UPDATED NEWS 12/8/2021: Unfortunately, this is going to be implemented.
ACSOL’s Response to the proposed regulations:
Download a PDF of the following letter
Related posts
-
Will the Supreme Court gut SORNA or overturn the Gundy decision in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo hearing?
Source: jdsupra.com One of the most significant areas of the law for businesses is administrative law.... -
LA: Louisiana woman challenges Sorna using ADA angle
Source: courthousenews.com 12/21/23 NEW ORLEANS — A federal court in Louisiana denied the state police’s request... -
The Evolving Landscape of Administrative Law [including SORNA]
Source: jdsupra.com 9/25/23 Shay Dvoretzky, Emily Kennedy Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP+ Follow Contact...
Per the regulations, if I communicate online with my financial institution or post a message online with my financial institution, then I am required within 3 days to report my financial institution login to LE. And do not forget, you can no longer chat with any company representatives online without reporting if the chat box shows you have an id. And some companies make that the only option available for communication. This is batsh_t crazy.
“All designations the sex offender uses for
purposes of routing or self-identification in Internet or telephonic communications or postings, including e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.”
At least with my state they only want the information if it is social.
I noted last year this could be the impetus to get the entire punishing regime reviewed in court if it is agreed to by Congress who has final review authority. That could force CJ Roberts front and center to see his case reviewed and how it has grown in nearly 19 years – to adult stature – and wildly out of control.
I already see this as an end-run around the 4th Amendment WRT email identifiers: the major search engines have email services and those search engines already have in place agreements with the USG to help provide data as needed during searches as well as through courts, etc when it needs it. Who says emails are different? If the USG wants to have your emails searched and contacts these providers by data you provided, then you lost, as I see it, the right to appeal for an unlawful search. They will do it and not tell you, until they know they have what they need and then will proceed within the law to get the data they know already is there. You don’t have to provide a code or password because under the 5th Amendment you are free from having to do that but the USG will work around that as we know they can do probably through the Terms of Service agreement each provider has. Have to wonder what EFF thinks of this?
This may be a bit much for some, and not conspiracy theory either, but this is not just like giving a physical address where a search warrant is needed to physically enter. An electronic identifier, e.g. email, phone number, online identifiers, etc, can be searched without anyone knowing it once it is provided. There is a reason why those who have convictions where a minor was involved have to provide their email identifiers according to the USG; now, the USG wants to expand that to everyone forced to register for an unknown reason.
Maybe I am a bit lost here, but hasn’t this been a law since 2008(?)? What has changed now with this latest development that will forces all States to conform. Can States still decide what is best for them and not abide by these draconian laws, much like the majority have been doing since its implementation?
I dont see California makeing Tier 2 offenders come in every 6 months and all Tier 3 offenders come in every 3 months it’s counterproductiv, California is already struggling and trying hard to manage the registry the new SORNA would literally set California back 5 years.
If your Tier 1 or 2 and you live in California your good but if you ever leave the state of California you will be subjected to SORNA laws.
Here in California we have the power to literally destroy the registry we have the numbers out here, ACSOL should put me on their staff so I could unleash Hell on the federal government and the DOJ, I’d easily organize at least 5.000 sex offenders in California in 24 months.
Stay focused.
I did my three tasks and I’ll keep doing it. Strength in numbers
Is this what finally gets SCOTUS to look at this bs? i surely hope so.This is a gross abuse of the original Doe case.
I live in a SORNA compliant state, so honestly I don’t know what to think. Regardless this crap must be stopped or drastically altered at best. My first visit with the game of a mole with the government and I hate it. Time for a Boulder to drop on their “ public safety” bs. Happy Halloween to Registrant Nation!!
Thank you so much Janice for bringing this to our attention. One small quibble: states don’t have “rights,” only people have rights. States have powers granted to them by the citizenry and which can be revoked by the people. We should stop using the term “state’s rights” because no where in the Constitution is it used nor was it intended as a concept by the Founders and to use it degrades our own, actual, rights.
“72.1 …(b) This part does not preempt or limit any obligations of or requirements relating to sex offenders under other Federal laws, rules, or policies, or under the laws, rules, or policies of registration jurisdictions or other entities. States and other governmental entities may prescribe registration requirements and other requirements, with which sex offenders must comply, that are more extensive or stringent than those prescribed by SORNA”
So it doesn’t lessen any obligation under any other source (i.e., State law), it also does not preempt a state from many more onerous rules. Wasn’t Federal SORNA touted and passed under the flag of making a “uniform” set of laws across the nation?
Instead, it raised the floor of severity (making many states non-compliant), but still allows even worse things to be added on. Not very “uniform” if you ask me.
One thing it does do is vitiate any vested rights obtained under State law. Generally, the legislature cannot divest rights through retrospective rulemaking/lawmaking, such is a violation of due process. This even applies in the civil context. See, Mitchell v. Roberts (Utah 2020) as an example of this argument.
Should we add color to why we oppose each bullet point of the information that is to be included with each communication to the AG, or just copy/paste? I would hate to say too little or too much.
