Findings.
The legislature finds that sexual offenders present a danger and that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities, conduct investigations and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sexual offenses are impaired by the lack of current information available about individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses who live within their jurisdiction. The legislature further finds that providing public access to certain information about convicted sexual offenders assists parents in the protection of their children. Such access further provides a means for organizations that work with youth or other vulnerable populations to prevent sexual offenders from threatening those served by the organizations. Finally, public access assists the community in being observant of convicted sexual offenders in order to prevent them from recommitting sexual crimes. Therefore, this state’s policy is to assist efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect communities by requiring sexual offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies and to make certain information about sexual offenders available to the public as provided in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
State v. Zichko, 923 P.2d 966 (Idaho 1996).
State v. Zichko, 923 P.2d 966 (Idaho 1996).
· cites it 16× “The legislative findings in Idaho Code section 18-8302 indicate that the purpose of the Sex Offender Registration Act is to aid law enforcement in the protection of their communities by requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies.”
State v. Johnson, 266 P.3d 1146 (Idaho 2011).
· cites it 12× “[1] This Court has thus already concluded that SORA is regulatory in purpose. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals' analysis in Gragg aptly demonstrated that SORA, generally, is nonpunitive in effect.”
Smith v. State, 203 P.3d 1221 (Idaho 2009).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 18-8302 (emphasis added). These legislative findings evince the intention to protect the public through the dissemination of information.”
Ray v. State, 982 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1999).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 18-8302 (Supp.1998). As the Washington Supreme Court noted, although persons required to register as sex offenders may subsequently be the focus of suspicion and investigation, the sex offender will still be afforded all due process and constitutional protections all…”
Lingnaw v. Lumpkin, 474 P.3d 274 (Idaho 2020).
· cites it 4× “3d at 992 (quoting I.C. § 18-8302 (1993)). Even the title of the statute at issue declares, “Adult criminal sex offenders—Prohibited access to school children.”
State v. Kinney, 417 P.3d 989 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 10× “5 Idaho Code § 18-8302 was amended in 2011.”
State v. Robinson, 142 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2006).
· cites it 2× “Our legislature, aware of the risks sexual offenders pose to Idaho communities and the difficulties faced by law enforcement officers when protecting our communities and conducting investigations, I.C. § 18-8302, has specifically provided the mechanism by which a person may be…”
State v. Gragg, 137 P.3d 461 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Idaho Code Section 18-8302 provides: The legislature finds that sexual offenders present a significant risk of reoffense and that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities, conduct investigations and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sexual offenses…”
Evans v. Ohio State Univ., 680 N.E.2d 161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
“” Idaho Code 18-8302 (Supp.1995). 11 . Hopkins owed a duty to inform at least the club advisors.”
State v. Forbes, 275 P.3d 864 (Idaho 2012).
· cites it 2× “The Legislature’s purposes for requiring sex offender registration were declared in I.C. § 18-8302 as follows: The legislature finds that sexual offenders present a significant risk of reoffense and that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities, conduct…”
State v. Hardwick, 249 P.3d 379 (Idaho 2011).
· cites it 2× “The legislative findings supporting the Act were declared in Idaho Code § 18-8302 as follows: The legislature finds that sexual offenders present a significant risk of reoffense and that efforts of law enforcement agen *583 cies to protect their communities, conduct…”
Rbrt Groves v. State, 328 P.3d 532 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “(quoting I.C. § 18-8302). Moreover, after considering the most salient portions of the seven-factor test, we concluded that the effects of sex offender registration are not so punitive as to override the legislative intent to create a civil, regulatory scheme.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.