Davis v. Nassau County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the fact that these collateral penalties are not merely a possibility, but have actually materialized ..., does not make them any less collateral and, thus, does not change the ‘in custody’ analysis”
• explaining that habeas petitioner has to be “in custody” “at the time his petition is filed”
• explaining that “the sex offender registration requirement that resulted from [petitioner’s] underlying conviction” does not constitute a restraint that satisfies the “in custody” requirement for habeas review
• explaining that reading “in custody” broadly would mean that “any time an individual suffered some collateral penalty due to his status as a sex offender ... he could resurrect a habeas challenge to the underlying predicate conviction”
• rejecting Zichko because Supreme Court precedent focuses on whether a prior conviction has fully expired, not on the type of collateral consequence
• dismissing petition and finding it “abundantly clear that petitioner is only seeking to overturn his underlying sex offense conviction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).