Criminal procedure — Sex offender registry — Privileges and Immunities Clause
In August 2015, Dietrich filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the State of Maryland and the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (collectively “the State”) in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking the following relief:
A. That this [c]ourt determine and adjudicate the duties of the parties with respect to registration as a Tier III sex offender;
B. That this [c]ourt determine that [Dietrich] should never have been made to register as a sex offender;
C. That this [c]ourt declare the Sex Offender Registry laws enacted after [his] conviction and providing for retroactive application, unconstitutional as applied to [him.]
D. That this [c]ourt order [the State] to remove [Dietrich] from all sex offender registries . . . [.] The State filed an answer to the complaint, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
Following a hearing, the circuit court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and denied Dietrich’s motion.
Dietrich presents the following questions for our review:
1. Did the [circuit] court err in granting summary judgment to [the State]?
A. Does Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 430 Md. 535 (2013)[(Doe I)] apply to Mr. Dietrich?
B. Is Mr. Dietrich’s continued presence on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause?