SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION UPDATE The Federal Adam Walsh Act and Ohio’s SB 10.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Callie Glanton Steele Supervising Deputy Federal Public Defender Central District of California.
Advertisements

New Tennessee Legislation Sexual Offenses, Offender Registration, And Other Concerns August 2007.
Current Status of SORNA In NJ. Two Bills Pending  S 2993 and A 4225 Sponsored in the Senate by Vitale Sponsored in the Senate by Vitale Sponsored in.
Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2007 General Assembly.
Current Status of SORNA. Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act  Federal law passed in 2006 (SORNA)  Sets a floor, not a ceiling, for standards.
Section Eight Sexual Offenses and Classifications.
LISA A. MINUTOLA CHIEF OF LEGAL SERVICES PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Treneice R. Flowers, Esquire Children’s Law Center School of Law University of South Carolina
Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Meeting The purpose of community notification is to provide information to protect you and your family,
Juvenile Justice system
Eileen Hirsch Robert LeBell Marcus Berghahn.  An overview of the Adam Walsh Act  Federal Civil Commitment  Implementation  Issues affecting juvenile.
PROCESSING OF YOUTHFUL AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA Youth Accountability Planning Task Force December 10, 2009.
Juvenile Justice in NC: A Historical Perspective Janet Mason October 21, 2009.
Sex, Laws and Videos: 21st Century Sex Crimes Use of Recording Devices, Film, Cell Phones, Computers and the Internet Ginger Kimes Staff Attorney Prosecutor.
Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act of 2006: Jessica’s Law Ken Carabello, LCSW FMHAC March 15, 2007.
1 ICAOS 2011 Rule Amendment Presentation for Deputy Compact Administrators & Compact Office Staff Presented by:
Alabama Sex Offender Community Notification Act by Lieutenant Robert Stone Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office Internal Affairs.
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
Texas Department of Public Safety Sex Offender Registration Bureau
Sentencing Unit 2 Chapter 11.
Office of Justice Programs Innovation Partnerships Safe Neighborhoods U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs SMART Office Sex Offender Registration.
Sex Offender Registry Legal Update Jeanne Broadwell TBI General Counsel August 11, 14, 15, 2014.
The Effective Management of Juvenile Sex Offenders in the Community Section 7: The Legal and Legislative Response.
EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS AND ARREST RECORDS.
How the Adam Walsh Act Affects Juveniles Presentation to the National Conference of State Legislatures Fall Forum Phoenix, AZ November 29,
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY Legislative Changes Registry Changes PC 753-Adds “pimps” to the Registry PC 883-Judges may order stat rape defendants to register.
The Judicial Branch The Criminal Justice Process.
Chapter 4 The Law.
New Legislation and the Road Ahead Tennessee Sex Offender Treatment Board Conference August 2008.
Objective Review. The US Court of Appeals Cases are decided by a panel of how many judges? 33.
Megan’s Law.
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section What we do... What we do... Assist 93 federal prosecution offices nationwide on child exploitation and child pornography.
Office of Justice Programs Innovation Partnerships Safe Neighborhoods U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs SMART Office The Adam Walsh.
Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2009 General Assembly.
Bootcamp 2009 Porn, Predators, and the Pressure to Police Jennifer Stisa Granick, Civil Liberties Director.
This slide intentionally blank. State Sexual Offender Laws and the Church May 13, 2013.
DUI By W. Clay Abbott DWI Resource Prosecutor Texas District and County Attorneys Association.
Adam Walsh Act Overview November 13, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 Possible Implications to Iowa Law.
Steps in the Adult Criminal Justice Process
Legislative Update Summary of significant bills affecting the Records & Technology Division 7/31/07.
CRIMINAL LAW SUMMER 2011 TA SESSION NOTES Chapter 1 Punishment and Its Rationales.
2004 Legislative Update ICASA Trends and Issues Forum Oak Brook, Illinois Polly Poskin Lyn M. Schollett September 15, 2004.
Disposition Hearing Juvenile Law Cle Oct 17, 2014.
ICAOS Training 103-Supervision in the Receiving State [Revision 12/1/2014] Be Ready for a Test at the End.
1 ICAOS 2008 Rule Amendment Presentation for Deputy Compact Administrators & Compact Office Staff Presented by:
Instructions for using this template. Remember this is Jeopardy, so where I have written “Answer” this is the prompt the students will see, and where.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Tena Hardee Resource Attorney Children’s Law Center School of Law University of South Carolina childlaw.sc.edu.
Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2008 General Assembly.
AN OVERVIEW OF SENATE BILL 10 JSORN EXPLAINED:. WHERE WE ARE GOING The Basics SCO Decisions / Impact Hypotheticals Pending Cases Assessments Placement.
Sex Offender Registry Legal Update Jeanne Broadwell TBI General Counsel October 8, 9, 13, 2015.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
TYPES OF LAW. CIVIL LAW Civil Law deals with wrongs against a group or individual. The harmed individual becomes the plaintiff in a civil law suit and.
An Overview of the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry Presented by: Sgt. Matthew Garcia.
Risk Assessment and Community Notification Mark Bliven, Minnesota Dept. of Corrections Wednesday, Dec 9, 2015 Special Committee on Sex Offenders Connecticut.
Sexting Presentation Written by: Brandon Falls Jefferson County District Attorney Brian Huff Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Family Court.
Juvenile Justice. Certification Certification – the proceeding in juvenile court in which the court determines if a juvenile will stand trial as an adult.
Virginia RULES Teens Learn & Live the Law Crimes Against Persons.
Texas Sex Offender Registration Program
STANDARDS: SS8CG6 The student will explain how the Georgia court system treats juvenile offenders. a. Explain the difference between delinquent behavior.
2015 CICERO POLICE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL INSERVICE TRAINING
2016 Legislative Update: Changes to criminal and juvenile laws
Sex Offenses & Sex Offender Registration Task Force
Juvenile Sex Offender Update
Sexual Offenses and Classifications
Juvenile Offenders Delinquent acts and unruly acts are legal terms for behavior in minors under the age of 16. Delinquent behavior is an act committed.
Offender Registration In Illinois
Criminal vs. Civil Law SWBAT: Explain the differences between criminal and civil law.
Sexual Offenses and Classifications
Sex Offender Registration
WI Department of Corrections Sex Offender Registry
Presentation transcript:

