In a Megan's Law proceeding, the Due Process Clause requires that the state prove its case by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance thereof.

R.F. had a short history of sexual offenses against children. The first involved his three-year-old cousin, whom he molested when he was just fourteen; the second was the ten-year-old son of his paramour, a number of-years later. Although no charges arose from the first incident, he served a prison sentence for the second offense. When he applied for parole, R.F. submitted to an examination prior to his Megan's Law proceeding. The screening determined that factors indicating the presence of a sexual disorder were marginal and that they were related to alcohol abuse, which was in remission. The findings were consistent with those made prior to his trial that he was not driven by sexual compulsion.

The possible injury to the individual registrant, the Court ruled, is much greater than any possible harm to the state. A registrant should not have to share the risk of a judicial mistake equally with the state, as one would if the evidentiary standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.

Because Megan's Law is not supposed to be punitive, the state has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence the risk that R.F. poses to the community, and the scope of notification necessary to protect the members-of the community who might encounter him. Since R.F.'s victims were placed under his control, situations he did not actively seek, he was deemed not to be a predator, a mitigating factor in this case.