sex offender law, Adam Walsh Act, SORNA, sex offender registry

OH: Franklin County Judge Rules Against Adam Walsh Act

Columbus Dispatch ( Columbus OH) : Franklin County Judge Rules Parts of Adam Walsh Act Unconstitutional.

"I anticipate that one or both of the parties in the case will appeal," Judge Schneider said. "It won't rest until the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court rules on this decision. So, I encourage them to appeal. Only the Supreme Court can render the ultimate decision."

Under the Adam Walsh Act, which took effect Jan. 1, 2008 in Ohio, Plaintiff Toles was reclassified as a Tier III offender, requiring him to register quarterly for the rest of his life. He also became subject to community notification, under which the sheriff is required to notify his neighbors and others in the community of his residence.

Schneider ruled that Toles, 38, is not subject to community notification because a hearing at the time of his conviction determined he was not a sexual predator.

The judge also ruled that much of the information required on the registration form under the new law posed an unreasonable burden in Toles' case, such as license-plate numbers of vehicles available to him, where those vehicles are usually kept, telephone numbers he uses, and "any other information required by (the state Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) without limitation."

"How does anyone know what telephone numbers he might use?" Schneider wrote. "Most troubling is the open invitation to BCI to add additional requirements without limitation."

Although Schneider's ruling applies only to Toles, Skendelas expects it to be "persuasive" when other Franklin County judges consider similar cases. The county public defender's office is handling more than 500 challenges to the law, he said.
Read this court decision here, or here.


Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County Ohio, Judge Schneider (9 Sept 2008):

The issue before the court was the plaintiff's requirement to register to satisfy the requirements of the new Adam Walsh Act law (Senate Bill 10), and the County Sheriff's obligation of community notification.

The challenge was based on the constitutional violation of the law with respect to The Ohio Constitution, which prohibits any law from being passed retrospectively (or retro-actively) This prohibition is also included in the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. (see related case State of Ohio v. Cook 1998 )

Judge Schneider found that the law was applied retrospectively but he failed to recognize that the new requirements of reporting were substantive (i.e. punishment, burdensome). This is a failure that has been seen in other courts. Judges are unable to understand the burdensome nature of the new law's reporting requirements.

Judge Schneider did however recognize as burdensome, some of the requirements of the new law which would require reporting of previously-not required information (travel documents, social security number, license plate of vehicles owned or used by offender, where vehicles are parked, photographs of such vehicles, professional licenses or permits, email addresses, telephone numbers, internet identifiers, and "any other information required by BCI (Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) without limitation").

Furthermore, the Judge wrote that the change in classification imposes burden to the offender in restricting their ability to move without stigma and burden. Judge Schneider writes "This court concludes that these requirements constitute a new affirmative disability or restraint".

The Court finds that "the new registration requirements go way beyond the limits of the requirements considered by the Ohio v. Cook court. Pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act, the new registration requirements are much more detailed , much more burdensome and much less narrowly tailored and apply to all classifications of sex offenders. In fact, it is impossible for this Court of anyone else to determine exactly what the requirements are because the statute authorizes "any other information required by the bureau of criminal identification and investigation".

Judge Schneider concludes: "Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the additional registration requirements beyond frequency and duration ... are clearly punitive in their effect and therefore violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

Regarding re-classification, the Court holds "that if a previously convicted sex offender had the benefit of a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2950.09 and was found by a court not to be a sexual predator, the community notification provisions of R.C. 2950.11 do not apply." Judge Schneider continued in writing that "an offender who has been adjudged as not being a sexual predator has an expectation that he could make decision based on that finding."

sex offender law, Adam Walsh Act, SORNA, sex offender registry

A Solicitation to All Legislators and Political Candidates

ConstitutionalFights will soon be publishing a series of articles which will discuss the official stances of any political candidate or elected political official with regard to the Adam Walsh Act / SORNA laws (including state laws).

Accordingly, we invite any state, local or federal politician, legislator or candidate to submit their stance in 800 words or less.

All on-point comments submitted by any candidate or politician with the courage to submit their stance on these laws will be posted. Editing will be made only if submissions exceed 800 words.

As the November 2008 Elections quickly approach, this is an opportunity for active and voting citizens to learn about where our prospective politicians stand on this critical issue.

We at ConstitutionalFights publish facts and information about these laws, and our mission is to inform citizens about the Adam Walsh Act /SORNA laws along with other sex offender registration and related laws. We have already had over 7600 total blog views and approximately 100 page views each day for the past two months.

Submissions should be emailed this week to
sex offender law, Adam Walsh Act, SORNA, sex offender registry

Issues of cost, content arise over sex offender registry (Vermont) : Issues of cost, content arise over state's sex offender registry.

MONTPELIER – Under the provisions of a new federal act, Vermont stands to lose up to $35,000 in government funding if it doesn't expand its Internet sex offender registry. But officials say the changeover would add about 2,000 new names to the list – and cost upwards of $3 million to implement.

The new act has also spawned a philosophical debate about which offenders belong on the publicly accessible Internet sex offender registry. "I think it's a good idea to have a uniform system, and I support the idea in principle," said Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But we believe this thing is a little more complex than what first met the eye, and we're going to have to take a hard look at whether we should comply, given that it may cost millions to do so."

Vermont has about 2,400 sex offenders on its statewide registry, but only about 400 meet the threshold required to land on the more public Internet registry. Under the Adam Walsh Act, all 2,400 offenders would likely appear online, because federal guidelines use an "offense-based" classification system to assess risk into a three-tier hierarchy.

Anyone convicted of those crimes – even non-contact mis-demeanors – would appear on the registry for anywhere from 15 years to life, depending on the offense. Vermont, conversely, uses a "risk-based" system that relies on a number of different criteria. And lawmakers and policy makers have thus far reserved the Internet registry for only the more serious offenders.

"I think the committee is in agreement that we ought to expand the Internet registry, but I think it's going to be up to the Legislature, the administration, and perhaps ultimately the courts to decide whether we can comply with this federal act," Sears said.

The Vermont Department of State's Attorneys and the office of the Defender General have said an expanded registry could lead to millions of dollars in additional legal costs for the state, mainly because offenders would prove less amenable to plea deals if the conviction meant a slot on the Internet sex offender registry.

The office of the Defender General estimated it would need an additional $1.8 million if the new registry standards were enacted. The Department of State's Attorneys pegged first-year costs at more than a half-million dollars. An official from the Department of Public Safety, which oversees the registry, said the state is capable of meeting the new federal requirements, but that would necessitate two additional employees and new computer software, estimated to cost a total of $350,000 in the first year.

Juvenile offenders as young as 14 also would qualify for the Internet registry for extreme offenses.
"The question ought to be what makes sense for Vermont and how far do we go?" Sears said. "Should people who had a statutory rape conviction be on there for life? Or someone who committed a non-contact offense? These are some of the issues we need to think about.