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION UPDATE The Federal Adam Walsh Act and Ohio’s SB 10

The Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act of 2006  Sex Offender Registration & Notification Act (SORNA)  Creates a tiered system of classification for sex offenders (convicted of federal crimes or engaged in interstate travel), and requires all jurisdictions come into compliance with the new system by July, 2009, or face funding loss.  All sex offenders are required to register in each county of residence, employment, education, and conviction; and keep registration current.  Imposes new durations for registration periods and frequency of in-person verification, as well as new grounds for classification.

Sex Offender Registration & Notification Act (SORNA)  Compliant jurisdictions must:  Impose a maximum penalty of at least 1 year for offender’s failure to comply with registration/verification requirements  Require offender to provide SSN, all addresses, places of employment, and license plate #’s of accessible vehicles  Include in the registry: physical description, current photo, criminal history, finger and palm prints, DNA sample, criminal offense, and photo-copy of state-issued identification  Provide public access to sex offender information via the internet (excluding victim identity, SSN, & references to arrests not resulting in conviction. Jurisdictions may choose to exclude Tier I offender information and employment/education information).

Other Provisions of the Adam Walsh Act  Increases criminal penalties for using misleading internet domain names to direct children to harmful material/obscenity (maximum increased from 4 years to 10) (Title II).  Revises and expands provisions authorizing civil and criminal asset forfeiture in child sexual exploitation and obscenity cases (Title V).  Revises recordkeeping requirements for producers of actual sexually explicit conduct to cover digital images or computer-manipulated images of actual human beings (Title V).  Makes it unlawful for any producer of sexually explicit materials to refuse inspection of its records (Title V).  Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the production of obscene materials for sale or distribution in interstate commerce (previous law prohibited the transportation, distribution, and sale of such materials (Title V).  Record-keeping requirements under 2257 now apply to secondary producers, and apply to the producers of digitally created or computer manipulated explicit sexual activities where those depicted are actually human beings (Title V).

