James P. Cornelio v. Connecticut, et al.

In what is an apparent issue of first impression is, as the district court ruled, ambiguous or unclear statutory language a condition for a challenge brought under the second test in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) for determining whether a statute is void for vagueness? Does Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-257(c) violate the requirement in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) that sex offender registration schemes be nonpunitive in nature in order to avoid an ex post facto challenge? Should a statute imposing criminal penalties on a strict liability basis shield law enforcement from a Fourth Amendment claim even when (i) that statute is determined to be impermissibly vague, (ii) such vagueness enables the Fourth Amendment violation, and (iii) there is a "compelling inference" that law enforcement acted with malice?