Just need some help understanding this.
Moreover, under Plaintiffs’ “whole law” theory, John Does 1 and 2 do not have
standing to pursue an ex post facto claim because the “whole law” is not retroactive to
them. See Defendant’s Memorandum ECF #16 at 12-13. Retroactivity is required for an
ex post facto challenge, see ECF #16 at 7, and Plaintiffs’ “whole law” theory is not
sustainable. Based on the face of the Complaint, only the 2016 amendments to N.C.G.S.
§14-208.18(a)(2) and (3), which post-date the Does’ conviction dates of 2009 and 2011,
would be retroactive.
Does this mean the state has good ground to ask for this to be dismissed? Seems like it would have been a great idea to have at least one of the plaintiffs to have been on the registry during all the amendment’s from 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2016.