty t o b e hea rd. S ee H a m di v. R um s f

e l d, ___ U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2633, 2648- 49 ( 2004) . H e r e , the A ppe l l a nt s do notdi r e c t l y c l a i m a pr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on a nd w e w i l l notAppellants argue that the Sex Offender Ac t violates substantive due proc ess by cre ating 3 an ir rebutta blepre sumption

of da ng erous ne ss. Though th ey strain to p lac ethe ir

argument in terms of substantive dueproce ss we find their a rgument closely

resembles the proce dural due proc e ss a rgument p ropo se d in

Conne c ticut D epa

rtment o f P ub licSa fety, 5 38 U. S. 1 , 6 , 1 23 S. Ct. 11 60 , 1 16 3. Th ere , th ese x off endersargue d th at th ey

havea proc e dural dueproc e ss right to demonstrate they

arenot “cur

rently dang erous”beca

use the sex offender re g istration requirement implied that they were dang erous. Id. Although theSecond Circuit Court of Appe als agre e d w iththat argument a nd he ld t herewa s a

du eproc e ss viol atio n, theSup reme Court revers e d, ho ldingthat nolib ert y intere st w a s im

pli c ate d b e c a

us etheConne c ticut s tatute turned “ on an off

ender ’s conviction alone ” and da ng erousne ss “is of no conse quenceunder”the law. Id. at 6-7. Similarly , the Sex Offender Act here does not turn on the da ng erousne ss of the offender, merely

the fact that he or

she wa s convicted.

9 c ons i de rone s i nc e tha tpa th ha s be e n f or e c l os e d by the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n C on nect i cutD epartm entof P ub l i c S af ety, w here the C ou rtup hel d a si m i l ar C onne c t i c uts e x of

f e nde rr e gi s tr a t i on s t a tut e a ga i ns tc l a i m s of pr oc e dur a l due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i ons . 538 U . S . a t7- 8, 123 S . C t . a t1164- 65. 3 I ns t e a d, the A ppe l l a nt s a r gue tha tthe S e x O f f e nde rA c tvi ol a t e s s ubs t a nt i ve d u e p ro cess. T h i s su b st an t i v e co m p o n en tp ro t ect s fu n d am en t al ri g h t s th atare so “im p lic it in th e c o n c e p t o f o r d e r e d lib e r ty ” th a t “n e ith e rlib e r ty n o rju s tic e w o u ld e xi s ti f the y w e r e s a c r i f

i c e d. ” S e e P a l ko v. C onne c t i c ut , 302 U . S . 319, 325, 326, 58 S . C t . 149, 152 ( 1937) ; M c K i nne y v. P a t e , 20 F . 3d 1550, 1556 ( 11th C i r . 1994) (e n b anc) . F un dam ent al ri gh t s prot ec t ed by subst ant i ve du e proces s a re prot ec t ed fr om ce rt ai n st at e a ct i on s r egar dl es s of the procedures the st at e use s. S ee W as hi ng t on v. G l ucksberg, 52 1 U . S . 70 2, 72 1, 11 7 S . C t . 22 58 , 22 68 (199 7); M cK i nn ey , 20 F . 3d at15 56 . W hen a st at e e nact s l egi sl at i on thati nfri ng es10

f unda m e nt a l r i ght s , c our t s w i l l r e vi e w the l a w unde ra s tr i c ts c rut i ny t e s ta nd up ho l d i ton l y w hen i ti s “ narr ow l y t ai l ored t o serve a c om pel l i ng st at e i nt er es t . ” Re n o v . Fl o r e s , 5 0 7 U . S. 2 9 2 , 3 0 2 , 1 1 3 S. Ct . 1 4 3 9 , 1 4 4 7 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Th e Su p r e me C o u r t h a s r e c o g n iz e d th a t f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h ts in c lu d e th o s e g u a r a n te e d b y th e B ill of R i ght s a s w e l l a s c e r t a i n “ l i be r ty ” a nd pr i va c y i nt e r e s t s i m pl i c i ti n the due pr oc e s s c l a us e a nd the pe num br aof c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . S e e G l uc ks be r g, 521 U .S . a t 7 2 0 , 1 1 7 S . C t. a t 2 2 6 7 ; P a u l v . D a v is , 4 2 4 U .S . 6 9 3 , 7 1 2 - 1 3 , 9 6 S .C t. 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 6 (1 9 7 6 ). T h ese sp eci al “ l i b erty” i n t erest s i n cl u d e “ th e ri g h t s t o m arry, to h a v e c h ild r e n , to d ir e c t th e e d u c a tio n a n d u p b r in g in g o f o n e ’s c h ild r e n , to m ar i t al pri vacy , t o u se contra ce pt i on , t o b od i l y i nt egri ty, and t o abo rt i on . ” G lu c k s b e r g , 5 2 1 U .S . a t 7 2 0 , 1 1 7 S . C t. a t 2 2 6 7 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e C o u r t, ho w ever , i s very r el uct antt o exp and sub st ant i ve du e proces s by r ec og ni zi ng new f unda m e nt a l r i ght s , e xpl a i ni ng: w e “ have al w ay s bee n rel uct antt o exp and the conceptof subst ant i ve du e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e g u id e p o s ts f o rr e s p o n s ib le d e c is io n m a k in g in th is un chart er ed ar eaar e s ca rc e a nd op en-e nd ed. ” B y e xt endi ng const i tut i on al prot ec t i on t o an ass ert ed ri gh tor l i berty i nt er es t , w e, t o a greatext ent , pl ac e th e m att er o u t si d e th e aren a o f p u b l i c d eb at e an d l eg i sl at i v e act i o n . W e m u st there fore ‘ exer ci se the ut m ostca re w henever w e a re as ked t o b re ak new gr ound i n thi s f

i e l d, ’ l e s tthe l i be r ty pr ot e c t e d by the D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e be s u b tly tr a n s f

o rm e d in to th e p o lic y p r e f e r e n c e s o f

th e m e m b e r s o f

th is C o u r t. G l ucksberg, 52 1 U . S . at72 0, 11 7 S . C t . at22 67 -68 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed).11

