Opinion ID: 78194
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Invalid Ex Post Facto Law

Text: Similarly, Houston argues that the Policy, as applied to persons required to register as sex offenders, amounts to punishment beyond the criminal sanctions that led to the registration, and thus, the Policy is an ex post facto law in violation of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. The district court correctly found that Houston's denial of weatherization assistance was not penal in nature. The underlying sex offender registration statute is not punitive, but rather regulatory, and therefore does not violate the ex post facto clause. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 105-06, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1154, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (holding that Alaska's Sex Offender Registration Act did not violate the ex post facto clause) ; Giddens v. State, 863 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004). Thus, Houston's argument is without merit.