BREAKING NEWS: Registrant Successful in Supreme Court Challenge
The US Supreme Court decided in favor of a registered sex offender in Nichols v. United States. The SCOTUS decision came out today and it is the first time in recent memory that the Court decided in favor of a registrant.
The decision ruled that a convicted sex offender did not have to update his status on the federal sex offender registry after moving to a foreign country. Justice Alito, who wrote the opinion, said a straightforward reading of the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require registry updates after a sex offender moves out of the United States.
The key word in the above paragraph is “after”.
That said; that does not eliminate the requirement that a registrant must inform the US before (21 days before) of an intended absence from the country. That part is still law.
So while the net effect of the decision doesn’t change anything, it sure is great to get a US Supreme Court decision come out favorably.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This fantastic… now the countdown to an amendment to the statute… but seriously. Let’s take what we can get.
The “not actually a loophole, but they will call it that” was “corrected” by the International Megan’s Law so the effective utility of this ruling is useless hereafter. However, the fact that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of a sex offender and made some comments during argument indicating that the “rules” imposed on registrants are getting out of hand is ground breaking.
Take this comment directly from the opinion:
“On the Government’s view, a sex offender’s “residence information will change when he leaves the place where he has been residing, and it will change again when he arrives at his new residence. He must report both of those changes in a timely fashion.” Brief for United States 21. We think this argument too clever by half; when someone moves from, say, Kansas City, Kansas, to Kansas City, Missouri, we ordinarily would not say he moved twice: once from Kansas City, Kansas, to a state of homelessness, and then again from homelessness to Kansas City, Missouri. Nor, were he to drive an RV between the cities, would we say that he changed his residence four times (from the house on the Kansas side of the Missouri River to a state of homelessness when he locks the door behind him; then to the RV when he climbs into the vehicle; then back to homelessness when he alights in the new house’s driveway; and then, finally, to the new house in Missouri). And what if he were to move from Kansas to California and spend several nights in hotels along the way? Such ponderings cannot be the basis for imposing criminal punishment.”
It’s almost if Justice Alito said, “how fucking irrational is the government going to interpret these rules?”
The “4xs moving/ RV” comment is important and interesting. It seems to question the efficacy of certain reporting requirements. I don’t know if the leap can be made but it seems that it can be related to out-of-State travel (or between counties). If I reside in a State/ County what is the rationale for the requirement to report where I’m going and for how long? and to report when I get back?
Not to get into another “common sense” conversation (it’s pointless in regard to the registry) but I can leave the State for FOUR days (and have) without saying anything – but I leave for FIVE and I have to notify. Very odd that from 4 to 5 days changes the importance of the Sheriff knowing. NY actually laughed at me when I called them to ask them if I had to report to them when I got there.
Additionally, reporting in this manner is more difficult for the homeless. If I recall correctly, they must report in person every month to say, “I live in the woods.” If there is no change in the address (“from the house on the Kansas side of the Missouri River to a state of homelessness when he locks the door behind him; then to the RV when he climbs into the vehicle; then back to homelessness when he alights”) then what is the need for reporting again and again?
I would like to believe this comment can be used in an argument about the registration language requiring reporting to the Sheriff whether information has changed or not. I say report only when changes are made. (I can see the Sheriff rolling his eyes at me now…)