John Doe v. Kamala Harris

Good Law
535 F. App'x 630
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 201309-17362California494 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

The Attorney General appeals from the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction directing that John Doe be removed from the public sex offender registry established by California’s “Megan’s Law.”

I

A

At the time of Doe’s plea agreement, information about sex offenders was only accessible to “regularly employed peace or other law enforcement officer[s].” Cal.Penal Code § 290(i) (West 1991). In granting the injunction, the district court concluded that a reference to section 290 in Doe’s plea agreement constituted an implied promise that Doe would not be subject to future modifications to the sex offender registry, such as Megan’s Law, which called for his identity to be made public. It reached this conclusion notwithstanding findings that (i) “[cjonfidentiality was not an express term of the agreement” and (ii) the issue “was neither negotiated nor discussed between Doe or his counsel and the prosecutor.”

B

State contract law governs how a state plea agreement should be interpreted. See Davis v. Woodford, 446 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir.2006). Unsure about the proper interpretation of Doe’s plea agreement under California law, we certified the matter to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.