W e m us ta na l y z e a s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c l a i m by f i r s tc r a f t i ng a“ c a r e f

ul de s c r i pt i on of

the a s s e r t e d r i ght . ” F l or e s , 507 U . S . a t302, 113 S . C t . a t1447; acco rd G l u ck sb erg , 5 2 1 U . S . at7 2 0 -2 1 , 1 1 7 S . C t . at2 2 6 8 . S eco n d , w e m u st de t e rm i ne w he the rthe a s s e r t e d r i ghti s “ one of ‘ thos e f unda m e nt a l r i ght s a nd l i be r t i e s w hi c h a r e , obj e c t i ve l y , de e pl y r oot e d i n thi s N a t i on’ s hi s t ory a nd tr a di t i on, and i m pl i ci ti n the conceptof ordered l i berty, such thatnei ther l i berty nor j ust i ce w oul d e xi s ti f

the y w e r e s a c r i f

i c e d. ’ ” W i l l i a m s v. A tt orne y G e n. of A l aba m a , 378 F. 3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g G l u c k s b e r g , 5 2 1 U . S. a t7 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 1 7 S. C t . at22 68 ), ce rt . deni ed, W i l l i am s v. K i ng , ___ U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 13 35 (200 5).

a . C a r e f ul D e s c r i pt i on T he A pp el l ant s app ea r t o m ake broad cl ai m s thatthe S ex O ff ender A ct i nf r i nge s the i rl i be r ty a nd pr i va c y i nt e r e s t s , pa r t i c ul a r l y A ppe l l a nt s a s s e r ttha tthe S e x O f f e n d e rA c t in f

r in g e s th e ir“r ig h ts to f a m ily a s s o c ia tio n , to b e f r e e o f th r e a ts t o thei r per sons and m em bers of thei r i m m edi at e f am i l i es , t o b e f

re e of i nt er fe re nce w i th the i rr e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e s , t o f i nd a nd/ orke e p a ny hous i ng, a nd t o a f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t to f

in d a n d /o rk e e p a n y e m p lo y m e n t.” A p p e lla n ts ’ B r . a t 6 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). D es pi t e A pp el l ant s’ broad frami ng of thei r r i gh t s i n thi s c as e, ho w ever , w e m ustendeavor t o cre at e am ore c ar ef ul desc ri pt i on of the as se rt ed r ig h t in o r d e rto a n a ly z e its im p o r ta n c e .12

A lth o u g h th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s r e c o g n iz e d f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h ts in r e g a r d to som e s peci al l i berty and pri vacyi nt er es t s, i thas notcr ea t ed a broad cat egory w here a ny a l l e ge d i nf

r i nge m e nton pr i va c y a nd l i be r ty w i l l be s ubj e c tt o s ubs t a nt i ve due proces s prot ec t i on . S ee P aul , 42 4 U . S . at71 3, 96 S . C t . at11 66 (not i ng that p e r s o n a l p r iv a c y r ig h ts p r o te c te d b y s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s “m u s t b e lim ite d to th o s e w h ic h a r e ‘f

u n d a m e n ta l’ o r‘im p lic it in th e c o n c e p t o f o r d e r e d lib e r ty ’” ) . F urther, i n o rdert o tri gg ersubst ant i ve du e proces s prot ec t i on the S ex O ff ender A ct m us te i the rdi r e c t l y orundul y bur de n the f unda m e nt a l r i ght s c l a i m e d by A ppe l l a nt s . S e e M a he rv. R oe , 432 U . S . 464, 473- 74, 97 S . C t . 2376, 2382 ( 1977) ( h o ld in g th a t th e s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s c la u s e “p r o te c ts th e w o m a n f r o m u n d u ly bu rdensom e i nt er fe re nce w i th h erfr ee do m t o d ec i de w hether t o t erm i nat e her pr e gna nc y ” ) ; s e e a l s o P a ul P . v. V e rni e r o, 170 F . 3d 396, 405 ( 3r d C i r . 1999) (hol di ng thatthe i nd i re ctef fe ct s c ause d b y ase x o ff ender re gi stra t i on st atut e a re “to o s u b s ta n tia lly d if

f e r e n t f r o m th e g o v e rn m e n t a c tio n s ” in p r io rc a s e la w “to f a ll w i thi n the pe num br aof c ons t i tut i ona l pr i va c y pr ot e c t i on. ” ) . T hus , a c a r e f ul d e s c r i p t i o n o f

th e f u n d a me n t a l i n t e r e s ta ti s s u e h e r e a l l o w s u s t o n a rr o w l y f r a me the spec i fi c f

ac t s bef ore us s o thatw e do n otstra y i nt o b roader “ const i tut i on al vi st as than are c al l ed for by the fa ct s of the ca se athand . ” W i l l i am s, 37 8 F . 3d atWe do n ot sug g e st that c a se s invo lvingoth er p rivac y intere stsor

burdens on

tho se 4 intere stsareir

re leva nt to o ur de c isi on in t hisc a se . Rather, wec on c ludethat f ir st w emus t quantify the claimed right in nar

row ter ms beforeanaly

zing its historical importance in the second prongwhere discussion of prior c ase la w is more appropriate. 13 1240. T o do s o w e us e the S e x O f f e nde rA c ti t s e l f

t o de f i ne the s c ope of

the 4 cl ai m ed fund am ent al ri gh t . Id. at12 41 . A ft erre vi ew i ng the prov i si on s of the S ex O f f e nde rA c ta nd the br i e f

s , the r i ghta ti s s ue he r e i s the r i ghtof a pe r s on, conv i ct ed of “ se xu al offe nses , ” t o ref use s ub se qu entre gi stra t i on of hi s or her p e r s o n a l in f

