Virsnieks v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Wisconsin's sex offense registration statute \imposes minimal restrictions on a registrant's physical liberty\ that are \collateral consequences of a conviction\
• holding that “the future threat of incarceration for registrants who fail to comply” is insufficient
• holding that regis- tration requirement did not support habeas claim because statute did not impose “any significant restriction on a regis- trant’s freedom of movement”
• indicating that “the decisions of the courts of appeals can guide us in determining what constitutes an unreasonable ap- plication of” Supreme Court law (citation and internal quota- tion marks omitted)
• indicating that “the decisions of the courts of appeals can guide us in determining what constitutes an unreasonable ap- plication of” Supreme Court law (citation and internal quota- tion marks omitted)
• collecting cases and finding that Wisconsin’s sex offender registration requirements are remedial rather than punitive and therefore do not satisfy the “in custody” requirement for habeas corpus claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).