IN: Supreme Court rules sex offenders who move to Indiana must register

INDIANAPOLIS — A sex offender required to register in any other state must also register with Indiana police if he or she relocates to the Hoosier State, regardless of when the initial sex crime was committed.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled 5-0 Thursday that it is not an unconstitutional retroactive punishment for the state to require sex offenders with registration obligations elsewhere to also register in Indiana. Full Article

Related

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-ex-post-facto-laws-dont-apply-to-2-sex-offenders/PARAMS/article/39607

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Of course not.

Make a registry for murderers, robbers, and arsonists. Since the legislative intent for registration is “public safety”…

“by requiring registration from individuals who are required to register elsewhere, Indiana avoids becoming a safe haven for offenders attempting to evade their obligation.”
This is the same reasoning that has caused the spread of residency restrictions, and based on a false premise of why people offend and the effectiveness of the registry. If this reasoning prevails, eventually every state will have the highest restrictions possible, to avoid any former or potential offender from moving to their state. It is a registration arms race.

Not sure if thie was ever picked up by CA RSOL three years ago, but it is noteworthy in the fact that a state Supreme Court ruled the registry was punishment for one (now ex-) registered citizen.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/supreme-court-removes-hammond-man-from-sex-offender-list/article_ec1f641a-efb4-54f3-b07e-109050b7bf47.html

I would believe this would be an excellent citation in negating the “Price Club” regulation effect of Smith v. Doe.

Okay, but now it is 2016 and his obligation to register passed in 2014.
so if he’s convicted for having failed to register as a sex offender, but he is no longer required to register, what’s the outcome?
He gets a misdemeanor conviction for that then it’s all over?

On registration if you live and are registered in calif. originally, and then move to another non-sorna state like texas do you have to register there ? or do you come back every year and register in calif.? very confusing this registration law.