o rm a tio n w ith F lo r id a la w e n f o r c e m e n t a n d p r e v e n t p u b lic a tio n o f th is in f o rm a tio n o n F lo r id a ’s S e x u a l O f f e n d e r/P r e d a to rw e b s ite . b. H i s t ory a nd T r a di t i on W ith th is d e s c r ip tio n , w e n o w a s k w h e th e rth is r ig h t is “‘d e e p ly r o o te d in th i s N at i o n ’ s h i st o ry an d trad i t i o n , an d i m p l i ci ti n th e co n cep to f o rd ered l i b erty, such thatnei ther l i berty nor j ust i ce w ou l d exi sti f they w er e s ac ri fi ce d. ’ ” I d. at 1 2 3 9 . W e c o n c lu d e th a t it is n o t. T h e ci rcu i tco u rt s th ath av e co n si d ered th i s su b st an t i v e d u e p ro cess a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng s e x of f e nde rr e gi s tr i e s ha ve uphe l d s uc h r e gi s tr a t i on a nd publ i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s f i ndi ng no c ons t i tut i ona l i nf i rm i t i e s . S e e , e . g. , D oe v. T a nde s ke , 361 F . 3d 594, 597 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ P e r s ons w ho ha ve been conv i ct ed of se ri ou s s ex offens es do no thave a fundam ent al ri gh tt o b e f re e f r om . . . r e gi s tr a t i on a nd not i f i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s . . . . ” ) ; G unde r s on v. H va s s , 339The Eighth Circuit has further held constitutional an I owa statute ba nning sexoffenders 5 from living within 2000 feet of a school or child ca

re f acility, which wa s argued on similar substantive due proc ess and right to travel grounds. See g enerally Doe v. Miller, ___ F .3d ___ (April 29, 2005). 14 F . 3d 639, 643 ( 8th C i r . 2003) ( s e x of f e nde rr e gi s tr a t i on s t a tut e di d noti nf r i nge the f unda m e nt a l r i ghtt o apr e s um pt i on of i nnoc e nc e ) ; P a ul P . , 170 F . 3d a t404, 405 ( h o ld in g th a t s e x o f

f e n d e rr e g is tr a tio n d idn o t in f r in g e f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t o f

f a m ily r e l a t i ons hi ps , a nd a l though the r e gi s tr a t i on of of f e nde r s hom e a ddr e s s i nva de d the fund am ent al ri gh tt o p ri vacy , the st at e had a com pel l i ng i nt er es tt o p re ventfuture s e x of f e ns e s ) . I n P a ul P . , the c our the l d tha tthe i ndi r e c te f f e c t s of m e m be r s of

the 5 publ i c on the of

f e nde r ’ s r e l a t i ons hi p w i th hi s f a m i l y di d notr i s e t o the i nfri ng em entof a f

un dam ent al ri gh tby the st at e. 17 0 F . 3d at40 5. A s the court c o n c e d e d , e v e n if

th e e f f e c t o f r e g is tr a tio n p la c e s a c o n s titu tio n a lly r e c o g n iz ab le cl ai m on the offender’ s f am i l y r el at i on shi ps, i tdi d n otfa l l un der afund am ent al ri g h tcl assi fi cat i o n b ecau se th e sex o ffen d er st atu t e d i d “ n o trestri ctp l ai n t i ffs’ f r e e dom of

a c t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the i rf a m i l i e s a nd the r e f

or e doe s noti ntrude upon th e a s p e c t o f

th e r ig h t to p r iv a c y th a t p r o te c ts a n in d iv id u a l’s in d e p e n d e n c e in m a ki ng c e r t a i n ty pe s of i m por t a ntde c i s i ons . ” I d. F urtherm ore, i n P aul v. D avi s the S up re m e C ou rtdet erm i ned thatthere w as no f unda m e nt a l r i ghtt o pr e ve ntthe publ i c di s c l os ur e of a pe r s on’ s a rr e s tf

or s h o p lif tin g . 4 2 4 U .S . a t 7 1 3 , 9 6 S . C t. a t 1 1 6 6 . I n P a u l, lo c a l p o lic e d e p a r tm e n tsTh eCourt no te d p revious de c isi on s re c ognize d limit atio ns on statere gulator

y po wer in 6 are as re g arding“mar

riag e, procreation, contrac eption, family relationships, and child rearing a nd education.” I d. 15 di s tr i but e d f

l i e r s t o a r e as t or e s a l e r t i ng the m t o pos s i bl e s hopl i f t e r s dur i ng the hol i da y s hoppi ng s e a s on. I d. a t694- 95, 96 S . C t . a t1157. T he f l i e r s c ont a i ne d the m ug s hota nd na m e of

the pl a i nt i f

f i n the c a s e w ho ha d be e n a rr e s t e d f ora nd char ged w i th sho pl i ft i ng . Id. at69 5, 96 S . C t . at11 58 . A tthe t i m e of the fl ye r d is tr ib u tio n , h o w e v e r , h e h a d n o t b e e n c o n v ic te d o f th e c r im e , a n d s h o r tly th e r e a f t e rth e c h a r g e w a s d i s mi s s e d . I d . a t6 9 6 , 9 6 S. Ct . a t1 1 5 8 . Th e Su p r e me C our tr e f us e d t o e xt e nd s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s pr ot e c t i on t o the publ i c a t i on of o f f ic ia l a c ts lik e a rr e s t r e c o r d s , n o tin g th a t th e r ig h t c la im e d w a s “f a ra f ie ld ” o f its previ ou s dec i si on s thatl i m i t ed a s t at e’ s pow ert o regul at e pri vat e c on du ct . Id. at 713, 96 S . C t . a t1166. 6 T hough the S upr e m e C our tha s nota ddr e s s e d w he the rs ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s i nva l i da t e s s e x of f e nde rr e gi s tr a t i on s t a tut e s , s e e C onne c t i c utD e p’ tof P ubl i c S a f

e ty , 538 U . S . a t8, 123 S . C t . a t1165, w e c a n f i nd no hi s t ory ortr a di t i on th a two u l d e l e v a t e th e i s s u e h e r e t o a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t . I n f

