By Jon Cruz . . . My SORA hearing has come and gone, and it would be an understatement to say it went very well. New York is one of relatively few states not to classify people required to register for past sexual offenses through an automatic rubric; it conducts a hearing to determine one’s “risk level” to the community. Judge Robert McDonald denied the People’s request for a spurious upward departure and commented, after noting my various good works, “That departure is not warranted because the aggravating circumstances alleged by the People, in my belief, are not the kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines, and I also believe that in weighing these aggravating factors, I also have to weigh the mitigating factors.”

In short, stripped of the mandatory legalese, His Honor judged me as a complete person. And I am grateful for it, because such hearings, conducted before elected judges on the local level, are often summary affairs with preordained conclusions. I was assigned to an excellent jurist who read every submission, listened to every witness, and weighed the evidence in front of him.

“None of us have a crystal ball,” he said. “None of us can say what’s going to happen in the future. But it strikes me that there’s very little else that this man could have done to show that he has been rehabilitated than what he has done.”

And with that, after an hour-and-a-half of proceedings, including a surreal My Cousin Vinny-style moment where my attorney and employer, the redoubtable Steve Zissou, insisted on taking the stand himself as a witness on my behalf, His Honor gave me the mildest branding: a Level One.

During my time as a federal prisoner at FCI Danbury, I was the “Grade 1” of the library work detail—prison argot for the head librarian—overseeing both the leisure and law libraries. I assisted inmates with developing literacy skills, prepared legal documents free of charge, taught courses in history and law and public speaking, tutored inmates who were seeking their GEDs, and helped inmates rebuild ties with estranged family members. Over one hundred inmates submitted testimonials on my behalf for my hearing in addition to the testimonials that were submitted by supporters here on the outside. And after my release, Steve, who had represented me so capably after my arrest, asked me to come work for him to help defend the rights and dignity of others.

Judge McDonald considered these facts, in addition to the facts of my crime. I am grateful. When we approach my federal judge to ask for an early termination of my supervised release, Judge McDonald’s findings from my SORA hearing will help. And so, again, I am grateful.

As a Level One registrant, I must be on the New York State registry for “merely” twenty years; the clock began upon my release, so I have about eighteen years and three months to go. I will, however, still need to be conscious of each state’s registry laws for the rest of my life. This is not a “red state” or “blue state” issue. Twenty-eight states and territories require registration for visits of less than seven days. Some require it for less than three days.

I will also have a seal on my passport for the rest of my life—or until the Supreme Court recognizes how grotesque this law, passed unanimously by Congress, is. The last society to place an identifying marker for an undesirable class on a passport was . . . yes, you guessed it: Nazi Germany. Should I wish to travel to another country, I must notify Uncle Sam in advance so the special agency established by said law—the “Angel Watch Center,” perhaps the most Orwellian name I’ve ever heard—can notify the other country that I am planning to travel there and tell them all sorts of terrible things about me.

But I am hopeful. I have long believed the debate over the justice of gay marriage and the debate over the injustice of sex offender registries are analogous in that opinions change when people realize they know someone who is personally affected by an issue. Eventually, society will change on the question because, the way things are going, before too much longer every person in the United States will know someone on the registry.

The post A day and a life to celebrate first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry . . . NARSOL is excited to report on a win in the case of Montana v. Richard Hinman. We just learned of the case although it was decided on June 14, 2023. The question and issue before the court was:  Did retroactive application of the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act violate the prohibition against ex post facto punishment in Article II, Section 31, of the Montana Constitution?

The case arose from an appeal filed by Richard Hinman. Hinman appealed an order entered in a trial court in 2019. The district court denied Hinman’s motion to dismiss the charge against him for failure to register. Hinman was convicted of an offense in 1994 and discharged his sentence. At the time, Montana’s Sexual Offender Registration Act, now known as the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) required Hinman to maintain registration for ten years and only to submit an annual verification through mail. As is so common in most states, the Montana Legislature amended the SVORA requirements to include more onerous steps and applied them retroactively to previously convicted registrants. When Hinman was charged with failure to register in 2019, he argued that the charges should be dismissed because the amended SVORA requirements had evolved and now rendered the statute an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. After the district court denied Hinman’s motion, he pled guilty to the charge while reserving his right to appeal.