I wonder if it’s possible to appeal to Mr. Garland through a Jewish foundation or directly to him regarding his families persecution, and escape from persecution. He or his family may be affiliated with an organization that may be receptive to our claim of persecution. “The Garlands are members of Temple Sinai, a Reform congregation in the capital, where both of Garland daughters, Rebecca and Jessica, reportedly had their bat mitzvahs.”
“Garland was the grandson of Jewish immigrants who in the early 1900s fled the Pale of Settlement—the western regions of the Russian Empire to which Jews were then restricted—to escape anti-Semitism.”
ACSOL and it’s leaders need to get on this and reach out to whatever Jewish orginazations they can to appeal to them that a prominent Jewish person might be inclined to sign into law a bill that would continue and enhance the persecution of fellow American Jews and other vulnerable people including juveniles.
Hi, Janice,
I need to know: do individual states still have the freedom to decide whether or not it’s SORNA-compliant? (For example, California currently isn’t.)
This isn’t going to make me any less concerned for those registrants who do live in states that are. I just want to know if these new SORNA regulations will force California to implement them.
Marrick Garland quote: “I think the rule of law is what distinguishes our country from most other countries,” Garland says in the video. “It’s people’s willingness to trust that they don’t have to take justice into their own hands, that law will treat people fairly and impartially, and without regard to politics or religion or race or anything else.”
I wonder if he would include us in regards to having to taking justice into our own hands, and by “anything else” would he include us?
I was perusing the SMART site, specifically the report on California’s implementation of SORNA and noticed the following footnote (footnote 14):
“Offenders receiving such a withdrawal of a guilty plea or set aside of their guilty verdict will no longer meet the definition of “convicted” under SORNA and, as such, are no longer required by SORNA to register.”
Here is the link to the document: https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/california-hny_0.pdf
I am not sure how to take this, given it is in a passing footnote, but it does seem to clearly state that those who have been granted a 1203.4 will not be subject to SORNA. Can someone else read the attached document and shed some light on this?
I’ve done all 3 and have gotten 6 non-registrant family members to also do this. Hopefully everyone who has not already done so will do the same.
The meeting today was really good. It eased my anxieties abit. Still alot of questions…process process process.
I just filled out the forms to send to AG ( email and letter) …will call tomorrow too.
Thank you Janice and Chance !!!!
I thought that CASOMB recommended to the CA DOJ, not to accept SORNA in California about a decade ago or so?
From what I remember reading: that the state (pre sb 384 of course) would just be better off keeping things the way they were. I can’t see that their opinion has changed in this matter. If anybody wants to elaborate please do so thank you:)
Done, done & done! A little disappointed that I wasn’t able to speak with Merrick in person, but I left him a VM. And sent an email. And mailed him a letter! 👍🏻
From the SMART OFFICE.
Thank you for reaching out to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) with your recent inquiry.
It appears you have a question about whether or not you are required to register as a sex offender under SORNA and you reference an excerpt from the SMART Office’s SORNA Substantial Implementation Review for California dated January 2016 in support of the same.
In December 2017, the California Legislature passed SB 384, legislation which amended California’s sex offender registration laws. It went into effect on January 1, 2021, and, among the many revisions made by the legislation, it changed California’s lifetime sex offender registration scheme to a tier-based scheme. As a result of this legislation, some of the laws included in the above-referenced review are no longer current. Additional information about the legislation is also available here.
Additionally, please note that SORNA provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States and, generally speaking, sex offender registration and the registration process is governed by the jurisdiction where an offender was convicted or might live, work, or go to school. The obligation to register is based on an offender’s conviction and an offender may be required to register based on that conviction in any jurisdiction where the offender lives, works, or goes to school. So, even though you may not be required to register in California, you may still be required to register elsewhere. Each jurisdiction has the authority to register individuals (and to dictate the terms of that registration).
SORNA also imposes certain registration obligations on sex offenders as a matter of federal law. In other words, sex offenders have an independent duty to register under SORNA.
Thank you and we hope you will find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, you may want to speak with an attorney who can provide you with specific legal advice.
emailed, wrote a letter, and called.
Merrick Garland is a member of the American Law Institute.
Hey Mr. AG Garland:
most-common-age-of-a-sex-offense
[Moderators reminder that raw URLs should not be posted in comments, use the link icon to attach URLs to words]
Wouldn’t this be the lever to return to SCOTUS in contrast to their original finding that the requirements for registration were just slightly inconveniencing?
Very good article today. Merrick Garland is not caving to the wishes of politicians and he’s not playing politics right now. He is being described as still having his Judge mentality and being impartial.
I’m hoping he continues this and does NOT cave in to Sorna Regulations. They said he is one of the only that’s taking the time to read case law. That leads to believe that he doesn’t just pass something if he hasn’t yet read it.
Folks one u thing u have to realize is that by being a former judge, he knows the constitution well and probably knows the games these politicians are playing.
KEEP WRITING and CALLING FOLKS!
One thing that has been on my mind frequently is, If we had our felony reduced to a misdemeanor, will SORNA see it as a felony or a misdemeanor?, And, will we be required to register under SORNA, once California becomes FULLY compliant? So do we have to wait until full compliance before we have to register under SORNA?