a c t , th e c a s e l a w w e h a v e f o u n d s u p p o r t s th e c o n tr a ry c o n c l u s i o n . We c a n c e r t a i n l y u n d e r s t a n d h o w a p e r s o n m a y b e s h u n n e d b y a p e r s o n o rg r o u p th a t d is c o v e r s h is p a s t o f f e n s e . H o w e v e r , as ta te ’s p u b lic a tio n o f tru th f u l in f o rm a tio n th a t is a lr e a d y a v a ilab le to16

the publ i c doe s noti nf

r i nge the f

unda m e nt a l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s of l i be r ty a nd p r iv a c y . T h e r e f

o r e , w e d o n o t r e v ie w th e s ta tu te w ith s tr ic t s c ru tin y , b u t o n ly u n d e rar a tio n a l b a s is s ta n d a r d .

c . R a tio n a l B a s is W hen a st atut e does noti m pl i ca t e f un dam ent al ri gh t s, w e m ustas k w hether i ti s “ r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o l e g i t i ma t e g o v e rn me n ti n t e r e s t s . ” G l u c k s b e r g , 5 2 1 U . S. a t728, 117 S . C t . a t2271. T he r a t i ona l ba s i s s t a nda r d i s “ hi ghl y de f e r e nt i a l ” a nd w e hol d l e gi s l a t i ve a c t s unc ons t i tut i ona l unde ra r a t i ona l ba s i s s t a nda r d i n onl y the m ostexce pt i on al ci rc um st ance s. W i l l i am s v. P ry or, 24 0 F . 3d 94 4, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) .H er e, the st at e a rt i cul at es i t s r ea soni ng for the S ex O ff ender A ctas

“ prot ec t [i ng ] the pu bl i c f rom se xu al abuse. ” A pp el l ee ’ s B r. at32 . T he st at e a rgues thatthe pu bl i c c an use the re gi stra t i on “ t o d et erm i ne w hether a ny se x o ff enders l i ve i n the i rne i ghborhood, m a ke a n i ndi vi dua l a s s e s s m e ntof the r i s k, a nd t a ke a ny pr e c a ut i ons appr opr i a t e unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” I d. a t33. W e a gr e e w i th the st at e thatthe S ex O ff

ender A ctm ee t s the ra t i on al basi s s t andard. Ithas l on g b ee n i n th e i n t e r e s to f

g o v e rn m e n tt o p r o t e c ti t s c i t i z e n s f r o m c r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty a n d we f in d n o e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th is c a s e to in v a lid a te th e la w . W e jo in w ith other c ou rt s, se e, e. g. , G un ders on , 33 9 F . 3d at64 3-44 , i n h ol di ng thatthe S ex17

O ffen d er A cti s rat i o n al l y rel at ed t o a l eg i t i m at e g o v ern m en ti n t erest . T h u s, A p p e lla n ts ’ s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s a r g u m e n t f a ils . 2 . E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la im G r oup c l a s s i f

i c a t i on by l e gi s l a t i ve a c tw i l l be a na l y z e d unde ra s tr i c ts c rut i ny i f the cl as si fi ca t i on i nfri ng es fund am ent al ri gh t s or c on ce rns asuspec tcl as s. S ee C i ty of C l e burne v. C l e burne L i vi ng C tr . , 473 U . S . 432, 440, 105 S . C t . 3249, 3254 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . B e c a u s e w e h a v e f o u n d n o f

u n d a m e n ta l r ig h ts a r e a t s ta k e o ru n d u ly bu rdened i n the prece di ng se ct i on , w e m ustno w det erm i ne w hether the S ex O f f e nde rA c ti nvol ve s a s us pe c tc l a s s . I f not , w e r e vi e w the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the c la s s if ic a tio n u n d e ra r a tio n a l b a s is te s t. I d . a t 4 4 2 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 3 2 5 5 . W e r e c ogni z e tha tthe S upr e m e C our tha s de s i gna t e d s e ve r a l c l a s s i f i c a t i ons a s s u s p e c t a n d s u b

je c t to h e ig h te n e d s c ru tin y u n d e rth e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la u s e . T he y i nc l ude c l a s s i f

i c a t i ons r e ga r di ng “ r a c e , a l i e na ge , na t i ona l or i gi n, ge nde r , or i l l egi t i m ac y. ” H aves v. C i ty of M i am i , 52 F . 3d 91 8, 92 1 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). H er e, A pp el l ant s a rgue thatthe S ex O ff ender A cti m perm i ss i bl y tre at s s ex offenders di f f e r e nt l y f r om othe rf

e l ony of f e nde r s a nd tha ti ta rbi tr a r i l y a s s i gns di f f e r e nt re gi stra t i on re qu i re m ent s t o sub -c l as se s of s ex offenders base d o n p ar ent al r e l a t i ons hi p t o vi c t i m , s t a tus of of f e nde ra s a m i nor , i ns a ni ty orc i vi l c om m i tm e nt of the of f e nde r , a nd r e l e a s e of

of f e nde rf r om s upe rvi s i on pr i ort o e na c tm e ntof the18

st atut e. S i nce s ex offenders ar e notconsi dere d a suspec tcl as s i n g ener al , se e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e M a y , 260 F . 3d 1018, 1030 ( 9th C i r . 2001) , a nd the va r i ous s ubc l a s s i f i c a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d b y th e Ap p e l l a n t s d o n o ti m p l i c a t e a s u s p e c tc l a s s , we re vi ew tho se cl as si fi ca t i on s und era r at i on al basi s t es tas ki ng w hether they a re

“ r a t i ona l l y r e l a t e d t o al e gi t i m a t e gove rnm e nt a l purpos e . ” C i ty of C l e burne , 473 U .S . a t 4 4 6 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 3 2 5 8 . A st atut e i s c on si dere d con st i tut i on al un der the ra t i on al basi s t es tw hen