States appear to be unable to help themselves, continually piling on more requirements that transform what was originally a relatively benign regulatory system into something clearly punitive. In 2003, the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision finding that the intent and effect of SVORA was not to punish people convicted of sexual offenses. Rather, the Act served as a regulatory scheme collecting and disseminating information meant to reduce recidivism and help the public mitigate potential harms State v. Mount, 2003, 317 Mont. 481, 78 P.3d 829. The court gave a passing nod to the inclusion of reducing recidivism as part of the purpose of SVORA, writing “[A] growing body of research into the effectiveness of sex offender registries has cast significant doubt on their capacity to prevent recidivism” and citing a 2013 study Opinion at 14.

It should be noted that Hinman had pled guilty to a registry violation and paid a fine prior to this case. In 2019, Hinman again faced a charge of failure to register. By that time, the SVORA scheme had grown yet further. There had been amendments in 2007, 2013, 2015, and 2017.

Those amendments included many new obligations for Level 2 offenders such as Hinman. This is a far different registry than what was originally enacted back in 1994, as shown here.

• Originally the person was automatically removed after 10 years from initial registration. Now 25 years must pass without a re-offense or failure to register before they can petition for removal from the registry, and Level 3 offenders cannot petition for removal at all.
• Registrants must now supply law enforcement with DNA samples, email addresses, social media names, vehicle descriptions, license plate numbers, social security numbers, and workplace and school addresses.
• Law enforcement is empowered to supply most of that information to the public.
• Registrants must now update their address, work, and school information within three days of a change.
• All updates as well as periodic verifications and new photographs must now be conducted in-person with law enforcement.
• Transient registrants must now check in with law enforcement monthly.
• Any time registrants leave their county of residence for more than 10 days, they now must re-register in whatever county they travel to and re-register upon returning home.

Hinman challenged his 2019 charge “. . . on the grounds that our earlier reasoning about the nonpunitive nature of SVORA no longer holds true today” Opinion at 5. The court noted Hinman cited a growing body of caselaw in other jurisdictions regarding the constitutionality of applying similar laws retroactively, and he pointed to the breadth of collateral consequences for SVORA registrants that are apparent today but did not exist or were not well understood in 1989 or 2003. The State argued that the court should hold fast to State v. Mount (2003) and maintain its reasoning and outcome as applied to the present SVORA provisions and Hinman’s case. The court stated, “The basis for our analysis of whether the present SVORA is punitive does not arise in a vacuum but rather exists within a larger jurisprudential context. Mount, for example, found its footing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning about an Alaskan sex offender registration law. [That case is Smith v. Doe.] In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Alaska’s law did not violate the ex post facto clause in the federal constitution because it was not punitive. Later the same year, Mount addressed Montana’s SVORA, which was then relatively similar to the Alaskan law. In that decision, we explicitly adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s analytical framework and the ‘intents-effects’ test” Opinion at 7-8. In Mount, the Montana Supreme Court reasoned that a scheme which merely increases the accessibility of already-public criminal records information and requires those with such records to periodically mail in address verification is not as onerous as criminal punishment and can fall on the civil regulation side of the line. The court stated, “Our analysis in Mount of whether SVORA imposed an affirmative restraint or disability on registrants noted that verification by mail is a minor and indirect restraint and does not affect someone’s physical movement” Opinion at 9.

The court continued, “It is one thing to have your already public criminal record made more accessible and to periodically update your address with the record-keepers. It is another to be placed under a probationary surveillance system in perpetuity which is designed to facilitate social ostracism. It defies common sense and sound judgment not to view the latter situation, the SVORA scheme since 2007, as punishment for a person’s sexual crime.  All the features of the Act that supported our decision in Mount have changed dramatically since the law’s amendments in 2007, 2013, 2015, and 2017” Opinion at 10-11. “We conclude that the SVORA structure in place since 2007 is punitive and therefore cannot apply retroactively under the ex post facto clause. Unlike the pre-2007 SVORA, the law today places onerous, life-long, affirmative restraints on registrants that significantly hinder their liberty and deprive them of privacy…”  Opinion at 15.

NARSOL is elated with this outcome, and we look forward to more legal victories using similar arguments.

Larry is an authority in legal issues, legislative affairs, and policy.

The post Awesome victory in Montana first appeared on NARSOL.

By Trevor Baratko . . . A former Fauquier County Public Schools middle school teacher indicted for felony counts of carnal knowledge involving a minor has had her charges reduced to misdemeanors. She will not spend time behind bars and will not be required to register as a sex offender. . . .

[She] had been scheduled to go to trial later this month for the four felony counts.

