The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), became law July 27, 2006. It requires all sex offenders to register. As part of the registration they must provide their name, address, business address, and school status. Everyone who has been convicted of certain sex offenses must register, regardless of whether the conviction predated or post-dated SORNA’s passage.

Those who are convicted after SORNA’s passage must register before getting out of custody. Those who are not given a jail sentence must register within three days of the conviction. The law does not specify when those who were convicted prior to the passage of SORNA must register. Rather the law authorizes the attorney general to determine the specific registration conditions for pre-enactment convictions.

The question before the Supreme Court this week in Reynolds v. United States is a rather limited one. But it has created a fair amount of debate among the courts of appeal which have spit their decisions. It is whether those convicted prior to the attorney general issuing his specifications had to register after the passage of the act but before the attorney general issued his specifications.

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no requirement for pre-enactment convictions to register prior to the isuance of the attorney general’s specifications. Since the attorney general must set the registration specification for a subset of those required to register (pre-enactment convictions) the court found it reasonable to believe that the condition for the attorney general to set the registration specifications modified the registration requirement for pre-enactment convictions. SORNA attempts to unify many different state registration laws. Different states require different people to register and provide time periods for this to happen. According to the Supreme Court, Congress could have felt that by putting off pre-enactment conviction from having to register until after the specifications were issued many problems could be avoided. Finally Congress did not specify a time line for pre-enactment registration it only reasonable to wait until after the attorney general general’s specifications are listed to require registration for pre-enactrment convictions.

Brian Charles Olinger plead guilty in 2009 to failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison and 120 months of supervised release. Among the conditions of his release were that he not view pornography and that he not use a computer with internet access.

While checking on another sex offender who stayed in the same hostel as Olinger resided at probation officers learned that Olinger had access to a computer that might have pornography on it. The officers seized the computer and found approximately 1500 pornographic images, including around 200 images of child pornography on it. The probation officer filed a petition alleging numerous violations of the supervised release. Olinger eventually admitted to three violations: accessing a computer with internet access without the permission of his probation officer, associating with a felon and possession of alcohol. He was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and 120 months of supervised release. It was admitted that the government could not prove that he viewed the pornography. At least three other people had access to the computer and while there was evidence pointing to his viewing the pornography it could not be proved.

He appealed on both procedural and substantive grounds. Substantively he argued that the sentence was too long since the sentence was three times the minimum sentence. The court found the violations of his supervised release to be serious and it noted that the computer had pornography on it. The appellate court could not find an abuse of discretion on the part of the District Court judge and did not find a substantive violation. The procedural violations were reviewed for plain error since Olinger did not object at sentencing.

Procedurally Olinger claimed that the court wrongly based its sentence on factors listed in 18 USC § 3553(a)(2)(A) instead of 18 USC § 3553(a)(1). Section 3553(a)(2)(A) deals with the seriousness of the offense while § 3553(a)(1) deals with a breach of trust. However Olinger did not convince the court that the trial court emphasized the seriousness of the offense. One of the factors under § 3553(a)(1) is the nature and circumstances of the offense. This may well be what the court was referring to. As a result the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sentence, finding neither procedural or substantive error.

A convicted sex offender in New Mexico has been arrested and is facing three years in prison for moving out of a dumpster and into an abandoned apartment. The law in New Mexico requires sex offenders to have a physical address and to notify the authorities within ten days of moving. That means it is illegal to be homeless and be a sex offender in New Mexico. ¹ In California where the laws forbid sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of any school or park it is very difficult to find any place that sex offenders can live, forcing them to be homeless. In San Francisco 80 per cent of sex offenders are homeless. Thus we force sex offenders to be homeless and then we punish them for being homeless. Great laws we have!

Federal sentencing is a complicated area of law. The Guidelines which are voluntary but must be considered consist of a numerical evaluation of the person’s criminal history and of the crime. In United States v. Conca the Second Circuit Court of Appeals faced a few of the problems found in determining criminal history.

Marc Conca plead guilty to failure to register as a sex offender when traveling from one state to another state. He traveled from Texas to Oklahoma to New York and probably a few other states in between without notifying the Texas authorities of his addresses in each and without registering in each state. The base level for the offense is 19. The probation Department in its Presentence Report recommended that twelve points be given for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (3 points), False Written Statement (1 point), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (1 point), Burglary (2 points), Petit Larceny (1 point), Felony Sexual Assault (3 points), and Unauthorized Use of Motor Vehicle (1 point). In addition it recommended that he receive another two points since the offense occurred within two years of his being released from prison. This put him in criminal history category six with a range of 63 t0 78 months. The court imposed a 78 month sentence.

On appeal he challenged the possession of stolen property allegation which occurred when he was sixteen and which was adjudicated as a youthful offender and a six level enhancement (part of the base level points) for committing a rape while in failure to register status.

