Opinion ID: 1870902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ex Post Facto, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Missouri and the United States Constitution are Co-Extensive.

Text: The Does assert that enforcement of Megan's Law should be enjoined under Missouri's Constitution even if that law does not violate comparable provisions of the United States equal protection, due process or ex post facto clauses. While provisions of our state constitution may be construed to provide more expansive protections than comparable federal constitutional provisions, State v. Rushing, 935 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Mo. banc 1996), analysis of a section of the federal constitution is strongly persuasive in construing the like section of our state constitution. Id. (declining to expand art. I, sec. 15, beyond that provided by the Fourth Amendment). [6] This Court rejects the Does' invitation to interpret the Missouri due process, equal protection or ex post facto clauses more broadly than comparable federal constitutional provisions here. The Does have identified no reason grounded either in the language of Missouri's 1945 Constitution or the history of its enactment to believe that its framers intended these clauses to be interpreted more broadly than the nearly identical provisions in the United States Constitution. This Court will interpret these phrases consistently with their interpretation under federal law. But, as discussed in section III.F., because no provision of the federal constitution is comparable to Missouri's ban on laws retrospective in their operation, Mo. Const. art I, sec. 13, federal decisions provide no guide to this Court's interpretation of that clause.