Would this New Law Stand a Constitutional Challenge.

Before we begin this exercise let’s take a look at an existing law to see how the legislature justifies the existence of that law.
 
29-4002   Legislative findings state of Nebraska
The  Legislature  finds  that sex offenders present a high risk to commit repeat offenses.   The  Legislature further finds that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their  communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend sex offenders are impaired by the lack of  available  information about  individuals  who have pleaded guilty to or have been found guilty of sex offenses and who live, work, or  attend  school  in their  jurisdiction.    The  Legislature further finds that state policy should assist efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect their communities by requiring sex offenders to  register with  local  law  enforcement  agencies  as  provided  by the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Source:Robert Tronge
Laws 1996, LB 645, § 2; Laws 2002, LB 564, § 2.
Effective date July 20, 2002.
 
Now Would this law stand constitutional challenge?
The Legislature finds that people in alcohol related crimes present a high risk to commit repeat offenses. The Legislature further finds that efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend these persons are impaired by the lack of available information about individuals who have pleaded guilty to, or have been found guilty of those crimes and who live, work, or attend school in their jurisdiction. The Legislature further finds that state policy should assist efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect their communities by requiring alcohol related criminals register with local law enforcement agencies as provided by the dangerous  Criminals Registration Act. Instead of alcohol related put in any criminal class with a higher  reoffense rate then sex offender (oops that means all other crimes)
 
An excerpt  State of Hawaii v. Bani, 97  285, 36 P.3d 1255 (2001)  In Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who ‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that it would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. At 437. the Offender will foreseeably suffer serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords will foreseeably be reluctant to employ or rent to Bani once they learn of his status as a “sex offender.” See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8) Indeed, the public disclosure provisions of HRS chapter 846E can adversely affect an offender’s personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure may encourage vigilantism and may expose the offender to possible physical violence. (9) See , e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997). Indeed, [w]hen a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and,perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96. Therefore, public notification is highly likely to cause irreparable harm to the offender’s reputation and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing.
 
Ban on special legislation
A legislative act can violate this provision as special legislation (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification or (2) by creating a permanently closed class. MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., 238 Neb. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991). A legislative act can violate this provision as special legislation in one of two ways: (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification, or (2) by creating a permanently closed class. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991).
The term “class legislation” is a characterization of legislation in contravention of this provision. It is that which makes improper discrimination by conferring privileges on a class arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons standing in the same relation to the privileges, without reasonable distinction or substantial difference. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991). Section 60-1701 contains classification s and exceptions which are unreasonable, arbitrary, and unrelated to the public interest,
and is therefore unconstitutional and void in violation of this section
. State v. Edmunds, 211 Neb. 380, 318 N.W.2d 859 (1982). Arbitrary classification may result in special legislation. United Community Services v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 162 Neb. 786, 77 N.W.2d 576 (1956).

Shaming

Shaming as a form of punishment as defined by the Court cases of People v. Meyer    People v. Lowe, 606 N.E.2d. People v. Molz, 113 N.E.2d, People v. Johnson 528 N.E.2d, State v. Burdin 924 S.W.2d ,People v. Letterlough 655 N.E.2d, Lindsay v. State 606 So. 2D.

Part of the Eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments says that prisoners in the custody of the state who are being punished have a right to be safe from other inmates and receive care including medical care at the cost to the state. Because they are in the custody of the state and cannot do it themselves it is the job of the state to make sure that these people stay safe and cared for [while in the custody of the state]. Since the legislature has chosen to notify the communities and the result is that the Registants are shamed within the community does that not mean that there is an obligation by the state? Because of the result of their legislations  the state has a obligation to see that no physical or emotional harm comes to the Registrants or their families that they live with from the actions of other community members.

It would seem that the only way to do this would be a place a police officer or Sheriff with each and every Registrant and their family members as a bodyguard to make sure that they are not harassed, threatened, or attacked by members of the community that they live in because of the result of the legislation, and to provide food, shelter and medical care for the Registrant and their family members where the community notification has restricted offenders from being able to find gainful employment and appropriate living conditions.