He objected to the rape because at the time of the sentencing charges were pending in Oklahoma and he had not been convicted. Two police officers testified at the sentencing. While the evidence was hearsay the appellate court upheld the District Court’s decision that their was sufficient evidence to convince the District Court of the rape. As to the possession of stolen property his probation had been revoked and he had been sentenced as an adult. As a result the court was within its power to consider the prior as an adult prior and assess him criminal history points.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). is sure a full employment act for lawyers and judges. In the four and a half years since its enactment there have been numerous challenges to various parts of the act and we have not seen the end of it yet. SORNA attempts to insure that registration requirements are followed wherever a person required to register travels within the country.

Last week the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals answered a number of questions about the act in United States v. Johnson. However as more circuits weigh in on various issues the splits become apparent and we can expect more questions to be submitted to the Supreme Court.

Johnson was convicted in Mississippi in 1995 of gratification of lust. ¹Gratification of lust is a sex crime requiring registration in Mississippi. Under SORNA, registration requirement follows you wherever you travel in the country.

He moved to Iowa and registered but he failed to register when he moved back to Mississippi in 2008. The following year he was convicted of failure to comply with SORNA

On appeal he raised seven issues: 1) lack of notice, 2) that SORNA exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, 3) that giving authority to the Attorney General to decide whether to make it retroactive to cover acts occurring prior to its enactment violates the Non-delegation Doctrine, 4) “that the retroactive application of SORNA violates
the Ex Post Facto Clause because it is punitive, non-civil, and exposes him to criminal prosecution for non-compliance, 5) that he cannot be convicted under the act because Mississippi has not enacted SORNA compliance legislation, 6) requiring the state to enforce Federal law violates the Tenth Amendment, and 7} the Attorney General violated the Administrative Procedures Act in developing regulations for the enforcement of the law on people convicted of sex crimes prior to the passage of the act.

Having considered some of the issues previously, the court only gave serious consideration to the last two issues. The Tenth Amendment by reserving certain rights to the states prevents the Federal government from directing the states to follow Federal law. However SORNA does not require the states to comply. By forfeiting ten percent of their Federal Criminal Justice allotment they can opt out of the program.

While the Fifth Circuit found that the Attorney General violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not waiting 30 days after publication of the regulation and by not obtaining comments prior to enactment of the regulations without good cause the court found the failure did not prejudice Johnson since the results would have been the same if the Attorney General had complied with the act.

William S. MacDonald was convicted for sodomy in 2005 in Virginia. The law bans oral and anal sex between consenting adults. The age of consent in Virginia is 15. The court found that he had sex with two female co-workers aged 16 and 17. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison with 17 of those years stayed.

A similar sodomy law in Texas was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003. At the time everyone thought that the Supreme Court action would affect the Virginia law and those of other states that banned sodomy. But thus far MacDonald’s efforts to clear his record have been rebuffed since the Supreme Court exempted cases involving minors in Lawrence v. Texas However this leads to a confusing situation. Since the Virginia age of consent is 15 enforcing the anti-sodomy acts against those that have anal or oral sex with 16 and 17 year olds does not make vaginal sex with 16 and 17 year olds illegal. The California Supreme Court has ruled that making anal and oral sex illegal while allowing vaginal sex violates equal protection. The Constitution’s equal protection clause prohibits making illegal one activity and allowing another when there is no rational reason to differentiate between two similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.

While waiting for a Supreme Court decision on whether to hear the case MacDonald is subject to Jessica’s Law. He told the New York Times that he is unable to live with his wife and he is forced to be homeless.

The sodomy law appears to be aimed particularly at Gay and Lesbian citizens since it does not ban male/female vaginal sex. But as in MacDonald’s case it can be used against consenting heterosexuals also. No doubt it was used in this case because of the 25 year difference between MacDonald and the two teenagers. ¹

A Texas mother is accused of sexting a sixteen year old son of a friend. It is alleged that Lori Darling David texted two nude pictures of herself to the young man. For this she is facing twenty years in prison.

Find Law makes light of what I and I suspect most people would consider an outrageous sentence by pointing out that most people in the woman’s situation enter into a plea bargain under which they do not spend any time in prison. Well of course, if we consider the woman to be innocent until proven guilty as we must under our system of law, she is put into an impossible situation. She can either plead guilty, knowing that she is innocent and not be sent to prison or she can throw the dice and go to trial knowing that if she is found guilty she might get twenty years. If convicted at trial and perhaps even if she enters into a plea bargain she might be facing a lifetime registration requirement which may come with residential limitations preventing her from living anywhere near a school or a park where children play.

The Texas legislature is considering legislation that will make sexting a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of one year in jail. But this law may not help David since it will be aimed only at minors. While it may be more offensive when adult sext minors it is still not worth twenty years in prison and the law should be changed for all.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia has joined a number of other courts in finding that attaching a GPS device to a car while it is parked on public property and maintaining contact with the car while a suspect is driving it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

David L. Foltz is a convicted sex offender. He was employed and used a company truck in the course of his employment. He had permission to use the truck to drive to and from work and to stop to go to treatment meetings on his way home. The police knew that there was a series of sexual assaults in the area around his work and his meetings. They further knew that the modus operandi was similar to that used by Foltz in the past.