Under terms of the late July plea agreement, [She] pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency charges. For each count, she was sentenced to 12 months incarceration with all but 14 days suspended. . . .

[She] will also pay a fine of $1,400 ($140 suspended) for each of the four misdemeanor counts. Additional requirements, per the plea agreement, state that she will be on supervised probation for one year . . .  will perform 14 hours of community service . . . and have no contact with the victim or the victim’s immediate family. She will complete a restorative justice program . . . submit to a mental health evaluation . . . and not be employed as a tutor of any minor child.

“The defendant understands that upon conviction of the offenses herein, she will not be ordered to register as a sex offender,” the plea agreement filed in Fauquier County Circuit Court states.

You may read the full piece at Inside NoVa, Woodbridge, VA

The post Restorative justice at work first appeared on NARSOL.

By Levi Ismail . . . It’s costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars as more people file lawsuits claiming they shouldn’t be restricted by a registry that didn’t exist when they were convicted.

Dozens of people have since been removed from the registry as a result, with dozens more potentially on the way.

Thomas spent more than 20 years on Tennessee’s Sex Offender Registry but now considers himself a free man. We’ve agreed to stick with first names for his protection.

The post Tennessee releasing ex-post facto registrants only through lawsuits first appeared on NARSOL.

By Bobby Harrison . . . A  three-judge panel of the United States 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down Mississippi’s lifetime ban on voting for people convicted of certain felonies, saying it is unconstitutional because it inflicts cruel and unusual punishment.

In a 2-1 ruling released Friday, the panel sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan III in the Southern District of Mississippi with instructions to find the state’s lifetime ban on voting to be unconstitutional.

The majority said, “By severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 (the lifetime ban provision of the state Constitution) ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the terms their culpability requires and serves no protective function to society. It is thus a cruel and unusual punishment.”

Read the remainder of the article at Mississippi Today.

The post Lifetime voting ban for certain offenses declared unconstitution by Fifth Circuit first appeared on NARSOL.

Notice anything different? Check out our brand-new and improved website; we hope you like what you see!

This has been a work in progress for some time now, and we are very excited to get it up and running. The tech committee and some very talented volunteers have been working diligently, and thanks go out to the site www team for a job well done.

As you can tell, this is a complete makeover of our website.

The logo is new but you can still see our trademark eclipse with the sun peeking out, showing hope in the face of darkness. It is designed to be usable in many different sizes and locations. Our previous logo was often challenging in this regard. The new colors are calming, harmonious, and peaceful as well. You’ll see the new theme displayed across all of our sites, including Tales from the Registry, Resources, and our State Wiki.

The appearance is more streamlined, clean, and easy to navigate. Some of our Resources site lists have been brought right into the main site, such as blogs, books, and podcasts; and our site content has been reviewed and updated to largely eliminate the term “sex offender” in favor of person-first language.

We hope you’ll take the time to wander through the pages. You may find a real gem!.

The post Check out NARSOL’s new look! first appeared on NARSOL.

By Rebekah Riess and Lauren Mascarenhas . . . After spending 29 years in prison for the rape of his stepdaughter, a New Orleans man is free thanks to the help of the local district attorney’s office and testimony from the victim herself, who has insisted for 20 years that he is not the man who raped her.

Patrick Brown was convicted of raping his 6-year-old stepdaughter in 1994 after pleading not guilty in a trial in which the victim did not testify – instead, adults testified “to what they believed she had said,” according to a release from the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office.

Since 2002, the stepdaughter had repeatedly asked the DA’s office to review the case and prosecute the actual perpetrator, the release said.

The office’s civil rights division opened an investigation into the victim’s case, found that the evidence corroborated her account and asked the court to rectify the case, according to the release. . . .

Brown was released from prison Monday, immediately following the decision of the criminal district court, delivered by Judge Calvin Johnson, to vacate his conviction. The victim was present and testified, according to the release and court records.

Read the full piece here at CNN.

The post The tragedy of a false imprisonment and the joy of vindication after 29 years first appeared on NARSOL.

In 2015, the ACLU of Rhode Island, on the heels of an announcement that the residency restriction distance for certain registrants would be increased from 300 to 1.000 feet, filed a suit to block the move and asked for a temporary restraining order, which was granted and has remained in place until now. NARSOL contributed to the case financially and issued this press release.

That was seven and a half years ago. The wheels of justice do indeed grind slowly, and sometimes they don’t grind at all, but this time they did. The new statute was found by the court to be unconstitutional due to being void for vagueness.

