Proof that sex offenders make people act crazy (with update)
Title Bout: Ohio v. USA
Sex offender hysteria is well documented. Apparently, the Federal Government is also not immune from its mind altering effects. Consider the case of John Doe in Ohio. John Doe, convicted in 1993 of sexual battery in state court, is currently on Federal probation for unrelated drug offenses.
A zealous probation officer must’ve looked at Doe’s criminal record and noticed the sex offense conviction. So, the probation officer required Doe to register as a sex offender in Ohio. Only one problem: Ohio state law exempts Doe from registering.
And thus, the tug-of-war between the Federal Government and the State of Ohio begins. Whose requirements prevail? Or will it all be disregarded because the object of this “war” is to get a heinous, evil, dangerous, disgusting, despicable sex offender to register his whereabouts? Some counties in Ohio have had the testicular fortitude to tell the Feds to stick it, but unfortunately not the county in which Doe resides.
The Ohio Justice & Policy Center sued on the offender’s behalf after his probation officer ordered him to place his name on Ohio’s registry of sex offenders, even though the state exempts him from the database because he served his sentence before the registry law took effect in the late 1990s. The lawsuit says the registration requirement violates the offender’s rights and also is unconstitutional because it allows the federal government to trump a state law.
“There is no question he does not have to register under state law,” said Margie Slagle, an attorney with the Ohio Justice & Policy Center. “The feds think they can ignore Ohio’s wishes and make him register. It’s just bizarre.”
But a lawyer for Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis, who maintains the county’s registry, confirmed the county has been registering offenders at the request of federal probation officers.
“The bottom line is we have had guys showing up with an order from a probation officer saying, ‘I’m required to register,’” said Dave Stevenson, an assistant county prosecutor. “So we register them.”
And therein lies the Catch-22. If the State registers Doe, it is an illegal act in violation of the laws of the State of Ohio. If the State doesn’t register Doe, he’s in violation of his Federal probation. So who wins? The State or the Feds? Either way, there’s only one loser: the sex offender.
Update: An alert reader asks if Ohio is the only state that is facing this problem. Do any of you know whether other states have faced this issue? Any lawsuits pending? Any AWA expert? CRY, you out there?
H/T: 2L reader
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on February 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm, and is filed under dumb laws, residency restrictions, sex offenders. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
A person cannot be held accountable for not being able to do the impossible.
And the federal government cannot commandeer the state’s resources either.
But I think you’re being too hard on the county. I could see a court making the guy move to a place where he could be on a registry. So it’s probably a net benefit to the offender (taking the probation condition as a given) to be registered.
about 9 months ago
not sure if this is the one you wanted to know about…
http://hlpronline.com/2011/04/case-to-follow-can-a-new-law-affect-an-old-plea-agreement/
This puts Doe in a difficult situation. He bargained for a plea agreement that, at the time, included his confidential registration as a sex offender. A subsequent change in the law, however, eliminates the confidential nature of the state’s sex offender registry. Thus, the big question is whether “the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.”
about 9 months ago
Here’s a case – on point?
Unequivocally Unambiguous Undone
Or
Larry, the Cable Guy: “Let’s git er done!”
about 9 months ago
Gideon, I am surprised that, apparently you are not aware of how the Adam Walsh Act works. i.e., if a person who is no longer required to register, commits a new crime then AWA sweeps him up again, and he is AGAIN required to register. The support for this is found in the Final Guidelines page 6-7 “Retroactivity”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-07-02/pdf/E8-14656.pdf#page=006
see “Moreover, the specific provisions of the guidelines relating to ‘‘retroactivity’’ incorporate some features that may limit their effect on sex offenders with older convictions.
While SORNA’s requirements apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they were convicted, see 28 CFR 72.3, the guidelines do not require jurisdictions to identify and register every such sex offender.
Rather, as stated in the guidelines, a jurisdiction will be considered to have substantially implemented SORNA if it applies SORNA’s requirements to sex offenders who remain in the system as prisoners, supervisees, or registrants, or reenter the system through subsequent convictions. So the guidelines do not require a jurisdiction to register in conformity with SORNA sex offenders who have fully left the system and merged into the general population at the time the jurisdiction implements SORNA, if they do not reoffend.”
The subsequent conviction includes crimes other than sex crimes.
NOTE: The above was sent to me from someone else.