“ there i s a ny re as on abl y c on ce i vabl e s t at e of f ac t s thatcoul d p rovi de a r at i on al ba s i s f or ” i t . F C C v. B e a c h C om m uni c a t i ons , 508 U . S . 307, 313, 113 S . C t . 2096, 2 1 0 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t in B e a c h C o m m u n ic a tio n s n o te d th a t: W here there ar e pl ausi bl e r ea sons for C on gres s’ ac t i on , ou r i nq ui ryi s a tan e nd. T hi s s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w i s a pa r a di gm of j udi c i a l r e s tr a i nt . T he C on st i tut i on pres um es that , abse ntsom e r ea son t o i nferant i pathy, even i m p ro v i d en td eci si o n s w i l l ev en tu al l y b e rect i fi ed b y th e d em o crat i c p ro cess a nd tha tj udi c i a l i nt e rve nt i on i s ge ne r a l l y unw a rr a nt e d no m a tt e rhow unw i s e l y w e m a y thi nk a pol i t i c a l br a nc h ha s a c t e d. O n rat i o n al -b asi s rev i ew , a cl assi fi cat i o n i n a st atu t e . . . co m es t o u s b e a r in g a s tr o n g p r e s u m p tio n o f v a lid ity , a n d th o s e a tta c k in g th e r a tio n a lity of the l egi sl at i ve cl as si fi ca t i on have the bu rden t o n egat i ve every concei vabl e bas i s w hi ch m i gh tsupp orti t . M oreover, because w e never r e q u ir e a le g is la tu r e to a r tic u la te its r e a s o n s f o re n a c tin g a s ta tu te , it is e nt i r e l y i rr e l e va ntf

orc ons t i tut i ona l purpos e s w he the rthe c onc e i ve d r e a s on f orthe c ha l l e nge d di s t i nc t i on a c tua l l y m ot i va t e d the l e gi s l a tur e . T hus , the abs e nc e of

l e gi s l a t i ve f

a c t s e xpl a i ni ng the di s t i nc t i on on the r e c or d, ha s no s ig n if ic a n c e in r a tio n a l- b a s is a n a ly s is . I n o th e rw o r d s , ale g is la tiv e c h o ic e is no tsubj ec tt o cou rtroom fa ct fi nd i ng and m aybe base d o n rat i on al spec ul at i on un supp ort ed by evi dence or emp i ri ca l dat a.19

Id . at3 1 3 -1 5 , 1 1 3 S . C t . at2 1 0 1 -0 2 (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ctu at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ A l m o st e v e ry s ta tu te s u b

je c t to th e v e ry d e f

e r e n tia l r a tio n a l b a s is . . . s ta n d a r d is f o u n d to b e c o n s titu tio n a l.” W illia m s , 2 4 0 F .3 d a t 9 4 8 . B a s e d o n th is s ta n d a r d , w e f in d n o c o n s titu tio n a l in f irm ity h e r e . F ir s t, A pp el l ant s a rgue thatthe S ex O ff ender A cti m perm i ss i bl y tre at s s ex offenders di f f e r e ntf r om othe rf

e l ons i n the l e ngth of

t i m e the y a r e r e qui r e d t o r e gi s t e ra nd the penal t i es as soci at ed w i th fai l ure t o regi st er . A pp el l ant s’ B r. at33 -34. T he S ex O f f e nde rA c tr e qui r e s a l i f

e t i m e r e gi s tr a t i on r e qui r e m e ntf ors e x of f e nde r s , w ho m ay p et i t i o n a co u rtt o av o i d reg i strat i o n o n l y aft er 2 0 years. Id . C o n v ersel y, o th e rf e lo n s a r e s u b

je c te d to o n ly a f

iv e - y e a rr e g is tr a tio n p e r io d w ith a u to m a tic r e m ova l of

tha tr e qui r e m e nta f

t e rthe f i ve y e a r s . I d. ; A ppe l l e e ’ s B r . a t45. T he s t a t e a r gue s tha tthe purpos e of the di s t i nc t i on “ i s ba s e d on a n a s s e s s m e ntof the l i kel i ho od of se x o ff

enders re -off

endi ng ov ert i m e a ta hi gh ra t e. ” A pp el l ee ’ s B r. at45 . T he i ncre as ed re po rt i ng re qu i re m ent s bas ed on evi dence of i ncre as ed r e c id iv is m a m o n g a c la s s o f f e lo n s is r a tio n a lly r e la te d to th e s ta te ’s in te r e s t in p r o t e c t i n g i t s c i t i z e n s f

r o m c r i mi n a l a c t i v i ty . Se e Smi th , 5 3 8 U . S. a t1 0 2 , 1 2 3 S. C t. a t 1 1 5 2 ( n o tin g th a t th e b r o a d c a te g o r ie s o f a s e x o f f e n d e rr e g is tr a tio n s ta tu te

“ and the corre spon di ng l ength o f the re po rt i ng re qu i re m ent , ar e r ea sonabl y r el at ed t o the dang erof re ci di vi sm ”) .It is also important to not e here that F lorida ca se law at least limit s application of the 7 Se x Of fender A c t when a

pers on c onvic te d o f t

he sec rime s w a s n ot alsoc onvic te d o f s ome sexual component. Raines, 805 So. 2d at 1003.20 S e c o n d , A p p e lla n ts a r g u e th a t th e S e x O f f e n d e rA c t im p e rm is s ib ly d i st i n g u i sh es cri m es co m m i tt ed b y th e p aren t s o f v i ct i m s– su ch as k i d n ap i n g , fal se i m pr i s onm e nt , orl ur i ng ore nt i c i ng a c hi l d i nt o adw e l l i ng orc onve y a nc e –f r om the s a m e c r i m e s c om m i tt e d by non- pa r e nt s of the vi c t i m . T he s t a t e a r gue s tha tthe d is tin c tio n is b a s e d o n th e f a c t th a t th e s e c r im e s c o m m itte d b y p a r e n ts a r e ty p ic a lly ar e s u lt o f

