ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21 Recording Uploaded, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOL News

Proposed SORNA Regulations Would Add Uncertainty to Registrants’ Lives

[ACSOL]

The federal government issued proposed regulations to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) last month that, if adopted, would create uncertainty in the lives of registrants throughout the country.  That is due, in part, to requirements upon individuals that require state action which states may or may not be willing to take.  For example, individuals in many states are currently required to register only once a year, however, the proposed regulations would require some of the same individuals to register four times a year.  If a state refuses to register individuals four times a year, those individuals could be subject to federal prosecution and a federal prison sentence up to 10 years.

Below is a brief description of topics addressed by the proposed regulations which may or may not be different than an individual’s current registration requirements.  The federal regulations, if adopted, would provide the minimum requirements for registrants and would allow state governments to add additional registration requirements.

ACSOL is leading a group of legal professionals from several states that will provide a substantive reply, including legal challenges, to many of the proposed SORNA regulations.  The group is meeting on a weekly basis and plans to file a joint reply to the federal government no later than the deadline of October 13, 2020.

Section 72.3

Federal law, that is SORNA, will apply to all individuals convicted of a sex offense regardless of when the offense occurred and whether the state where the offense occurred has implemented SORNA.  There are currently only 17 of 50 states that have implemented SORNA.

Section 72.4

A registrant must register in every jurisdiction where he/she resides, is employed, and/or registers as a student.  Registrants must also initially register in the jurisdiction where he/she was convicted.

Section 72.5

Individuals assigned to Tier 1 must register for 15 years, however, that period of time can be reduced to 10 years if he/she has a clean record.  Individuals assigned to Tier 2 must register for 25 years.  Individuals assigned to Tier 3 must register for life unless an exception applies and then registration is limited to 25 years.  Individuals must begin to register upon release from custody or upon sentencing.  Individuals will be assigned to tiers by the federal government, not by state governments, despite the fact that all registries are operate by state governments, not the federal government.

Section 72.6

Registrants must reveal their name, date of birth, social security number and all aliases when they register.  In addition, registrants must disclosed “remote communication identifiers” used on the internet or in telephonic communications or postings, including email addresses and telephone numbers.  Registrants must identify their residence address, name and address of employer, name and address of place where registrant will be a students, specific information regarding international travel as well as vehicle information for cars, watercraft and aircraft owned or operated by the registrant.  Further, registrants must  notify local law enforcement if they stay away from their residence for 7 days or longer even if staying in the same town and/or state as well as disclose information regarding any passports or immigration documents issued by other countries.

Section 72.7

Registrants must register before release from custody or within 3 business days after sentencing.  When registering, registrants must allow the registering agency to take their photograph, to verify information in the registry, to correct information that has changed, and to report any new information.  Registrants assigned to Tier 1 must register once a year.  Registrants assigned to Tier 2 must register twice a year.  Registrants assigned to Tier 3 must register four times a year.  If a registrant changes his/her name, residence, employment or school, he/she must register in the new jurisdiction within 3 business days.  In addition, registrants must notify their current registration office if they intend to establish residence, employment or school prior to their departure.  Registrants must report their intention to travel or to move overseas at least 21 days prior to departure.

Section 72.8

If a registrant knowingly fails to register or update his/her information in accordance with the provisions above, he/she may be liable under federal law for failure to register.  The penalty for failure to register is up to 10 years in federal prison.  If charged with failure to register, a registrant may assert one or more of the following affirmative defenses: uncontrollable circumstances prevented compliance with SORNA, the registrant did not contribute to the creation of those circumstances and the registrant complied with SORNA as soon as circumstances preventing compliance ceased to exist.  In addition, SORNA compliance shall be a condition of federal probation, supervised release, or parole and failure to comply with SORNA shall be basis for revocation of release from custody.

 

Join the discussion

  1. SR

    So, section Section 72.8 and everything above it related to much more stringent requirements: California doesn’t currently require any of the above. Will the feds go after people in CA if CA continues to not do any of this? Like, under this new SORNA I’m likely T2, maybe T3. Is me asking “Do I have to come back in 3 months” and them saying “no” a sufficient defense of not registering more than the once a year CA currently requires?

    I honestly don’t see CA even remotely complying with any of this, as Chance has mentioned. This would more than double the amount of times CA would need to register people (at least once for all 110k people, plus another 120k times for all the 40k 288’s who’ll now have to register 4 times a year, plus whatever number would have to register twice a year; which probably means it would more close nearly triple the amount of annual paperwork for the state). Plus now suddenly needing to collect all internet information suddenly from 110k people AND doing so nearly 3 times year. That last part alone would be absolutely insane amount of time and cost agencies would need to spend enter all that data. I’m throwing a random number out there, but all together would this would likely increase the burden on the state 10 fold or more in administrative costs and time.

    • David

      @ SR: Even if California does not implement these new SORNA rules, you may still fall under the new SORNA requirements if you were to travel over state lines. The feds could invoke the “interstate commerce clause” and argue that, by your traveling across the state lines, you automatically fall within the federal jurisdiction of these new SORNA rules. 😒

      • SR

        Oh I have zero doubt in that. It’s partially why I haven’t traveled outside of CA since my conviction nearly 7 years ago. The insanity alone of trying to figure out the laws for every state, county, or even city in neighboring states is just nuts.

  2. Worried in Wisconsin

    Wonder if the Feds are planning to notify every registrant of their new obligations? Without notification of the obligation, how do they expect compliance?

    • Facts should matter

      I suspect it will be the result of more paperwork and forms for us to sign and initial when we “update” our info at the local sheriff’s office.

      They believe this covers the LEO’s asses in court if a FTR change is brought against us in the future.

      “Your Honor, the defendant knew the rules and what is required of him.”

      -_-

    • Carl

      @Worried

      They will use the old fallback, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  3. Brandon

    Sounds to me like a bunch of rules made up with the hamster not in its wheel. AG Barr is an incompetent attorney and needs to be disbarred never to be seen or heard from again.

    • David

      @ Worried: Very unlikely. When was the last time you were ever informed of any such changes??
      (I have NEVER been informed of any changes to laws affecting registrants, whether presence restrictions, distance from schools, etc. I have often thought that notification should be made a law and that law enforcement should have the burden of proof that you received notification before any charges can be brought against you. Seriously – what other group has new regulations routinely added to their “restrictions” without being properly notified???)

      • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army guerrilla)

        I live in Georgia and we already have a couple of pages of individual “requirements” listed. Maybe several pages, I can’t recall without looking. One of the “requirements” is to inform the criminal regimes of international travel. That is not a state law, of course. A person who is Registering is required to initial each “requirement”.

        I fully expect that they will add all new “requirements” right onto the end of the existing list. They can easily make the list 10 pages long and they will try.

        I think there are at least a couple of reasons for the list:

        1. They are trying to get people to know and comply with the “requirements”.

        2. They think the paperwork will help the criminal regime if they ever want to prosecute the person for a crime.

        The really funny thing though about their forms is, just like everything else they do, they are incompetent. They always operate outside of the law and of course, they have here as well. They have some “requirements” listed which are absolutely not required by law. They are just wishful things. I think if they ever tried to use them that a person could say something like, “Look, I knew a bunch of those ‘requirements’ were not actually legal or real. So I didn’t know which ones were and weren’t. I knew I couldn’t trust them to tell me.”

