The current procedures under the public notification provisions of the law are extremely broad and contain absolutely no safeguards to prevent erroneous deprivations of a registrant’s liberty interests. Without any preliminary determination of whether and to what extent an offender represents a danger to society, the level of danger to the public posed by any particular sex offender, if any, remains unknown. Surely, not all offenders present a significant danger to the public. Yet, the law currently deprives all offenders — including those who present no danger to the community and are not likely to recidivate — of these interests automatically, for life. Therefore, persons convicted of crimes listed under the law who do not pose a significant danger to the community are at substantial risk of being erroneously deprived of their liberty interests.
A weighing of these factors leads us to conclude that, at a minimum, the plaintiff should be entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to public notification of his status as a sex offender. In other words, the State must allow a registered sex offender a meaningful opportunity to argue that he or she does not represent a threat to the community and that public notification is not necessary, . Because the law provided the plaintiff with neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard in a court room prior to notifying the public of his status as a convicted sex offender Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. Th state can not assume guilt and force the defendant to prove his innocence If the reason for the law is to protect against the offenders that pose a high risk to re offend at the present time then the state has a responsibility to the citizenry to prove on an indivisible basis that A person is dangers. Since the data shows that 85-97% will not re offend it is the states responsibility to prove beyond reasonable dough that a person falls within that 3-15% before the reregistration and the notification
Conclusions based on the state of Hawai Supreme Court decision in State versus Bani