d o m e s tic d is p u te s a n d e x e m p tio n o f th e p a r e n ts r e c o g n iz e s th a t f a c t. W e ca n fin d n o re as o n w h y s u ch a d es ig n atio n is n o t ratio n ally re lated to th e s tate’s i nt er es ti n p rot ec t i ng the pu bl i c f rom se xu al abuses , es peci al l y w hen such o ff ense s do no tthem se l ves have a s exual com po nentand p ar ent s m ayst i l l have t o regi st er as sex o ffen d ers i f th ey are co n v i ct ed o f fu rth er cri m es, su ch as sex u al b att ery. 7 T hi r d, A ppe l l a nt s a r gue tha tthos e f ound notgui l ty of

s e x of f e ns e s by r e a s on of i ns a ni ty orthos e c i vi l l y c om m i tt e d tha ta r e pr one t o s e xua l de vi a nc e a r e not r e q u ir e d to r e g is te ra s s e x o f f e n d e r s . T h e s ta te r e a s o n s th a t th e in s a n ity c la s s if ic a tio n is r a tio n a lly r e la te d to th e le g itim a te p u rp o s e o f c r im in a l d e te rr e n c e . B e c a us e ac r i m i na l l y i ns a ne orc i vi l l y c om m i tt e d of f e nde rw oul d notappr e c i a t e the d e te rr e n t f

a c to r , th e r e is n o n e e d to r e q u ir e th e m to r e g is te r . F u r th e r , th e s ta te a r gue s tha tthos e a c qui tt e d by i ns a ni ty orc i vi l l y c om m i tt e d a r e by de f i ni t i on not21

conv i ct ed of a s ex offens e und erthe st atut e. C on si deri ng these st at ed obj ec t i ves an d th e reaso n i n g o f o th er co u rt s th atn o t e a st at e can d i st i n g u i sh b etw een th o se c i vi l l y c om m i tt e d a nd c onvi c t e d s e x of f e nde r s , s e e T hi e l m a n v. L e e a n, 282 F . 3d 4 7 8 , 4 8 5 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , th e in s a n ity c la s s if ic a tio n m e e ts th e r a tio n a l b a s is te s t. F ou rth, A pp el l ant s a rgue the S ex O ff ender A cti m perm i ss i bl y di st i ng ui shes be tw e e n ape r s on 18 y e a r s ol d a nd y ounge rf r om thos e 19 a nd ol de rby r e qui r i ng on l y at en-y ea r r egi stra t i on peri od for the youn ger off enders . S ee § 94 3. 04 35 (11)(b). T he st at e a rgues thi s di st i nct i on i s bas ed on a f i nd i ng thatm i no rs a r e “le s s ab le to c o n tr o l th e irb e h a v io rth a n a d u lts , b u t th a t th e y c a n b e e x p e c te d to gai n m ore s el f- control and t o actre spon si bl y a s they m ature. ” A pp el l ee ’ s B r. at 4 6 . S u ch a d i st i n ct i o n i s su p p o rt ed b y th e co u n t l ess cri m i n al l aw s th atd i st i n g u i sh th e act s o f m i n o rs fro m th e act s o f ad u l t s. T h e st at e’ s o b j ect i v e t o fo cu s o n a cl ass o f o f f e n d e r s th a t a r e p a r tic u la r ly d a n g e r o u s o rlik e lym o r e d a n g e r o u s is r a tio n a l, a n d e x te n s iv e “c o u r tr o o m f a c tf in d in g ” th a t q u e s tio n s le g is la tiv e d e te rm in a tio n s is notpe rm i s s i bl e he r e . B e a c h C om m uni c a t i ons , 508 U . S . a t315, 113 S . C t . a t2102. F i fth, A pp el l ant s a rgue thatthe st at e i m prop er l y e xem pt ed se x o ff enders f r om r e gi s tr a t i on w ho ha d be e n r e l e a s e d f r om s upe rvi s i on pr i ort o the e na c tm e ntof the s t a tut e . T he s t a t e a r gue s tha tthi s c l a s s i f i c a t i on hi nge d on the e xpe ns e a nd fu t i l i ty o f att em p t i n g t o l o cat e an d reg i st er p astsex o ffen d ers. B ecau se th i s cl ass22

o f p a s t o f f e n d e r s h a v e b e e n r e le a s e d f r o m s u p e rv is io n , it w o u ld b e d if f ic u lt to l ocat e them and further drai n res ou rc es dedi ca t ed t o p rot ec t i ng the pu bl i c f rom se x o f f e n d e r s in g e n e r a l. S ta te b u d g e t c o n c e rn s a n d r e s o u r c e a llo c a tio n a r e le g itim a te gove rnm e nti nt e r e s t s , s e e R odr i gue z v. C ook, 169 F . 3d 1176, 1181 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( “ B udge t a ry c onc e rns a r e a l e gi t i m a t e gove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s t. . . . ” ) , a nd r e duc i ng extra neou s c ost s thatca n p rovi de on l y m od er at e s ucce ss i n regi st er i ng pastse x o f f e n d e r s is r a tio n a lly r e la te d to th a t in te r e s t. W h ile A p p e lla n ts m a y a r g u e th a t th is d i st i n ct i o n i s u n fai r, th ati s n o tfo r u s t o d et erm i n e o n ce w e h o l d th atth ere i s a r a tio n a l b a s is f

o rth a t d is tin c tio n . T hu s, F l ori da’ s var i ou s c l as si fi ca t i on s a nd sub-cl as si fi ca t i on s f or se x o ffen d er reg i strat i o n are rati o n al l y rel at ed t o a l eg i t i m at e g o v ern m en t al p u rp o se a nd, the r e f

or e , c ons t i tut i ona l unde rthe E qua l P r ot e c t i on C l a us e . W e w i l l not s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nton w he n a nd w he r e t o m a ke s uc h di s t i nc t i ons f ortha tof the F l ori da l egi sl ature. S ee B ea ch C om m un i ca t i on s, 50 8 U . S . at31 6, 11 3 S . C t . at 2 1 0 2 (“ S u ch sco p e-o f-co v erag e p ro v i si o n s are u n av o i d ab l e co m p o n en t s o f m o st ec on om i c or s oci al l egi sl at i on . ”) .

3. R i gh tt o T ra vel N e x t, A p p e lla n ts a r g u e th a t th e S e x O f f e n d e rA c t in f

r in g e s th e ir fund am ent al ri gh tt o tra vel un der the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . H ow ever , m er eTempora ry residenc e includes “ a plac e where theperson routinely abides, lodg es or 8 re side s f or a peri od of 4 o r m orec on se cutiveor no nc on se cutiveda

ys in any month a nd whic h is not the person’ s permanent residenc e, includingany out-of-stateaddre ss.” F LA . S TAT . § 775.21(2)( g ). 23 b u rd en s o n a p erso n ’ s ab i l i ty t o trav el fro m st at e t o st at e are n o tn ecessaril y a v io la tio n o f

th e irr ig h t to tr a v e l. S e e S a e n z v . R o e , 5 2 6 U .S . 4 8 9 , 4 9 9 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 5 1 8 , 1 5 2 4 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( n o tin g a s ta tu te c a n n o t “‘u n r e a s o n ab ly b u r d e n ’” th e r ig h t to tr a v e l) . I n th e p r e d o m in a n t c a s e la w , th e r ig h t to tr a v e l p r o te c ts a p e r s o n ’s r ig h t to e nt e ra nd l e a ve a nothe rs t a t e , the r i ghtt o be tr e a t e d f a i r l y w he n t e m por a r i l y pr e s e nt in a n o th e rs ta te , a n d th e r ig h t to b e tr e a te d th e s a m e a s o th e rc itiz e n s o f th a t s ta te w h e n m o v in g th e r e p e rm a n e n tly . I d . a t 5 0 0 , 1 1 9 S . C t. a t 1 5 2 5 . H e r e , h o w e v e r , th e A p p e lla n ts d o n o t a r g u e th a t th e y w e r e tr e a te d d if f e r e n tly be c a us e the y w e r e a ne w ort e m por a ry r e s i de ntt o F l or i daortha tthe y w e r e not a l l ow e d t o e nt e ra nd l e a ve a nothe rs t a t e . R a the r , the y a r gue tha ti ti s i nc onve ni e nt t o tra vel fr om thei r perm anentre si dence because the S ex O ff ender A ctre qu i re s the m t o not i f

y F l or i dal a w e nf

or c e m e nti n pe r s on w he n the y c ha nge pe rm a ne ntor t e m p o r a ry r e s i d e n c e s . T h o u g h we r e c o g n i z e th i s r e q u i r e m e n ti s b u r d e n s o m e , we 8 do nothol d i ti s unr e a s onabl e by c ons t i tut i ona l s t a nda r ds , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof the r e a s oni ng be hi nd s uc h r e gi s tr a t i on. T he s t a t e ha s a s tr ong i nt e r e s ti n pr e ve nt i ng f utur e s e xua l of

f e ns e s a nd a l e r t i ng l oc a l l a w e nf or c e m e nta nd c i t i z e ns t o the w here abou t s of tho se thatcoul d reoff end. W i tho utsuch a r equi re m ent , se x24

of f e nde r s c oul d l e ga l l y s ubve r tthe purpos e of the s t a tut e by t e m por a r i l y tr a ve l i ng t o othe rj ur i s di c t i ons f

orl ong pe r i ods of

t i m e a nd c om m i tt i ng s e x of f e ns e s w i thout ha vi ng t o not i f

y l a w e nf

or c e m e nt . T he s t a t e ha s dr a w n a l i ne f ort e m por a ry a nd perm anentre l ocat i on , and w e hol d thi s r equi re m entdo es no tun re as on abl y burden th e A p p e lla n ts ’ r ig h t to tr a v e l.

4. S epar at i on of P ow er s A ppe l l a nt s a l s o c l a i m tha tthe S e x O f f e nde rA c tvi ol a t e s F l or i da ’ s s e pa r a t i on of po w er s doctri ne. T hey c l ai m thatthe S ex O ff ender A ctef

fe ct i vel y nul l i fi es p r io rju d ic ia l f

in d in g s th a t c e r ta in A p p e lla n ts a r e n o t ap t to r e - o f f e n d o re n g a g e in cr i m i nal cond uct . F urtherm ore, they c l ai m the S ex O ff ender A ctun derm i nes j ud i ci al se nt enci ng du t i es . A pp el l ant s’ cl ai m , ho w ever , runs af ou l of another im p o r ta n t c o n s titu tio n a l d o c tr in e – th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. T he E l eventh A m endm entprevent s s ui t s i n federa l courtagai nstan u n c o n s e n tin g s ta te b y its c itiz e n s o rc itiz e n s o f o th e rs ta te s . S e e P e n n h u r s t S ta te S c h . & H o s p . v . H a ld e rm a n , 4 6 5 U .S . 8 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 9 0 0 , 9 0 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h is im m u n ity in c lu d e s “a f

e d e r a l s u it a g a in s t s ta te o f f ic ia ls o n th e b a s is o f

s ta te la w . . . w hen . . . the re l i ef

soug htand o rder ed has a n i m pactdi re ct l y on the S t at e i t se l f. ” Id. at11 7, 10 4 S . C t . at91 7. A pp el l ant s’ ar gu e thatthe st at e’ s i m m un i ty has been w ai ved b ec ause i tw as no tra i se d as adefe nse i n the di stri ctcourt . A st at e’ s w ai verEven if wecould asser t jurisdiction, Appellants’ substantive argument is not compelling. 9 Florida courts and other cour

ts across the c ountry

have uphe ld simi lar attacks to statutes that label sex offenders or re quire their reg istration. See Kelly v. State, 795 So. 2d 135, 137 (Fla. Di st. Ct. App. 20 01 ) (ho ldingthat ma ndator y se xual pre dator