        Another hilarious bit of incompetence is that every time that some piece of information changes, a Person Forced to Register is supposed to visit the criminals and tell them. So, when that PFR arrives at the criminals’ office to do the yearly (or more frequent!) re-Registration, they could just have a very, very simple form that says something like “nothing has changed”. But do they do that? Of course they don’t. They have PFRs fill out all 10+ pages completely, including initialing all of the “requirements”. Then they save all of those papers. I bet they have 500+ papers for me. Why? Because they are fucking stupid and incompetent.

        I don’t feel bad owning businesses that fleece and steal money from them, that’s for sure. Fleecing dumb big government is huge business. I need to be part of it.

  4. Rob

    They’re always changing the rules of the game. Wonder what registry related law changes next year will bring. This is why I never get happy when it looks as if laws change in our favor. Registry is a noose that tightens every year. Nobody can stop this ever-changing problem. We are stuck having to accept what is given…or else.

  5. SR

    I’ve been doing a bit of looking in how SORNA tiers people and have the following question:

    Tier II and Tier III states “is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year and…”. Doe this “and” mean both the first part and any of the following parts must be true or does it look at both independently? Also, related to this, how does it determine the sentence length regarding the conviction?

    What I mean is, I plead guilty to 311.4 (a) felony and 647.6 (a) misdemeanor. 311.4 (a) “shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for UP TO ONE YEAR” (likewise for 647.6 (a)).

    So, does SORNA look at how the state punishes or does it have it’s own criteria? And if it does look at how state punishes, does that mean since my codes don’t meet the first part of the criteria of “punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year”, then the “and” part doesn’t matter and means I’ll be Tier I?

    This is all pretty nuts in how the Fed and State can apparently treat the same thing wildly different yet both require you to meet both standards.

    Anyone’s interpretation of the above would be welcome, particularly the “and” portion.

    • Shawn

      Anything punishable by up to a year is considered tier 1 per the SORNA final guidelines. This is why all cases adjudicated in Indian tribal courts are considered tier 1.

      • SR @ Shawn

        Okay, thanks. That’s encouraging for my situation. So do you happen to know if that means that threshold is based off of each states own guidelines or does SORNA have their own federal versions that have their own sentencing guidelines? Like, in my original example, my conviction allowed for up to a year. But I’m sure other states with something equivalent might be longer. Does SORNA just defer to each state in this regard?

        • Anonymous

          @SR: I moved to California from a state that abolished the terms “misdemeanor” and “felony” before I was born and uses its own 5-tier system of crimes and so I have dealt a lot with this confusion. Federal law states that any offense which is punishable by a year or less is a misdemeanor whereas anything more than a year is a felony – it’s based on the maximum punishment you could have received for the conviction, not your actual sentence. There is no federal crime equivalency test; this is based on the maximum possible sentence of your conviction in the state of conviction, at the time of the conviction.

          The easiest way to determine whether or not the feds consider you a felon is to look at your rap sheet / background check and see if you are cleared for firearm possession. Usually it will say something like, “Cleared for firearm possession – C.” If you have other non-sex offense felony convictions or domestic violence convictions, that could impact firearm clearance, but would not impact your SORNA status.

          I can also tell you the feds are entirely dependent on the states for conviction information. My home state accidentally deleted my entire record for 6 years and the FBI correspondingly changed its data during that time. When my home state realized the error and re-added all my convictions, the FBI also updated its system (I only know this because of employer background checks). Therefore I’m not sure what methods the feds would even use to know about or monitor registrants in non-compliant states, let alone former registrants who are no longer on state registries. If you visit the national registry – http://www.nsopw.gov – the profiles on there simply redirect to the respective state registries, with the exception of convictions in federal jurisdiction. I have corresponded many times with the SMART office and not that I trust them to be honest, but they took the position that their agency doesn’t maintain records on state convictions and that the national registry is merely an indexed portal to state registries. If we can trust them (which I don’t), then there is no database of every registrant past and present. I suspect California and other states would fight the adoption of these new guidelines, especially since we are about to implement the new tiered registry and scale back registration in about 3 months from now.

        • SR @ Anonymous

          Thank you for the information! So I guess despite me currently having a felony on CA’s record (hopefully reduced to a misdemeanor in the next few months), I’ll technically have a misdemeanor as far as Fed is concerned because my conviction penal code only allowed a maximum of up to 1 year imprisonment? That’s weird, but I’ll take whatever to be Tier 1!

      • SR

        How insane is it that it seems like my conviction might be Tier 1 under SORNA but is currently Tier 3 under CA’s system? I’m going to attempt to get a court date set this week an expungement and reduction. Not sure if they’re even taking such things at the moment given the huge backlog. But hopefully they are, even if it means many months out, and that 1203.4 will have a positive effect on CA’s system as well as hopefully having the judge grant me a reduction (a reduction currently seems to have a greater impact on the CA’s tier than the actual expungement. That’s another insanity on the state side).

        • Jason3

          I just filed my 1203.4 last week and I have court on October 23, 2020, in Los Angeles. So I know LA County is accepting.

        • SR @ Jason

          Oh, wow! Thats fast! Maybe our county will be like that as well.

  6. Shawn

    The irony is that the lies and hysteria created to justify the Biden/Hatch bill (Adam walsh act) is now taking down one of its authors in the court of public opinion. We reap what we sow. Maybe it’s time scotus look at the empirical evidence and set the record straight on recidivism before this type of legislation expands to other categories and continues to abolish the constitution and bill of rights for anyone on them. This will reshape American law forever if it continues

    • Brandon

      People forced to register who are homeless should camp outside state houses after all the real monsters are inside not outside creeping around bushes in vans.

  7. Bobby S.

    Ok, please correct me if I’m wrong and missing something here, but since Michigan is already SORNA compliant, and the Adam Walsh Act’s 3006 2011 amendments, were already found to be unconstitutional and punishment by the 6th Circuit and basically backed by SCOTUS. So couldn’t Janice also use this as a defense for you guys in Cali? The only thing I’m wondering is how that new 6th Circuit ruling will effect Does v Snyder, if it will effect it at all. Congratulations Janice and good luck.

  8. Laura

    But if it saves one child…. Well many registrants have children. And many of those children do still love and support the registrant parent. These politicians need to hear how this change will utterly harm and unnecessarily burden those registrant’s children, both minor and adult children’s lives.

    • Sunny

      @Laura: don’t forget, one quarter of registrants are / were children (minors) when they were convicted of their registrable offense.

  9. JohnDoeUtah

    Then you have states like Utah, looking to move in the opposite direction and possibly implementing risk based “tiering.” If after 14 year only 17 states are willing to play along, there’s your sign.

    • TS

      And how’s UT going to do tiering? Offense categories or by risk assesment?

      • JohnDoeUtah

        Well, right now they still follow the 10-year or life model. But, they are currently studying the effects of the registry and are looking into whether risk assessments/treatments should be included in the length of registration. The State Sentencing Commission has recognized that after 15 years, there is literally zero recidivism.