This is the ACLU press release:

Federal judge rules unconstitutional state’s residency restriction for sex offenders

March 16, 2023 – 3p.m. A federal court today ruled unconstitutional a state law that makes it a crime for certain sex offenders to reside within 1,000 feet of a school, finding that the statute would require individuals subject to it to guess whether they were in compliance with it, and potentially face a criminal trial if they guessed wrong.

In a 25-page opinion, Chief U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell, Jr. held that since “neither an ordinary person nor law enforcement could understand the statutory language that attempts to define the boundaries of residences and schools,” the residency prohibition is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. ACLU of RI cooperating attorneys challenged the statute when it was first enacted in 2015, and it has been subject to a preliminary injunction barring its enforcement since then.

The law provides for measuring the 1,000 foot distance “from the nearest boundary line of the real property supporting the residence of the person to the nearest boundary line of the real property that supports or upon which there exists a school.” ACLU of RI cooperating attorneys Lynette Labinger and John MacDonald noted the complete lack of clarity as to what property “supporting” a school was applicable in measuring the distance — what about spaces like playing fields, playgrounds, or parking lots? In fact, the court noted, the state has given differing interpretations of what that language means over the years, and most recently argued that it applies to any real property — even if not contiguous to the school — if it is “typically used by students for school purposes,” and that those determinations needed to be made on a case-by-case basis. In pointing out the problem with this approach, the court noted:

“After all, if the State’s process involved law enforcement, school officials, and attorneys collaborating to make precise individualized determinations on these boundaries, how could an ordinary person ever be expected to faithfully follow this process, let alone come to the same conclusion about where these boundaries lie? Not to mention that these difficulties facilitate arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement.”

Both nationally and locally, correctional administrators‚ experts involved in the treatment of sex offenders, victims’ rights groups, and advocates for the homeless have opposed sex offender residency laws as being ineffective, counter-productive, and potentially more, rather than less, harmful to public safety. The law applies to all Level 3 sex offenders, even if their crime was committed against an adult, and even though the overwhelming majority of sex offenses are committed against people the offender knows, not strangers.

Read the remainder of the RI ACLU’s press release here.

The post Finally! A decision in the Rhode Island residency restrictions case first appeared on NARSOL.

Highlights of the Conference

Speakers: There was an array of speakers covering many of the issues of interest to our population, including electronic monitoring, legislative strategies, traveling as a registered individual, collaboration among organizations, the church’s response to folks on the registry, and others. They were very effective and informative. The first day closed with an excellent presentation by NARSOL board member David Garlock.

Legislative Meetings: Various conference attendees met with staffers from the offices of various legislators. In general, they were well received and listened to with respect and concern, especially about the ever-widening net created by the registry. We were surprised to learn that some of the legislators knew next to nothing about this issue; increased education on state and national levels is essential. On a positive note, some have requested follow up meetings.

Vigil: On the anniversary of the Smith v. Doe decision, which ruled that the registry was not punishment, a vigil was held on the steps of the Supreme Court. A coffin was carried in by pall bearers, and attendees were dressed as mourners. The names of many of those who have died as a result of these terrible laws were read. One man showed up on this VERY cold morning with no jacket in remembrance of a man who was turned away from a Salvation Army shelter because of his registration status. He froze to death that very night. After the vigil, many attendees offered their gloves, scarfs, and even their own body heat to warm him up, It was extremely impactful.

NARSOL board members Brenda, Don, David, and Paul attended a portion or all of the event as well as a dozen or more NARSOL representatives and members from at least half a dozen states.

Reactions most often expressed are, even though it is disappointing that more did not attend, the event was a success, and the hopes are that something similar will be repeated. Especially appreciated are the camaraderie, fellowship, and unity of organizations.

Members from a variety of organizations, including NARSOL, WAR, ACSOL, UV4SOR, and RAA, expressed interest in working collaboratively to plan an activity that the groups could work on together.

NARSOL thanks WAR for organizing this event and sincerely hopes that the plans for increased unity and collaboration bear fruit.

The post The DC conference pronounced a success first appeared on NARSOL.

Several law-enforcement agencies Dec. 2 conducted unannounced checks of 40 registered sex offenders in Delaware County, finding that a high percentage were in compliance with their residential registration. During the survey, only one was found not in compliance with Ohio’s rules for registered sex offenders. Chief Deputy Jon Scowden, of the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office,

Read more

The post Surprise survey finds compliance among registered sexual offenders first appeared on NARSOL.