Litmon v. Harris

Sexually violent predators do not have a fundamental right to be free of registration and notification requirements.

David Litmon Jr., a classified sexually violent predator, filed an equal protection claim alleging that the California law requiring “every person who has ever been adjudicated a sexually violent predator” to appear before local law enforcement every 90 days for the rest of their lives is unconstitutional. He filed the claim on the basis that two other classes of offenders receive more favorable treatment. The claim was dismissed by the district court. On appeal, the panel held the district court properly dismissed Litmon’s claim. Previously the Ninth Circuit has held that person who have been convicted of serious sex offenses do not have the fundamental right to be free from the registration and notification requirements. Furthermore it has been previously held that the in-person registration requirement does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Absent a fundamental right the panel reviewed his claim with rational basis concluding the in-person registration requirement survives. AFFIRMED