  10. Mp

    Thank you so much for spelling it out like this.

  11. Future seems distant

    How long tell they try an charge us a administrative fee? That has to be coming an when it does that is a penalty,an will show they have truly shit in there own nest,that this isn’t punishment?

  12. Future seems distant

    What is there true meaning of each jurisdiction? I could mow grass in 5 or 6 county’s in a single day,plus that could be that many cities or towns,that could involve sheriffs office,city police,county police,how does anybody know what to do? It’s nothing but a got ya or gonna get ya trap!

  13. HopingForHope

    EVERYONE READING THIS POST SHOULD READ THIS COMMENT.
    I can personally attest to section 72.7
    About ten years ago, the police chief in our town decided to start conducting compliance checks every 90 days, claiming the law allowed it. He never did show us that “law”, but it didn’t really matter. He wanted to show he was tough on crime. Up until that time, I was visiting the police station once per year, and the detective in charge of SOR would visit my house once per year essentially to confirm that I was actually living at the address where I claimed to be living. That was very tolerable.

    Suddenly, cops started coming to my door every three months. They came, and they came, and they came.
    I work at home, and I am generally unable to run to the door at a moment’s notice because I am on the phone, or on a video call, or doing whatever it is I’m in the middle of as part of my work. Some days I was in the office all day, and not even home. Some weeks they came by a dozen times, sometimes THREE times a day. They finally caught up with me during their first round of 90 day visits when I was pulling out of the driveway to go to the office. They got what they needed and left. Rinse, and repeat: Three months later the whole thing started again. They came again and again and again. I think one week they came something like 15 times, and now they started coming during the dinner hour and in the evening. We began secretly taping their visits. Instead of polite knocks, they started pounding on the door. Long story short, we sued them in federal court and I won a very clear favorable decision. This was a FEDERAL judge, mind you. We eventually settled the case with an agreement to go back to the way it was before all this crap began. The city also had to pay my attorney $50K in legal fees.

    Here’s why I am sharing all of this. After the second round of 90 day visits, we were seriously beginning to question whether we could still live here. Cops were coming to the house daily, sometimes multiple times per day, parking in front in marked cars as neighbors watched all of this unfold, wondering if I was running some sort of crack house or some other illicit scheme. Some were beginning to ask questions, nervous about all of the police acitivity. I had to lie. I am NOT posted online in my state, so for many years I was able to live a productive, private life here. This threw it all up in jeopardy. I also had children living here at the time. and this genuinely frightened them.

    If these regulations become law, and your local law enforcement starts conducting 90 day checks, God help all of you. I came within a hair of losing our ability to live here, and that was after only 6 months. I can’t even begin to comprehend what it would have been like if this had continued any longer. IF they are required, by law, to conduct these checks every 3 months, you had better believe that’s exactly what they’ll do, and many of them will take it to the extreme. I live in a small NE town. It’s not like I live in Florida. We never dreamed in a million years something like this would happen. This will give them the green light, and there’s no law that says they can’t come to your home three times a day, for a legitimate purpose, if that’s what they want to do. And many of them will, trust me. Make no mistake- this kind of activity will destroy your good life, and that of your family.

    This MUST be stopped.

    • SR

      Thanks for sharing. I’m glad you were able to kick their asses in court.

      I think the reason you experienced this is explicitly because you lived in a small town. Cops in small towns are bored. There’s a lot less to do in a town of like 500 than say a City like San Francisco of 800,000. So they huff and they puff pretending they’re doing community service by harassing people like you. Cops in larger cities literally don’t have time for that. I live in a city of over 160,000 people with nearly 800 registrants. We have a lot going on for cops to bother wasting time checking up on people who are no longer on paper. But, as you said, there will be plenty of these cops in small towns that will absolutely make things miserable for people, just because they have plenty of time to do so.

    • John Androtti

      I agree @SR, I doubt CA will follow SORNA. Money for one. Second, they chose a Tier system to cut back from the overload of registrants. Now adding back Tiers 3 every 4 months and don’t forget CP which will become a tier 3 in Ca will be followed over fed Tiers. It will sway back and forth, so add all the CP offenses to tier 3 as well. Lorena Gonzalez put CP on tier 3 and she won’t dare allow federal republican basically law to supersede her tier 3 law! So instead of a lower registrant base and resources more available for LE we will have a mess. My vote will be with Chance too on this one.

    • Future seems distant

      Been there an experienced all that an more,I’ve spent 1000’s of man hours an 10,s of thousands of dollars trying to eradicate this first SOR virus of the constitution! In the great state of KY An then came the second virus that can effect every human,not a selected or disliked class..you are not alone an in a weird way we’ll get along an survive with out facecrook never had it an never will! I hope my lawyer Brad Foxx,who won Baker in KY is in Janices corner!!??

  14. TS

    Register initially in your convicting jurisdiction? What if after release you aren’t going to live there but another jurisdiction? Register to deregister to register elsewhere? Not all states have a register in your new jurisdiction without deregistering in your old, if in same state.

    If they’re defining jurisdictions as judicial districts, then one can register anywhere within it…as they wrote it.

  15. bo

    Just to be clear. According to the proposed rules, Jurisdiction for SORNA means, “the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the five principal U.S. territories, and Indian tribes qualifying under 34 U.S.C. 20929.”

  16. TnT

    Get pissed go here and B*%ch ! The Attorney General is taking complaints & suggestions here is the link below, feel free to express your felling about his so called changing the rules in the middle of a game for the 99th unconstitutional time . They will be taking complaints or suggestions for the next 21 days .

    https://beta.regulations.gov/commenton/DOJ-OAG-2020-0003-0001

  17. Saddles

    Now TS don’t get out or line or are you picking up some habits from Will Alan and his stand your ground defense. I enjoy many of these comments. Even Hopes comment about this every 90 days ordeal that he went thru. Sure my PO still came to my house once a month. Even SR’s comment about harrassment or a better word would be antagonize. Right now due to things today with this virus its a bit of a limbo situation for many.

    So who is doing the pushing? I can just see someone saying push off or might want to say to their PO’ in this whole whole pushie, mean, uncarring, spiritted issue today or is government just as much at fault, even more, so in much of this registry in many ways. How many of your wifes have gotten a bar of soap and washed out your mouth out or their teenagers. I’m sure will Allens’ mouth has been washed out a few times thats why I like some of his stance. Maybe we all should go back and watch the movie Airport. I even liked Loyd Bridges in it.

    See its not what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person but what goes into the mouth. So who’s doing much of this error in much of this registry. Here you have this tier issue coming up or the many other issues of this sex registry and government seems not to do a thing to clean it up. Janice has the right stance and so does W.A.R, even Derek and A.C.L.U. have some understandings on this constitutional view today and you all yourselves.

    Got an e-mail yesterday from a lady namedCarol King yesterday but it wasn’t actually Carol King – it was from Joe Biden Team. See at times we all have to go back and reflect. During the war and peace movement their was a song by Buffalo Springfield… “Stop Children whats that sound”, and yes much of whats been going on today with this registry and many more issues need to be addressed a bit more.

    Yes Ms. King is about erasing the hate and thats a plus. Yes, her and James Taylor made a pretty good team back than. Look at Aretha Franklin. There’s where your Demond Wilson comes in many area’s.. of respect.

    To much cover-up in all this garbage as well Allan and many of you have said in so many words in a lot these issues and many of these understandings also. I was no wrestling coach in high school or college but we all have view’s on this issue for truth and justice and constutional values.

    I’m lucky I even graduated during those times even the inspiration to pursue college but I made a promise to my grandmother.

  18. New Person

    California allows marijuana despite it being illegal federally. Thus, the state can provide more rights than the federal.

    1. Is California steadfast on not taking part with SORNA?
    2. Bobby S. shared that, ” the Adam Walsh Act’s 3006 2011 amendments, were already found to be unconstitutional and punishment by the 6th Circuit and basically backed by SCOTUS.” Is that a possible rebuttal point?

    • My say

      Federal law trumps state law. Ca. did not kick the feds out of busting people for weed – the feds simply said – we wont bother it – it was not forced – the feds can still make arrests in Ca. for weed if they chose to. Ergo, if the feds do this, there is fuck all Ca can do about it if they want to make arrests over it. The difference only shows when the feds want to or don’t want to.

      This brings a very bad but also mostly unlikely problem. If a state hates and i mean really hates it’s registrants, they can simply refuse to follow the federal laws and then report the registrants (all of them) for failure to comply with federal laws and get them all arrested and sent to federal prison – and all at no cost to the state. (glad i am not in Florida)

      If this become law I will become Canadian. I will take whatever back roads or not roads i need to and break into Canada. They wont extradite me back as they are against the laws here and have called them inhumane. at least that’s how I will be hoping it works. This mess is not setting us up to fail – it is commanding it.

  19. Steve G

    So, if they force me to register 4 times per year, where is the due process that we are all entitled to?
    I would think this is a violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Of course they can change the rules, but we should have a valid case to fight this in court.

  20. Bill

    Bill Barr is out of his friggin mind for proposing this. The costs for maintaining increased registrations alone would be staggering. Not to mention people forced to stop working four times a year to do this, what places of employment will constantly allow that? And that is where Registrants live! Then Registrants have to register an additional four times in the jurisdiction of where they work.
    Then what about also registering in the place where you were convicted…another 4 times a year?…Does that mean potentially a Registrant has to register 12 times a year?!!

    And what if the states don’t comply and the federal agencies start coming after us for failure to comply their minimal SORNA guidelines? Which agencies will come after us? Won’t this clog up the federal court system even more and drive up incarceration rates at a time when the government is trying to reduce the prison population? This is beyond ridiculous!

    I’m definitely posting these points in their comments section.

    • New Person

      Barr may be supporting contrarian views.

      While pushing this retroactive statutory laws based upon public safety, but lacking proper statistics, states are finding the imposed shutdown laws due to public safety infringes too much upon the people’s civil rights. Some businesses are open and some aren’t. Similarly, some convicts are forced to register and some aren’t.

      Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm… “

  21. someone who cares

    All of this would be retroactive PUNISHMENT! This borders on ridiculous!!!!

  22. David

    Florida Action Committee has posted ACSOL’s article about the proposed AWA rules changes: “ACSOL: Proposed SORNA Regulations Would Add Uncertainty to Registrants’ Lives.”
    Here’s a link: http://www.floridaactioncommittee.org

  23. Bruce

    With this new law how many more people will just choose to be transient. At least you don’t have to tell them when you are away from home for 7 days or more.

    • David

      @ Bruce: If you ARE living somewhere and choose to register as “transient”, and law enforcement can prove that you are actually living in a permanent location, you could easily be charged with “failure to register” (FTR) because you knowingly provided false information when you registered.
      Keep in mind that law enforcement and prosecutors would love to find any reason to charge you with a new crime and lock you up! Just type the word “offender” into the search space of your news feed and you will see that the vast majority of headlines that mention sex offenders are those offenders being arrested for registration violations (NOT for new sex offenses).

    • Will Allen

      A homeless person would have to report when they were not in their “usual” location for more than 7 days (intrastate if state adopts it, of course).

      This “reporting you’ll be away” is exceptionally dumb, even by the standards of the Hit Lists, which is obviously really saying something. It betrays the key lies that were used in the very first place to get the Hit Lists created. The key lies were that the Hit Lists were just “needed” so that people would be “informed” and that they had a “right” to be informed.

      So if a person has a couple of homes and Registers them, in what conceivable way is that not enough? It is not the business of the nosy “neighbors” if I am at home or not. That never affects their fake “safety”. They’ve been told that a dangerous maniac lives there. That is enough. They have no reason to know when the maniac is NOT there. Why would they need that? So they can let their guard down? Stupid.

      It is the exact same case if I live in a home and go on vacation somewhere for 2 weeks. I’ve already told everyone about the home so those neighbors are fake protected. I will tell the people at the vacation location so they are fake protected. Why does anyone need to know that I’ve left anywhere?

      The reason that the law enforcement criminals want it is so they can harass you. They want to know when/if you’ll be around so that they can conduct their PR stunts more easily when they like. They also fantasize that it would help with any future happenings of whatever. It is nothing but control and harassment.

      I’ve Registered multiple homes forever. I won’t be telling the criminals when I am at one home versus any other. If they try to force me, they’ll pay dearly. The more they harass me, the more they’ll pay, in multitudes.

      • KM in SoCal

        The only conceivable (to me) reason for the away for 7 days reason is to make sure the local theives are notified that it is safe to clean us out. Their justification is so they can exclude offenders that are away during the time they waste by canvassing RSOs after a crime against a kid happens. Like happened after that little girl back east that was kidnapped a few years ago and they visited all the local RSOs (including her father) before looking for her and finding traces of her weeks later at an unrigistered neighbor’s trailer.

  24. Future seems distant

    If Sorna is a floor an not a ceiling,what’s to stop the state’s like KY from imposing the 1000 ft rule again on pre 2006 enactment on pfr’s after it was found unconstitutional? Wow the great minds of NASA couldn’t invent a bigger legal, as we say in KY a ghom! What an expensive avoidable mess! Smh

  25. James (monthly donor)

    Seeking clarification under the proposed rule specifically regarding tiers, are all 288 offenses under Tier 3 regardless of the age of victim? My reading of the SORNA tiers seems to indicate that if the victim was 12 years or younger, then those offenses would fall under Tier 3, which requires lifetime registration. However, if the victim was 13 or older (under 18), then those offenses would fall under Tier 2, which requires 25 years.

    • M C

      @James, that is how the Federal tiers are defined. There seems to be some confusion in that arena however because the SMART office publishes guidelines that make all of them Tier 3 though it seems the courts haven’t been allowing that.

