Must Listen: Guy Hamilton-Smith Argues the Missouri Registry is Punishment
Yesterday, attorney Guy Hamilton-Smith argued on behalf of registrants in Missouri, before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
A recording of the arguments can be found here: https://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2026/4/251892.MP3
Please listen to the arguments and share your thoughts below.
The case is Jane Does vs. David Flannigan (25-1892)
You can read the Appellant’s Brief here: Does v. Flannigan – Appellants Brief
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The appellant’s attorney argues that the Missouri law is similar to Alaska law, citing Doe v. Smith, and therefore does not violate the Constitution.
What may not be widely known is that Doe v. Smith was argued after the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Alaska’s registration law was punitive and that it did violate the state constitution’s ex post facto clause.
I searched Google for “Smith v. Doe from the State of Alaska Supreme Court decision,” and the Alaska state case is nowhere to be found. It seems to have evaporated from the internet.
From page 46 of the 2008 ruling, which I saved:
https://2008-07-25-alaska-state-court-ex-post-facto-unconstituional.tiiny.site/
“Because ASORA’s registration, disclosure, and dissemination provisions violate the protection against ex post facto laws afforded by the Alaska Constitution as it applies to defendants who committed their crimes before the legislature enacted ASORA, we hold that AS 12.63.100(3) cannot be applied to Doe. We consequently REVERSE the final judgment for the state, and REMAND for entry of judgment for Doe.”
The Alaska Sex Offender Registry still notes this ruling in its “Who Must Register” section:
https://sor.dps.alaska.gov/sorpublic/
The Alaska SOR states:
“The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that requirements to register under the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act apply to persons who committed their crimes after August 10, 1994. Persons convicted of child kidnapping and sex offenses that were committed in Alaska after August 10, 1994, are subject to registration in Alaska. Because sex offender laws in other states are different from Alaska’s, some sex offenders who are not required to register in Alaska may be required to register or may have restrictions on where they can live, work, or go to school in another state.”
This is such an easy thing to fix. If it was on the books when your offence occurred, then that is what you are under.
Yes, I too would have preferred to hear additional arguments. But I understand that a lawyer has a finite amount of time to present an argument. This requires that the lawyer focus on the specific points of law that are on appeal. Also, an appellate oral argument is not meant to stand alone, but to amplify or to clarify salient points already presented in written briefs. I see a link to the appellants’ brief which is instructive as to the substance of the oral argument. It will no doubt be worth reading while considering the strength of the oral presentation.
I believe the Plaintiffs arguments are too weak.
He did not add that the normal conviction database cannot be accessed online unless an individual is willing to pay a fee to a broker or goes to the police/sheriff department and pays a fee there.
He also did not bring up the fact that Justice Kennedy made a huge mistake in Smith vs. Doe stating that people with sex offenses have a high recidivism rate and are therefore viewed by the public as dangerous and that former AT Merrick Garland has labeled all sex offenders as ‘irrefutably dangerous’ and this has lead to not only homelessness, joblessness,vigilantism etc. but also collaterally damages the family because many times they are also shunned and even terminated from employment, etc.
He also did not address the fact it is also much easier to target and kill people forced to register due to ease of access to the registry database because a fee is not required to access it.
Unfortunately, a law does not have to be proven effective to enact it nor can proving its ineffectiveness be the grounds to remove it.
Court records are public, most Counties have the information online and free. Only federal court (PACER) requires payments. There’s no broker, no fee, no travel required.
Agree the argument could have been much stronger. A criminal conviction is static, information, address, picture, etc. isn’t updated multiple times a year.
This is interesting to read: Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder
April 15, 2026 — by Eleanor Stratton.
Is there any cases anywhere concerning the Ellingburg case and Ex Facto for PFRs? How would a case even start? How is a class action case started?
I feel we should NOT get too excited yet about the prospect of using the Ellingburg case—SCOTUS has clearly stated the Ellingburg case differs from Smith v. Doe because restitution was explicitly stated in the law as punitive in intent. There is a reason why every time a new bill targeting Registered Persons contains a disclaimer that the registry is not INTENDED to be punitive. If a law is declared criminal/punitive (as restitution was in Ellingbrg), then constitutional safeguards instantly apply, but if the courts claim the law is civil/regulatory (as SCOTUS concluded in Smith v. Doe), then WE have to prove that law is punitive.
So, just so I understand, A PFR that committed a sex offense crime in 1992 paid restitution and has paid his debt to society. Is considered no longer a crime? Its a civil scheme? How is this allowed? Thats not what I got out of the US Constitution. I guess I have to read it again! The only hope I see is for a New Expost facto case. Oh by the way. I am far from Excited! Something else I do not understand, why does Michigain and California seem more advanced in cases than Florida?
California, Colorado, and other states like them that follow a teir system lets say are better for PFR. But that is based on the tier for me its better can live somewhat free. Also im from California born and raised. I have loved in over dozen states or provinces all have their own laws good also bad. But those states try for reintregration into society more and flordia is about monetizing anything really look at the surveillance they implement that is not part of the registry but will not help us. Is monetizing i see red states use feat to gain that monetizing more too. There is money to he made in reform too
Hey DL. I usually agree with you on most things. And in this case I agree to some extent about Ellingburg. Yes, while restitution is stated as punitive in intent, I would say that Justice Thomas, and joined by Justice Gorsuch Concurrent agreement with the decision does, imho, open the door for the registry to be looked at in under this new litmus test: not just Martinez/Mendosa. Just my thoughts
Agree 100%
So I guess my question is Why are they not using this Decision. LOL IDK. Justice Thomas was very clear about how a law should be viewed to determine Ex Post Facto and the Registry is clearly that for a bunch of us.
It is easy for us to play armchair QB. If only we can say this, not that, etc. If only Jow Burrow could’ve gotten one more yard they’d have beaten the Rams and won a Super Bowl.
I haven’t testified before a court tribunal but I’ve had media interviews that included panel discussions. I’ve heard lots of criticism after I had media interviews in the past. It is not so easy to be the one being interviewed. Sure, we know our stuff but there’s only so much we can stuff into a brief interview. I had my own experiences of having in my mind what I felt was everything that needed to be said only to have the interview take a turn away from what I wanted, so I try to roll with it.
We can write entire volumes on our experiences as Persons FORCED to Register, but interviews don’t give us the luxury of sharing every experience and argument we can make against it.
If anything you do can result in jail or prison time, its punishment. Common sense. But not in the eyes of the law or our politicians.