The Tier System  AWA creates a three tier system (Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III).  Tier I offenders must register annually for 15 years.  Tier II offenders must report every six months for 25 years.  Tier III offenders must report every 90 days for life.  Classification is mechanically assigned based upon the offense convicted, not on the likelihood of the individual to re-offend.

Tier I – Federal and Ohio  Tier I – Federal  Sex offenders other than Tier II or Tier III sex offenders.  Tier I – Ohio  Offenses including:  Importuning  Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if the offender is less than 4 years older and has no previous conviction of certain crimes.  Voyeurism  Sexual Imposition  Gross Sexual Imposition  Illegal Use of a minor in nudity-oriented material/performance  Child enticement with sexual motivation (New)  Pandering obscenity (new)  Menacing by stalking with sexual motivation (New)  Unlawful restraint with sexual motivation (New)  Child-victim offender not in Tier II or Tier III

Tier II – Federal  Tier II – Federal  Offenses punishable by more than 1 year imprisonment, including:  Sex trafficking  Coercion and enticement  Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity  Abusive sexual contact  Solicitation to practice prostitution  Possession or production of child pornography  An offense committed after Tier I classification

Tier II – Ohio  Tier II – Ohio  Offenses including:  Compelling prostitution  Pandering obscenity involving a minor  Pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor  Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance  Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when the offender is at least 4 years older OR has a prior conviction of certain crimes  Gross sexual imposition, victim under 13  Child Endangering  Kidnapping with sexual motivation  Kidnapping, victim over 18  Abduction with sexual motivation (New)  Any sexual offense that occurs after the offender has been classified as a Tier I offender  Pre-AWA Habitual offenders, unless re-classified after hearing

Tier III – Federal  Tier III – Federal  Offenses punishable by more than 1 year imprisonment, including:  Sexual abuse  Abusive sexual contact against a minor under 13  Conduct involving kidnapping a minor  Offense committed after Tier II classification

Tier III – Ohio  Tier III – Ohio  Offenses including:  Rape  Sexual battery  Aggravated murder with sexual motivation  Murder with sexual motivation  Unlawful death or termination of pregnancy as a result of committing or attempting to commit a felony with sexual motivation  Kidnapping of a minor, not by parent  Kidnapping of a minor to engage in sexual activity  Felonious Assault with sexual motivation  Pre-AWA predators unless re-classified after hearing  Any sexual offense that occurs after the offender is classified as a Tier II or III offender.

Ohio – Juvenile Registrants  AWA defines “convicted” to include certain juvenile adjudications  Applies to juveniles 14 or older  SB 10 creates a new definition: “Public Registry-Qualified Juvenile Offender Registrant (PRQJOR), which includes juveniles adjudicated delinquent of rape, sexual battery, aggravated murder, murder or kidnapping with sexual motivation  PRQJOR are Tier III offenders who appear on the website under the same conditions as adults  PRQJOR = lifetime registration; unlike other juveniles adjudicated delinquent in the Tier system, unable to petition for re-classification or de-classification.

Ohio – Juvenile Registrants  SB 10  Non-PRQJOR juveniles retain the same hearing rights and process as previously existed under Ohio Juvenile Law, including:  Mandatory and discretionary classification  Mandatory hearing after completion of disposition  Eligibility for reclassification or declassification (cannot be bumped up a tier)  Ability to petition for reclassification or declassification

Ohio – Reduction for Clean Record  The new classification system does not analyze the individual offender’s likelihood of re-offense. Only in two instances can a registration period for an “eligible offender” be reduced.  SB 10 defines “eligible offender” as one who has:  No criminal offenses, except minor traffic infractions;  Completed sex offender treatment program  Paid financial sanction.  Tier I adults  possibility of 5 year registration reduction (10 year reporting period).  Tier III PRQJOR juveniles  possibility of reducing lifetime reporting to 25 years.