      • Future seems distant

        Tier smear,hate to break it to ya but, sorna,is putting people back on the hit list that have been off for decades..this bikering about tier 1,2,3,or 4 is obsolete,the day you think your coming off, there will be a new reg keeping you on! I thought,I was off in 2010,an here we are…im 51 an not a parking ticket before my convection,or since1997…

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Future Seems Distant – The U.S. Department of Justice issued a 20-page report in 2016 discussing all sex offender laws in the state of California. In that federal government report, there is a long list of offenses and the tiers to which each offense would be assigned by the federal government. According to that report, anyone convicted of a PC 288 offense that includes lewd and lascivious acts involving a child (federal definition is under 18) would be assigned to Tier 3. At this time, we are not certain if the federal government will use this report to assign tiers if the proposed SORNA regulations are passed. We are also not certain if the federal government issued similar reports for all states.

      • G4Change

        @Janice: Do you know if the report mentions that SORNA would make even Misdemeanor 288 convictions be Tier 3? Or would a Misdemeanor be defaulted to Tier 1 given that maximum punishment in CA for that offense is NOT more than 1 year?

      • JohnDoeUtah

        @Janice

        I am pretty sure this evaluation was done for all states, due to the funding (10%) cut off date for substantial implementation.

        I looked into this recently and noticed that the SMART Office has been re-tiering offenses behind the scenes. For instance, in 2006 18 USC 2243 was classified as Tier II, but starting in 2011 SMART began requiring this offense to be Tier III as part of their “substantial implementation.” Essentially any “sexual acts” <16 is now Tier III in their minds. This is not the only offense that was re-tiered. There was also no rule change supporting this change.

        Even though SMART has taken this approach and required states to change their laws in accordance, it does not appear that the Federal Courts are in agreement. Three Circuit Courts have looked at this during review of 18 USC 2250 cases. See, U.S. v. Walker, 931 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2019), (A person is a Tier II offender only if his prior offense matches "abusive sexual contact (as described in section 2244 of title 18 )" and was "committed against a minor." 34 U.S.C. § 20911(3)(A). And he is a Tier III offender only if his prior offense matches one of the same federal offenses and was committed "against a minor who has not attained the age of 13 years."); see also, U.S. v. Escalante, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23234 (5th Cir. 2019); U.S. v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 196–98 (4th Cir. 2016); U.S. v. White, 782 F.3d 1118, 1132–33 (10th Cir. 2015).

        The 5th, 7th, and 10th have employed the categorical approach to defining tiers; see, Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 261 (2013); Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 36–37 (2009) (explaining that reference "to an ‘offense described in’ a particular section of the Federal Criminal Code" indicates a generic offense that calls for a categorical analysis).

        The Escalante Court (2019) states, “For statutory rape offenses where the government did not have to prove a four-year age differential, offenders still have to register under SORNA, but as Tier I offenders rather than Tier II.” Even in 2019 the Courts are apparently not buying the Tier III classification for 18 USC 2243 where the victim is 13 and older, which goes against SMART's 2011 re-tiering. The Final Guidelines also state that this is not a Tier III (see, 73 FR at 38054) but SMART has convinced states to do so for "substantial implementation."

        Beyond this, the Federal Court have dismissed cases using the categorical approach and even made otherwise Tier III offenders Tier I offenders under SORNA because the state law convictions did not match up to the federal law under the categorical approach.

        Now assuming that the Federal Government has to assign a Tier in this case, such a classification would likely be subject to a challenge under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S. Code § 706(2)(a), (c), and (f). Because the Circuit Courts have set the tone using the categorical approach, the ALJ would be held to that conclusion as well.

        • James (monthly donor)

          @JoeDoeUtah thank you for your thorough research! In other words, unless Congress amends SORNA, the proposed rule’s arbitrary assignment of all 288 offenses to Tier 3 may be successfully challenged in court on the grounds that current law does not allow for 288 offenses when the victim was 13 years or older (under 18) to be assigned to Tier 3. Hopefully there won’t be any unfavorable changes to SORNA from now to IF this proposed rule becomes adopted.

  26. Saddles

    The word for today is Proposed. Anyone can propose. One wonders today it its the same usage as back in the colonial days. One talks about NASA and this space issue on here. Many talk about this tier plight. Yes myself I had a proposal myself but it wasn’t the proposal that many look for.

    The proposal in my ordeal came in the form of a plea deal. Sure I can hear that detective say if you plead guilty, I’ll talk to the judge and the prosecuting attorney for you. I’m sure thats on a covered up record somewhere in Virginia.

    Sure I took a plea deal at the time. Was true justice being served or should we all start talking about a class action lawsuit in a lot of this confusion or just to get much of this registry abolished.

    That’s why I’m impressed with many of these advocates like Janice, Derek, Robin, Yellowrose and the many others that are against this unconstitutional/plight fight, for all in ones true liberty of truth justice for all in this equality of equal justice understanding for all.

  27. Saddles

    Talk about taking S.M.A.R.T. laws out of promortion ot character in unseemly many ways of these unwanted sex offender ordeals. Janice when I takng my courses in college, one didn’t have anythng like this but in many ways one should look at this as a projection and look for the best to come of the worst case senerio’s. Guess should still walk the line as johnny cash would say.

    I knew my tongue was pretty graphic during my ordeal but I still had what faith I had.

  28. David

    🤔 It’s a tough choice, but I think Section 72.6 is my favorite. There’s enough real life “but what if”s in that Section to drive through – or park – all the “cars, watercraft and aircraft owned or operated” by every registrant in the United States!

    * WORK ADDRESS *
    I’m employed by a large engineering and electrical contracting firm based in the City of Pasadena (jurisdiction: Pasadena Police Department), but as an electrician, I report to work each day at the company’s warehouse located in Glendale, California (jurisdiction: Glendale Police Department), before going to the job site – where I will be all day long – in an unincorporated Los Angeles County area of San Fernando Valley (jurisdiction: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) where I will be working for the next 6 months on a major construction project. So which location do I report as being my work address: the corporate address listed on my paychecks (Pasadena), the warehouse where I start my day (Glendale), or the site where I spend 40 hours a week in San Fernando Valley (unincorporated Los Angeles County)??

    * WORK VEHICLES *
    Each morning, when I punch my time card at the Glendale warehouse, I am giving the keys to a supply truck which has been re-stocked overnight and which I then drive to the San Fernando Valley job site. Our company has 20 such trucks working at various different locations, and on any given day, I may be assigned any one of those 20 vehicles – none of them are permanently assigned to me. Am I required to provide vehicle information for each of those 20 different work vehicles?? And if the company temporarily rents additional vehicles from U-Haul to transport extra equipment to the job site? Will I be required to register every U-Haul vehicle that the company rents that may be assigned to me to drive on any given day??

    Oh yes, I will definitely seeking be clarification from the US Department of Justice on these ridiculous, excessive rules!! And I’m just getting started! 🤗

  29. David

    Section 72.5: …. registrants will be assigned to Tiers by the Feds….. And that Tier designation will be based solely upon conviction, I suppose – as always, no contemporary assessment of re-offense risk or potential danger to the public.🙄

  30. Lake County

    David,
    I would bet that everyone you could talk to would give you a different opinion. This is probably one of those questions that cannot be answered until someone gets arrested because of any of these situations and it works it way through the courts.

