Opinion ID: 1870902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Exercise Personal Choice and Freedom.

Text: Here, the Does allege Megan's Law impinges on what they call their fundamental right to exercise personal choice and freedom. They also argue that it violates their right to privacy and freedom from unwanted publicity. In support, they make the broad assertion that Megan's Law deprives them of a previously enjoyed right to be free of registration and identification once their sentence, parole, or probation is completed. Basically, their argument is that once they served their sentences and any period of probation or parole, they received an unconditional release and gained a vested interest in exercising personal choice and freedom of conduct that is inconsistent with the registration and publication burdens imposed on them by Megan's Law. Nothing in Missouri law or in substantive due process principles supports the Does' assertions. The cases cited involve physical imprisonment or other restriction of the person. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (person held without bail). Missouri's registration and notification requirements are not comparable. Compare In re Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170, 173 (Mo. banc 2003) (civil commitment of SVP impinges on fundamental right of liberty, as it involves physical restraint). More relevant are cases upholding the right of legislatures to impose continuing civil disabilities on felons even after they have completed their terms, such as restrictions on voting or certain employment, out of a concern for public safety. These are permissible restrictions of a person's personal choices and freedoms. [7] In rejecting a similar argument that Iowa's Megan's Law violated affected persons' rights to personal choice regarding family by restricting their right to live near family if the latter lived near a school, and their rights to travel to live in such areas, the Eighth Circuit noted the law did not directly restrict the right of a person to live with family members. Miller, 405 F.3d at 710-11. It directly restricted only their right to live near a school. To hold as fundamental any incidental effect of a law on family would extend substantive due process far beyond its intended reach. Miller refused to do so. [8] As in Miller , this Court finds that to accept the Does' arguments would extend substantive due process principles into the type of unchartered area where the United States Supreme Court has cautioned courts not to tread. Collins, 503 U.S. at 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061. The Does have not identified a fundamental right to be free from all governmental regulation and have failed to provide a rationale for extending such a right.