In Commonwealth v. Baker, 295 SW3d 437 (Ky 2009), the Supreme Court of Kentucky analyzed an amended statute setting forth residency restrictions for registered sex offenders. The court held that the legislature intended the amended statute to be a civil, nonpunitive, regulatory scheme. The court found that the statute was excessive with respect to the nonpunitive purpose of public safety, however, because the law failed to make any type of individualized assessment as to whether a particular offender is a threat to public safety. The court wrote: "We believe that the magnitude of the restraint involved in residency restrictions is sufficient for a lack of individual assessment to render the statute punitive. "The record before us does not reveal whether or not the offender might be a threat to children and to public safety. But this is exactly why the statute is excessive. Given the drastic consequences of Kentucky's residency restrictions, and the fact that there is no individual determination of the threat a particular registrant poses to public safety, we can only conclude that the statute is excessive with respect to the nonpunitive purpose of public safety." (Baker, 295 SW3d at 446.)