    • James I

      Everyone remember these lines well…it may even be best to have them tattooed on your chest, then you might understand the meanings….of these Regulations!
      *************
      “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

      ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
      ***********
      Best Wishes, James I

      • Underdog

        James I- Your advice is sound. During my incarceration, a C.O. accused my cellmate of being a “malingerer” because he failed to return to our cell in a timely fashion after dinner; the C.O. wanted me to be a witness against my cellmate, but I explained that I hadn’t witnessed anything. Also, I explained that his use of “malingerer” was incorrect given with what he was charging my cellmate. The C.O.’s comment was, “Well, that’s the word we use here when someone is slow to return to his cell. So, your definition doesn’t matter.” ‘Nuff said.

    • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army guerrilla)

      Gosh, if only these criminal regimes could write “laws” (or BS “regulations”) that make sense and are precise. You’d think that with all the effort that needs to go into creating these “laws”, what it takes to educate everyone about and implement them, how long they exist, how precise they need to be, and all the trouble that they cause, that the criminal politicians would try harder. They should pretend like it is their job and try to do it properly.

      Their imprecision and mistakes are further compounded (in the state where I live) by the law enforcement criminals. They always, in perpetuity, operate outside of the law. Even their written forms are outside of the law. They will list 10 items and some number of them will be wrong. Guaranteed, always.

      The way I handle imprecise areas is by forcing them to clarify it in writing. I correspond with the county sheriff and attorneys. And of course, I always tell them my interpretation of what the “law” means. We’ve always come to an agreement. I think the agreements have been correct, but if they are not, I have plenty of proof that is what I was told to do and I did it.

      Figuring out the “law” by getting arrested isn’t acceptable. Not for me at least. If I get arrested, my fault or not, I absolutely will retaliate. That is just a risk of the Hit Lists. I made that promise to myself a long time ago and I’ll keep it. I don’t think the criminal regime would even know either. They’d know something happened. They might not know why. Or I might tell them, who knows. Frankly, Registry Supporters/Terrorists are immoral, so I don’t think most of them care either. They don’t care who or what the Hit Lists harm, innocent or not, just as long as it doesn’t directly affect them. I think nearly 100% of the people living in America are already being negatively affected by the Hit Lists but that most of them are just too dumb to know it and/or too arrogant to care.

    • David

      @ Lake: I am certain the USDOJ will base their Tier assignments solely upon convictions, not on any assessment of an individual’s current risk/dangerousness. (It would be virtually impossible – not to mention insanely expensive and time-consuming – to do individualized risk assessments on 1 million+ current Registrants.)

      • JohnDoeUtah

        Yes, but even then it will be expensive enough to do a categorical analysis, what the courts use to determine Tier.

        If the elements of your state conviction does not fit near perfectly with a federal equivalent listed in SORNA, it could result in a Tier I designation.

        • M C

          @JohnDoeUtah, I practically guarantee you that the feds won’t be doing any categorical analysis of anyone. What they will do is expect you to register based on the actual circumstances of your offense and then let you be the one that has to prove the categorical analysis when you have to defend yourself in court.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          @M C

          I think that is one strategy for challenging this new rule. If the Federal Government is going to hold people to “account” regardless of state law and state rules; then, the federal government should have to “officially” assign a Tier to each sexual offender. That would be an administrative action that would be subject to ALJ and District Court review (due process), and because the categorical approach is the precedential standard of the Circuit Courts, DOJs hands would likely be tied to that doctrine if not already.

        • M C

          @JohnDoeUtah, I don’t disagree about this being a viable strategy. However, what I believe they will do is arrest people first for such violations and then have the court sort it out and they will try to do it on an as applied individual basis so that they only have to apply the categorical approach when the defendant challenges the charges based on the assigned tier. In other words nobody is going to tell you what federal tier you are they are going to make you figure that part out yourself. If you decide you are in a different Tier than what they do when they want to arrest you for non compliance that will be decided by the court after the arrest. They don’t like the categorical approach as it is so I doubt they will apply it unless a defendant forces them to do so.

  31. someone who cares

    I am so fed up with all these new and changing regulations over and over again. What if they decide that anyone who has ever been charged with a DUI or any other criminal offense, no matter how many decades ago, now has to register with the police department and have compliance checks, etc, etc? They can’t just make up new rules every time they feel like it. This HAS to be unconstitutional. Who can stop these people? Unbelievable!

    • David

      @ Someone Who Cares: I completely agree with you. This Registry BS is endless and insane.
      And, yes, why aren’t there public website registries for those convicted of domestic abuse charges, violent assault charges, stalking charges, and DUI charges?? Each of those groups have much higher reoffense rates than do those convicted of sexual offenses. And their reoffenses pose a much greater danger to the general public. How many times have we heard of an entire family being killed by a DUI driver speeding down the wrong side of a highway? Or of someone convicted of domestic violence now killing their new girlfriend? Or of someone previously convicted on a weapons charge opening fire on police officers?
      The lack of those registries clearly puts the lie to politicians’ claim of concern for public safety being the reason for sex offense registries. Sex offense registries are titillating to the general public. A DUI driver, domestic violence, violent assault or weapons offender or stalker registry would actually be quite scary. Wouldn’t YOU want to know these things about your neighbors?? I would.

      • TS

        People here should know there are other registries for crimes, e.g. DUI, DV, etc. Are they widespread? No,but they exist. Look’em up online.

        • David

          Not enough. I want the local PD to distribute photo and charges every time one of my neighbors is convicted of such an offense. Why not? They’d do that to us, wouldn’t they?

  32. Brandon

    When I lived in Florida the local pd would be at my house every month to check asking me if there were any changes and left. Can’t believe a person who’s on the hit list resulting in isolation could be a threat to the community. Somethings you can’t explain except this system is complete garbage when a States website says sex offenses occur from people you know.

    • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army guerrilla)

      People Forced to Register should never accept living in isolation. That is accepting defeat.

      Personally, I have tons of family, friends, business associates, fellow activists, activity-related acquaintances, etc. I don’t think the Hit Lists can stop that. If your “neighbors” or anyone who knows that you are listed on the Hit Lists won’t talk to you, consider that a favor. They are scumbags and you don’t have to waste your time on them. Go out and find good people to be around. I found it easy to do that and the people never even know that you are listed. For years and decades. Doesn’t take much effort to manage that setup/compartmentalization, if that is what you want. But I also hang out with my neighbors. Most people hate big government and their brainless, harassing Hit Lists. At least the fun, decent people do. You don’t want to know any Registry Supporters/Terrorists anyway. Let them wallow in their hate and stupidity.

      Having said that, the Hit Lists do make simple, common sense. The idea is that YOUR neighbors will either 1) not know you (e.g. because they won’t associate with you) or 2) will know you but will know to be wary of you. The point is to prevent you from getting to know people without them knowing ABOUT you. To stop you from later victimizing someone you know. The Hit Lists do make simple, common sense. So I wouldn’t waste any time attacking them from that perspective. There are a million other reasons why they are dumb and worse than just worthless.

