Opinion ID: 2628160
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Our choice of analytical approach

Text: We begin our analysis by identifying the appropriate analytical framework. In Smith v. Doe , the Supreme Court considered the identical issue under the Federal Constitution and applied the multifactor intent-effects test derived from the Court's prior decisions. [54] Under this test, a court first determines whether the legislature intended to impose punishment; if punishment was the intent, the court's inquiry ends. [55] But if the court concludes that the legislature intended a non-punitive regulatory scheme, the court next analyzes the effects of the statute under a number of factors to determine whether the statute is nonetheless punitive in effect. [56] Our court has never adopted this test, but the Alaska Court of Appeals applied it in considering and rejecting an ex post facto challenge to ASORA in Patterson v. State. [57] The intent-effects test provides an appropriate analytical framework here. Although a multifactor test is potentially susceptible to different conclusions, the availability of reported decisions applying that test helps inform its application in new cases. Our conclusion that it is appropriate to apply the federal test to our state law inquiry in this case is consistent with our independent consideration of each of the test's seven factors, because we are here both construing the protections of our constitution and reviewing an enactment of our legislature. Therefore, even though we choose to consider the same factors the federal courts use to distinguish between civil remedies and criminal penalties, [58] we give independent consideration to these factors in applying the Alaska Constitution.