They attached a GPS unit under the bumper while the car was parked on the street near Foltz’s residence. The unit had the power to keep track of his travel and and to allow the police to track the vehicle in real time.

Five days later a sexual assault occurred. The police checked the GPS log and discovered that the truck was in the area of the crime. The following day they followed the van without using the GPS. They saw Foltz attempt to assault a woman and arrested him.

He was charged with abduction with intent to defile. He moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The motion was denied. He went to trial and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal the court upheld the denial of the suppression motion. The United State Supreme Court in United States v. Karo held in 1984 that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a supplier to put a beeper in an ether container and for the police to follow the vehicle by using the beeper.

The Virgina court and several other courts have found Karo to be precedent. They ruled that if it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to place a beeper in an ether container and follow the vehicle using the beeper, it is not a violation to attach a beeper to the bumper and electronically follow the vehicle. In both cases electronic devices are being use to accomplish a task that could be done with human eyes. If Foltz drove the truck where he could have been followed by the police in an unmarked vehicle then tracking the vehicle with an electronic device is not a violation of Foltz’s Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

The test for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. While Foltz parked his car on the street, I suspect that if he knew that a GPS device was being attached to the vehicle he would have believed that his privacy was being violated. In fact, if I looked out my window and saw someone putting something under my bumper I would not only think that my privacy was being violated but I may think that it was a bomb and call the police. Certainly, if Foltz parked his car in his garage and officers entered the garage to place the GPS device on the vehicle we would all agree that Foltz had a legitimate expectation of privacy and that the government violated it. But because Foltz is not wealthy enough to have a garage the court finds that he does not have a legimate expectation of privacy. A Fourth Amendment right should not be based upon the wealth or poverty of the defendant.

But what I don’t understand is in many states, including Virginia, a defendant can be required to surrender his/her Fourth Amendment rights in order to be put on probation. If Foltz had been required to surrender his Fourth Amendment rights when he was put on probation prior to his current arrest he would not have been able to move to suppress the evidence and the GPS issue would not have been raised. In many states new laws mandate that sex offenders must wear a electronic monitor at all times allowing the authorities to keep track of them. Apparently this was not the law in Virginia at the time of Foltz’s arrest but it is certainly becoming more common. We will no doubt be seeing cases challenging these laws on Fourth Amendment grounds in the future.

The United States Supreme Court reversed a conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). SORNA, passed by Congress in 2006 makes state sex offenders registration laws more uniform and effective. It makes it a Federal crime for 1) people who are required to register as a sex offender to (2) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, and (3) knowingly fail to register or update a registration.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a conviction could be upheld even though the required travel occurred prior to the passage of the act as long as the defendant had sufficient time after the passage of the act to register. The Supreme Court ruled that since the restriction on interstate travel only affects those who are required to register and since the Federal requirement to register did not occur before the passage of the act in 2006, the travel had to occur after the act’s passage. Furthermore the act uses the present tense to indicate the travel requirement and Congress thereby indicated that the travel that the travel could not occur before the act was imposed.

In May 2004 Thomas Carr plead guilty to first-degree sexual abuse in Alabama. Later that year or in the beginning of 2005 he moved to Indiana and failed to comply with Indiana’s registration requirements. Even though SORNA did not take effect until 2006 the United States Attorney charged him with violating the act when he failed to register after the act took effect. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction based on the pre-enactment travel and the Supreme Court reversed.

By holding that the law requires that the travel occur after the enactment of the act the Court avoided considering whether or not the law violated the Constitution’s ex post facto clause which bans punishing people for acts committed before a law is passed making the act illegal.

In either case the decision is for the best. Otherwise people could be punished for acts that occurred many years ago. State registration statutes have been in effect for many years and the states are capable of punishing people who failed to register prior to 2006.

In 2006 Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The act requires among other things that youth as young as fourteen years register, often for life, following a conviction or a juvenile adjudication for certain sex offenses. it also mandates the publication on the internet of specific information about certain sex offenders including their addresses.

A study by the Associated Press found as to juveniles convicted of registrable offenses the law has not been fully implemented in most jurisdictions. Twenty-one states, according to the study, now require juveniles to register as sex offenders and another nineteen state require them to register if they are convicted as adults. The law is quite complicated and Ohio is the only state fully in compliance. Other states risk loosing Federal funds to support criminal justice programs.

Part of the problem is that states vary in their perception of the need to require juveniles to register as sex offenders. Sex offender registrants often have trouble getting jobs, finding housing, and blending into society. This is particularly true now that the names of registrants are available on the internet.

Long term registration may be appropriate for those who are uncurable. But many experts in the field feel that juveniles can be rehabilitated and registration only makes it more difficult. There is the case of the sixteen year old Iowa boy who was required to register after having sex with a thirteen year old girl. Such behavior is not necessarily proof of a long term sex offender requiring lifetime registration.