Failure to Comply  AWA requires that the penalty for failure to register shall have at least a maximum sentence of more than 1 year imprisonment  In Ohio, all failure to register offenses must at least be a felony of the 4 th degree (see SB 97)

Ohio’s Registry  Former registry contained most of the required registration elements. Additions:  Text of offense, supervision status, criminal history  DNA: indicate in registry that the sample has been taken and entered in CODIS database  Fingerprints and palm prints: digital or links to database  Temporary lodging information  Passports

Constitutional Problems  Retroactivity: US AG issued a rule making AWA retroactive; SB 10 incorporates the retroactive aspect of AWA  “Super Retroactivity” in the AWA guidelines = person who has been convicted of a sex crime, is no longer in the system, and later commits a non-sex crime, is required to register.  Super Retroactivity is not incorporated in SB 10  Due Process: SB 10 gives registrants the right to a hearing to challenge classification, but the right is limited to challenges of application and improper tier classification.  Separation of Powers: SB 10 allowed Ohio AG, not a court, to recategorize exsiting offenders into new tier system  Ex Post Facto/Cruel and Unusual Punishment: But only if registration is punitive and not remedial!

Court Developments - Ohio  State v. Bodyke, 2010-Ohio-2424 (June 3, 2010) Reclassification provisions allowing AG to reclassify Megan’s Law sex offenders into SB 10 tier system violated separation of powers. Megan’s Law registration requirement is final judgment that cannot be reopened by the AG. Silent as to impact of SB 10 on pre-Megan’s Law offenders or offenders not required to register pre-SB 10 but reclassified by AG. Reclassification provisions severed, but remainder of SB 10 left in tact.  State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-3374 (July 13, 2011) Retroactive application of SB 10 declared unconstitutional under Ohio Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws. Unlike its predecessor, SB 10 is punitive rather than remedial. SB 10 requires in-person registration with law enforcement in various jurisdictions (home, work, school, travel); community notification is expanded; residency restrictions apply prospectively; unlimited residency verification by sheriff. Because SB 10 imposes automatic, offense- specific registration duties, it is not remedial or intended to protect the public, but constitutes punishment that cannot be applied retroactively.

Court Developments - Ohio (con’t)  In Re C.P., 2012-Ohio-1446 (Ohio Apr. 3, 2012) Lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles violates 8 th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment provision and constitutional right to due process. CP, age 15, was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping and labeled a public-registry-qualified juvenile offender registrant (PRQJOR), thus automatically subject to lifetime registration. Citing recent US Sup Ct precedent limiting life sentences for juveniles (Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida), the Ohio Sup Ct found lifetime registration to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Numerous states refused to adopt AWA due to its stringent juvenile registration requirements, evidence of evolving standards of decency regarding juvenile sex offenders. Lifetime registration requirement also violated due process by mandating that juvenile courts label certain delinquent youth as PRQJOR’s.

Court Developments – Ohio (con’t)  In Re Bruce S., 2012-Ohio-5696 (Dec. 6, 2012) Sex offender registration cannot be applied to a defendant who committed a sex offense between July 1, 2007 (repeal of Megan’s Law) and January 1, 2008 (effective date of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act/SB10). Under State v. Williams, SB 10 cannot apply retroactively. Since Megan’s Law was repealed at the time of the crime, Bruce S. cannot be forced to register. Note: Case proceeds in pseudonym to protect Bruce S.’s privacy interest in not registering.

Court Developments – Federal  US v. Parks, 698 F.3d 1 (1 st Cir. 2012); US v. Young, 585 F.3d 199 (5 th Cir. 2009); US v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7 th Cir. 2011); United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8 th Cir. 2008); ACLU of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046 (9 th Cir. 2012); US v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10 th Cir. 2008); US v. WBH, 664 F.3d 848 (11 th Cir. 2011) Adam Walsh Act/state equivalent does not constitute punishment and therefore does not violate ex post facto and/or double jeopardy (follows Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).

Ohio vs. the Federal Courts Where do we go next?