de signatio n did not viol atestate separation of powers); seealso Her reid v. State, 69 P.3d 507, 509 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) (holdingsex offender

registration did not viol ate separation of powers be causerequirement was regulatory

in nature) . 25 of i t s s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty, ho w ever , m ustbe “ un equi vo ca l l y e xp re ss ed, ” s ee i d. at 99, 104 S . C t . a t907, a nd E l e ve nth A m e ndm e ntj ur i s di c t i ona l que s t i ons c a n be r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , s e e P a t s y v. B d. of R e ge nt s , 457 U . S . 496, 515 n . 1 9 , 1 0 2 S . C t . 2 5 5 7 , 2 5 6 8 (1 9 8 2 ). T h e E l ev en th A m en d m en tact s as a j uri sdi ct i on al bar f

or any s uch sui tagai nstthe st at e, even un der s up pl em ent al j u r i s d i c t i o n . S e e P e n n h u r s t , 4 6 5 U. S . a t1 2 1 , 1 0 4 S . C t . a t9 1 9 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c a nnotde c i de a n i s s ue of s t a t e l a w tha ti s de ni e d t o us by the C ons t i tut i on a nd not w ai ved b y the st at e. 9 T h u s , w e f

in d n o c o n s titu tio n a l d e f e c ts w ith F lo r id a ’s S e x O f f e n d e rA c t. A ppe l l a nt s ’ a r gum e nt s tha tthe S e x O f f e nde rA c tvi ol a t e s the doc tr i ne s of due p r o c e s s , e q u a l p r o te c tio n , tr a v e l, a n d s e p a r a tio n o f p o w e r s a r e n o t v iab le in th is in s ta n c e . B . D N A S tatu te A pp el l ant s nextm ake at er se ar gu m entthatF l ori da’ s D N A S t atut e vi ol at es the f e de r a l a nd s t a t e c ons t i tut i ona l doc tr i ne s of due pr oc e s s a nd s e pa r a t i on ofWhil eAppe lla ntsraisetheissuethat th eDNA Statutevio late s th ee x pos t f a c to c la us e 10 of the Constituti on, they

fail to support their claim with subst antive argument. On appe al, we re quirea pp e lla ntsto not o nly

statethe ir

c ontenti on s tous , b ut alsoto give“ there a so ns fo r t hem, with citations to the authorities and par ts of the re cord on which the appe llant relies.” F ED . R. APP . P. 28(a) (9)(A). Appe llants’ cursor y restatement of the issues fails to raise the issue sufficiently

for discussion here and is de emed a bandoned. SeeL ove v. De al, 5 F.3d 1406, 1407 n.1 (11th Cir. 1993). 26 po w er s. F or the re as on s thatfol l ow , w e di sa gree .

10 1 . D u e P ro cess F i rs t , A pp el l ant s a sk us t o enforce F LA . S TAT . § 1 20 . 54 (1)( b), w hi ch r e qui r e s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e gul a t i ons be i n pl a c e w i thi n 180 da y s of the e na c tm e ntof as ta tu te r e q u ir in g s u c h ru le s . W h ile th e is s u e o f w h e th e rs u c h ru le s a r e n o t in pl ac e i s i n ser i ou s dou bt , se e F LA . A D M IN . C OD E A NN . r . 11D - 6. 001, 6. 003, the i m pl em ent at i on of nu ance d st at e a dm i ni stra t i ve l aw s does notby i t se l f r ai se a l i be r ty i nt e r e s tf

orc ons t i tut i ona l due pr oc e s s r e vi e w . S e e T ony L . v. C hi l de r s , 71 F . 3d 1182, 1185 ( 6th C i r . 1995) . “ S t a t e - c r e a t e d pr oc e dur a l r i ght s tha tdo not g u a r a n te e a p a r tic u la rs u b s ta n tiv e o u tc o m e a r e n o t p r o te c te d b y th e F o u r te e n th A m e ndm e nt , e ve n w he r e s uc h pr oc e dur a l r i ght s a r e m a nda t ory . ” I d. S e c t i on 1 2 0 .5 4 ( 1 ) ( b ) m e r e ly g iv e s d ir e c tio n a n d p r o c e d u r a l d e a d lin e s to s ta te a g e n c ie s ; it d o e s n o t g r a n t s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts to th e A p p e lla n ts .

2. S epar at i on of P ow er s S e c ond, A ppe l l a nt s a s s e r tas e pa r a t i on of pow e r s c l a i m unde rthe F l or i da c ons t i tut i on be c a us e the D N A S t a tut e di ve s t e d the m of the i rr i ghtt o c ha l l e nge the27

col l ec t i on and u se of a D N A sa m pl e. A s w e s t at ed previ ou sl y i n regard t o the S ex O ff ender A ct , ho w ever , w e w i l l no ti nt erpretst at e l aw agai nstst at e off i ci al s w hen s u c h r e v ie w d ir e c tly im p a c ts th e s ta te . S e e P e n n h u r s t, 4 6 5 U .S . a t 1 1 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 9 1 7 . T h u s , A p p e lla n ts ’ f in a l a r g u m e n t f

a ils . I I I . CONCL US I ON A pp el l ant s’ chal l enge t o the F l ori da S ex O ff ender A ctand D N A S t atut e w as di sm i ss ed by the di stri ctcourtfor f ai l ure t o rai se i ss ues of f eder al const i tut i on al concern. T hi s app ea l al l eges thattho se F l ori da l aw s vi ol at e due process , equal pr ot e c t i on, r i ghtt o tr a ve l , a nd s e pa r a t i on of pow e r s doc tr i ne s . A s w e ha ve e x p la in e d , th e m o tio n to d is m is s w a s c o rr e c tly g r a n te d . A c c o r d in g ly , th e m o tio n to d i sm i ss g ran t ed b y th e d i stri ctco u rti s A FFI R M ED .