In the 1963 case of Ruark v. Colorado, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could require an individual to register as a sex offender if they had been convicted in another state for a crime that would have required registration if committed in Colorado. The petitioner, Mr. Ruark, argued that this requirement violated his rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it treated him differently than individuals who had been convicted of similar crimes within Colorado. However, the court ruled against Mr. Ruark stating that states have broad powers to regulate behavior and maintain public safety within their borders which includes requiring out-of-state offenders to register when moving into their jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Ruark v. Colorado, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mr. Ruark's conviction despite a lack of evidence linking him directly to the crime scene was unjust and violated his constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how law enforcement handled this case, including potential misconduct during their investigation and trial proceedings. They also raised concerns about whether Mr. Ruark had been provided with adequate legal representation during his trial, as required by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain pieces of circumstantial evidence were interpreted against Mr.Ruark without any direct proof connecting him to the alleged crimes committed in this case.