      • Brandon

        Will

        I agree with you about isolation being a sign of defeat and when occurs you accept the government sponsored label. I was just speaking about what I felt at the beginning of the government sponsored harassment yet I got involved like I did before living my life on my terms. The government label does and never will define me nor anyone else on lists. People who look down on you have a past are doing you a favor by showing their true colors. Worthless big government butt kissers. Sorry I rather kiss a toilet than a government official.

  33. Saddles

    James I has something interest if one uses one’s takes on proposals and also takes a good look at this Humpty Dumpty proposal. Brandon’s view on Complience checks and many more of these mixed review’s on here are interesting. I even have to keep my sister in conplince and probe her brain in our phone conversations.

    See many can use brain matter in the wrong way. Yes my PO at times has had a time with me in many issues that have cropped up over the years, or what is the bible all about when it says be ye perfect or does everybody take wooden nickels in justice. Hey can we all say our Government is perfect or many of these laws.

    Choice of words are very important. Yes dad had to prepare many times to go to Charleston, WV to represent the Gas and water Company of that time. Janice and Chancce have to also prepare their dosa in Court efforts and yes at many times it can be an uphill battle or struggle for their client they are representing. My undersdtanding is they are throwing many on the sex offender registry under the bridge.

    Today with these compliance checks or this every three months finger printing its a bit much and who’s burrowing their sword in vain in many ways. Anyone can entice in a sexual party game, or if some of you all computer people want to call it, a game of thorns it all comes down to man wanting to control others in all this understanding. Seems the human value in this sex offender tiff is out of balance on many issues even with this prison hanging over many even in this teir issue proposal ordeal.

  34. Saddles

    MC you have something there also that is of value or maybe we all should go back to humanatarism 101. See its not what comes out of the mouth that always instills one on this venture of justice. Its not always the understnading of different judges in these issues or the protocal they take. Its the measure or who is overriding their biblical threshold in this court of equality.

    I’m no maxfactor of science or where is the line drawn in the sand of human justice or is one shooting for a quality control moon landing when these guys mascuarde as teenagers via this computer operation. Were is the qualty check in this marksmanship of this offender issue or has government did enough damage to many in this race for their goal.

    Sure anyone can propose but I propose we end as much of this sex registry for all or who said let my people go… I used a term on here AC/DC on here because one of my brothers was into electronics and is an electrician or do we all look for a brain transfsion in many area’s or is the brain a terrible thing to waste in those drug commercials of the 70’s 7 80’s . Now its this sex offender ordeal that has came upon many of these uncertain ordeals today.

  35. B

    This is my comment that I left at the Federal Register:

    I strongly oppose the Registration Requirements under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act that is being proposed by Attorney General Bill Barr. It appears that his proposal has been done with little to no forethought of the logistical nightmare it will be to implement this nationwide and the punitive hardships it will have on the 900,000+ Registrants living in the U.S. The implementation of this Draconian measure will have ripple effects that will disrupt millions of lives, run up costs of maintaining such an unwieldy system, wasting valuable resources from federal agencies, and clog up courts with frivolous cases for years to come.

    Here’s what I mean…

    If this was to happen, which agency or agencies are going to monitor 900,000+ Registrants in all 50 states? FBI? ICE? Homeland Security? Federal Marshals? How many agents are going to be dedicated to make sure that 900,000+ Registrants are SORNA compliant? How many Registrants will each agent monitor all year round on top of their already existing workload?

    Or will you start a whole new agency just for SORNA? Is there funding for this? How much will this cost us taxpayers?

    Of 50 states only 17 are SORNA compliant. Has it occurred to you why that is? California ,for example, has over 100,000 Registrants living throughout its state. To implement SORNA’s minimal requirement would run up costs for California at least 4 times the amount – Registrants having to register up to 4 times a year in each jurisdiction for where they live, work or go to school, and where they were convicted. BTW, what if the Registrant was convicted in another state that he is no longer living in? For example, if this Registrant was convicted in Texas but is currently living in California, does that mean he has to return to Texas up to four times a year to re register?

    Do you see the insanity of these requirements?

    The current infrastructure that is in place is mostly maintained by state Registries in the form of local police and sheriff stations throughout the U.S. They occupy various jurisdictions which have different Registration requirements based on the needs of the community and the size of their budget. That last part is important because that dictates what they are capable of implementing. How will these states handle this sudden increase of workload? Where are the funds to do this?

    The lives of 900,000+ Registrants and their families will be overturned by these Registration Requirements. Like I mentioned earlier, if implemented Registrants need to register up to 3 jurisdictions…that is least 3 times a year for Tier 1’s. For Tier 2’s that is up to 6 times a year. And for Tier 3’s that is up to 12 times a year. What place of employment will tolerate this much time off for the Registrant to do this? If you do not know this, then it is important to realize that employment for Registrants is difficult enough as it is being on the Registry. Mostly low income work are the only options. And on top of this they have families to support! The lives that are affected do not start and end with Registrants.

    Like I stated above, what if the jurisdictions that the Registrants are unable to comply with SORNA minimal requirements? What if the jurisdiction this Registrant works in won’t accept his registration because they only accept those that live there only? What if the jurisdiction where he was convicted won’t accept him for the same reasons? What if nearly ALL jurisdictions cannot accompany SORNA minimal requirements for various reasons, like there is no budget for this? Are you going to start rounding up THOUSANDS of Registrants at a time for failure to comply? Which agency/agencies will determine this?

    And let’s say, for the sake of argument, you can round up thousands and thousands of Registrants within a year, how will the federal court system handle this sudden surge of frivolous court cases? How much would this cost the taxpayer?

    Are you willing to fill up prisons once again during a time when the inmate population needs to be reduced? And how much will that cost the taxpayer?

    Do you not see that this proposal is nothing more than a flaccid attempt to shrug off waves of accusations from different departments of government in regards to Bill Barr’s corrupted use of his office as Attorney General? Do you people want to be part of his legacy of incompetence and corruption? Because in my estimation there is no life after Bill Barr’s tenure…

    Don’t be part of Bill Barr’s folly! Strike down this proposal! It is bad for EVERYONE.

  36. Worried in Wisconsin

    Where do the Feds even get jurisdiction in things like this? If they are relying on Interstate Commerce Clause then it seems like that is where we need to attack. No jurisdiction – no ability to set rules.

    How is my walking across a state border classified as interstate commerce?

    One thing I see as a positive that might come out of the recent SCOTUS appointments is their strict literal interpretation of the Constitution. It give certain specified powers to the Feds, the rest is left to the states. Interstate commerce is one of those areas, but it takes a pretty twisted interpretation of commerce to have it include a person walking across the street and entering another state.

    Rather than attack the law as punishment or anything else, what about just attacking their jurisdiction?

  37. Harry

    What are the difference between this and probation or parole?

    • C

      I was MUCH more free when I was on probation than I am now. If these new rules are implemented I am going to kill myself, in the New York Capital Building, in front of Cuomo.

  38. Future seems distant

    Is there no fine penalty for sorna ftr? I haven’t seen or read anything on that? My guess is because it’s a one way street to prison,all they have to do is call them education camps,just like China is doing for over 2 million of there undesirable citizens….

  39. David

    @ Future Seems Distant: We already have that, it’s called “civil commitment”.

  40. Berdoo

    When is the earliest possible date that these new regulations can be implemented? And if a registrant moves out of the country before they are implemented, will he/she be subject to these regulations regarding the notification of foreign immigration status?

    • JohnDoeUtah

      October 16, 2020.

      Technically, it already applies. The law is there. This just clarifies things in support of upcoming prosecutions of offenders in non-compliant states. The DOJ is done waiting for the other 33 states to implement their minimum standards, so its going to enforce it regardless of state action.

      • john

        should I leave before oct 16? off this registry and feeling i should make a run for it before they try to put me back on over this. I am in a non sorona state Minnesota, i don’t have as much money as i would like to leave with but eh if this stops me from leaving in April i better try to wing it

        • JohnDoeUtah

          Just because you are not currently registered under state law does not mean this will not hamper you or cause legal trouble.

          Once you travel across state lines, you are subject to SORNA and IML. If your state is not SORNA compliant you may make it out, but your passport could be revoked later and put any foreign visas in jeopardy. Assuming you could apply for a new passport, but it would have the mark.

        • M C

          @john, I might be wrong but for now I think Minnesota is a special case where these new SORNA rules can not even be applied. This is just my opinion however. The reason I say this is that MN considers most sex offender registry data (except level 3) private by state statute. As such they can not even report this online and so even if they were willing to register you per the new SORNA rules they still can not make your registration public. Unless MN changes the way that data is classified or you leave the state for long enough to trigger registration elsewhere I don’t see MN even accepting your registration information.

        • john

          thanks guys was afraid of that part as well. I was thinking id have to give a 21 day notice or at least proof i tried in my jurisdiction. i should of been gone last summer was slacking to much. sailboat is looking real lol:s

  41. JC

    On the Sorna guidelines for the public site it says this:

    “Minimum Required Information
    1) Name of offender
    2) Physical description of offender
    3) Current photo
    4) Residence address
    5) Employment address
    6) School address
    7) Vehicle information
    8) All sex offenses for which the
    offender has been convicted
    9) Sex offense(s) for which the sex
    offender is registered
    10) Notice that the offender is not in
    compliance and/or has absconded”

    Is this true for all tiers? So everyone will have their addresses, work addresses, cars etc on the public site regardless of tier?

  42. Little

    Sounds like punishment to me, having to register once twice 4 times or be prosecuted for up to 10 years. Sounds cruel and unusual like punishment.

  43. someone who cares

    SORNA and the Tiered Registry both are definitely punishment, and I don’t see how anybody can not see that. With the Tiered Registry, some will now be publicly listed on ML that have never been before and were not told at sentencing that this will be part of their sentence. Many here keep saying, that anybody can look up anybody if they wanted to. I don’t think that is true. If I want to find out something about a person, I will have to pay, at least here in Orange County. The OC court website asks for a credit card if you want to look up a person’s criminal history, and that alone will deter a lot of people. Secondly, I don’t think just anybody can look someone up, see their picture, know if they have a tattoo or scar, place or work, and home address. That is a complete breach of privacy. Sure, there is “white pages”, etc, but I can opt out of these sites. Can I opt out of ML? No! So, there is a HUGE difference.

    • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army guerrilla)

      “Many here keep saying, that anybody can look up anybody if they wanted to.” I guess that is technically true but that has no relationship at all to the Hit Lists. It’s not relevant. The Hit Lists are way, way beyond just “looking something up”.

  44. someone who cares

    Will ~ I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. What I intended to say was that some people think the public website is not really punishment since anybody can look up anyone anyways, and I don’t think that is true. I can’t look up someone who chooses to be private. Why should anyone be able to look up a person on the registry, especially since most have long paid for their offense, often decades ago? The hit lists needs to go. We all have a right to privacy, and the hit list violates that right since we can’t just opt out of it like on “white pages” etc. Does that make sense?

    • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army guerrilla)

      I got what you were saying. I have heard a significant number of people saying that the Hit Lists are no big deal because the information is public anyway. Obviously that is nonsense to anyone who has a functioning brain. But a lot of Registry Supporters/Terrorists don’t. All you have to do is ask them if “being public” is the same as the Hit Lists, then why do they “need” the Hit Lists. That confuses them.

      The Hit Lists are unacceptable. That’s the end of the story. Personally, I ensure they are worthless. But I’m also going to try to ensure that they only exists at the highest possible cost, to all of America and everyone in it, of time, money, freedom, peace, and other limited resources.

    • New Person

      Public website is akin to being locked in a pillory in the public square, except the public square is the whole world because the internet if open to the whole world.

      Traditionally, this is punishment.

      • David⚜️

        If one were confined in a pillory, it was likely limited to several days at most……… not for 10 years…. 25 years….. or life.
        AND it was only in your little hamlet, village or town……. not broadcast over the internet into everyone’s homes, all over the entire world.
        But SORs are not punishment, right?
        So I guess that makes it all okay. 😡

  45. HopingForHope

    I’m thinking this might already have been addressed, but can someone explain something to me. These new regulations are meant to force SORNA on the 33 states that have elected not to adopt it. I get that. But how will the feds enforce this if those states decide they want nothing to do with it. In other words, if the feds declare this is the new law of the land, who do we report to? If you’re in a non-SORNA state, your local LE or whoever you register with surely isn’t going to be registering you on behalf of the feds. So, if the states don’t go along, wouldn’t that put ALL of us in immediate violation for failing to register under SORNA? Sure looks that way to me.

  46. Saddles

    Guess we all needs a time out in this Romper room of Justice. Maybe we need to lower the microphone and let justice take its course in a more respectful debate such as we all saw I’m sure or who is mispelling a few catch pharses with this enstine theory. I didn’t come here to preach. I came to learn something about what everyone’s view’s are. Isn’t that how one try’s to make any sense out of this registry.

  47. Dr.

    Maybe we should know the position of the candidate we are about to elect into office?
    Start locally and work with like minded individuals.

  48. The Wife

    We live in PA. My husband fell under the ruling that made retroactive law illegal. He then fell back under the older megans law. Because of that he will be off in about three years.

    Will the federal law supercede PA supreme court law? Then he maybe facing life again on the possible new federal law?

  49. David⚜️

    All of these SORs – cities’, counties’, states’ and now the fed’s – is such an incredible cluster-fug! It’s really beyond belief!! How is one ever supposed to know all the rules, regulations, restrictions, requirements, deadlines, etc. that they are supposed to abide by????
    How is it NOT punishment to subject individuals to all of this unintelligible, ever-changing bullcrap???? It’s an ever-changing maze intent on snaring anyone once convicted of a sexual offense, no matter how minor or how long ago it occurred! 😡😡😡

  50. PC

    So my offense was for a 647.6a misdemeanor with the “victim” aged under 16 years old. Under Smart SORNA regulations does that make me a Tier III due to victim being under 16?

    • SR

      I don’t believe so. It seems like to be under T2 and T3, your need to have been convicted of something that could carry a sentence of over a year (it doesn’t matter how much you actually served) AND have a conviction that fits certain criteria. The age thing seems to be one of those split things that can make you either T2 or T3.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.