The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) does not publish a specific, fixed “cost per check” figure for its national compliance operations. Because these checks are woven into the agency’s broader daily operations, tracking an exact price tag for individual registry verifications requires looking at the overall budget allocated to these tasks.

July 2026

Federal

1. Operation Adam’s Watch (37 Federal Judicial Districts)
2. Washington, D.C. Metropolitan SORNA Compliance Operation
3. Eastern Kentucky Federal Indictment Warrant Operation
4. Nationwide USMS Compliance Initiative (330+ fugitives arrested)
5. Federal 18 U.S.C. §2250 Failure-to-Register Investigations (Operation Adam’s Watch) ([usmarshals.gov][1])

Alabama

6. Northern District – Operation Adam’s Watch
7. Middle District – Operation Adam’s Watch
8. Southern District – Operation Adam’s Watch

Arizona

9. Arizona District – Operation Adam’s Watch
10. Phoenix Metro registry compliance participation
11. Tucson regional registry compliance participation

California

12. San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force enforcement operation
13. Southern District Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Colorado- nothing listed

Florida

14. FDLE – Operation Get ‘Em Gator
15. Osceola County – Operation Silver Spur
16. Hernando County – Operation Black Horizon
17. Escambia County – Operation Get ‘Em Gator regional enforcement
18. Clay County registry compliance enforcement
19. Fort Lauderdale Operation Adam’s Watch participation
20. Miami-Dade federal registry enforcement participation
21. Southwest Florida – Operation Red Light
22. Tampa Bay regional online exploitation enforcement
23. Jacksonville regional federal participation

Georgia

24. Operation Adam’s Watch
25. Atlanta metropolitan participation

Hawaii

26. Kauaʻi County Police compliance checks
27. 148 residence/compliance verifications

Idaho

28. No publicly announced statewide July 2026 registry compliance operation identified.

Illinois

29. Operation Adam’s Watch
30. Chicago-area federal participation

Indiana

31. Bloomington Police Department/U.S. Marshals compliance checks
32. 140 residence verifications
33. 12 high-risk violators identified

Iowa

34. No publicly announced statewide compliance operation identified.

Kansas

35. Clay County multi-agency child exploitation operation (related enforcement)

Kentucky

36. Eastern District federal warrant operation
37. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Louisiana

38. Operation Adam’s Watch participation
39. Louisiana ICAC statewide enforcement announcement

Maine

40. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Maryland

41. No publicly announced July 2026 statewide compliance sweep identified.

Massachusetts

42. No publicly announced July 2026 statewide compliance sweep identified.

Michigan

43. Registry-related federal court developments (not a compliance sweep)

Minnesota

44. No publicly announced July 2026 statewide compliance sweep identified.

Mississippi

45. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Missouri

46. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Montana

47. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

Nebraska

48. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

Nevada

49. Clark County / Las Vegas compliance sweep
50. 16 failure-to-register fugitives arrested
51. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

New Hampshire

52. Statewide Operation Adam’s Watch
53. 20 non-compliance arrests
54. 15 unrelated felony arrests
55. Federal §2250 investigations initiated

New Jersey

56. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

New Mexico

57. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

New York

58. Onondaga County – Operation Orange
59. Syracuse Police/U.S. Marshals registry verification initiative
60. 100+ residence verifications
61. 85 registry violations identified

North Carolina

62. Eastern District – Operation Adam’s Watch
63. Eight arrests reported

North Dakota

64. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Ohio

65. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Oklahoma

66. Logan County Sheriff’s Office compliance checks
67. 104 address verifications

Oregon

68. Benton County multi-agency compliance sweep
69. 248 compliance checks
70. 12 arrests
71. Corvallis in-home compliance sweep
72. 75 in-home compliance visits
73. La Grande failure-to-register enforcement

Pennsylvania

74. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

Rhode Island

75. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

South Carolina

76. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

South Dakota

77. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

Tennessee

78. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation registry compliance initiative
79. 28 registration deficiencies documented

Texas

80. Midland compliance operation
81. 11 compliance-operation arrests
82. Eastern District Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Virginia

83. Operation Adam’s Watch participation

Washington

84. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

West Virginia

85. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

Wisconsin

86. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

Wyoming

87. No publicly announced statewide compliance sweep identified.

National Summary

* **Operation Adam’s Watch** concluded on **July 24, 2026**, with participation from 37 federal judicial districts across 21 states. The U.S. Marshals Service reported more than 330 fugitive arrests, including 234 people wanted for state failure-to-register violations, 96 fugitives wanted on sex offense-related warrants, and 5 federal 18 U.S.C. § 2250 failure-to-register cases initiated during the operation. The USMS also noted that, since implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, it has assisted with **more than 842,000 compliance checks nationwide.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/es/node/188786?utm_source=chatgpt.com “U.S. Marshals Conduct Operation Adam’s Watch to Recognize 20th Anniversary of Adam Walsh Act | U.S. Marshals Service”

A few days ago, I posted in a different section of FAC’s website about receiving a replacement Florida license plate in the mail and immediately updating my information through FDLE’s online reporting portal. After what I learned over the following few days, I thought I’d share the entire experience as a cautionary tale for others.

Like many of you, I had read recent reports about increased registration enforcement and arrests involving vehicle information. When my replacement license plate arrived in my mailbox on a Saturday, I was immediately concerned about making sure I complied with the 48-hour reporting requirement.

The first thing I did was log into FDLE’s online reporting system that was established after Judge Hinkle’s order and update my vehicle information with the new tag number. I also printed the USPS tracking information showing that the new plate had been delivered that day, took photographs of the new plate, and saved copies of everything I submitted through the portal. My thinking was simple: if there was ever a question about when I learned the new tag number, I wanted contemporaneous documentation showing exactly when I received it and when I reported it.

The following Monday, I went to the DMV because I had already made an appointment to return my old license plate. What happened next surprised me.

The clerk told me there was no need to return the old plate because, according to the DMV’s system, it became a “dead tag” as soon as the replacement plate was issued. She explained that the old plate was already inactive in their records and that they did not need it back.

That raised an issue I had never considered before.

There appears to be a period of roughly a week between the date the replacement plate is issued and the date it actually arrives in the mail. During that period, my old plate was still physically attached to my vehicle because I had not yet received the replacement. At the same time, according to what I was told at the DMV, the old plate had already been deactivated in the state’s system.

Like many law enforcement agencies around the country, numerous agencies in Florida use automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that automatically scan license plate numbers as vehicles pass by. I do not know what information an ALPR or an officer would actually receive if my old plate had been scanned during that transition period. However, after reading FAC’s recent reports about arrests involving vehicle information, I became concerned that a discrepancy between the plate on my vehicle and the state’s records could create confusion during a traffic stop or compliance check. An experienced officer might recognize what had happened and investigate further. A less experienced officer, or one who immediately assumed a registration violation had occurred, might interpret the discrepancy differently. Fortunately, I never had to find out because my vehicle remained parked in my driveway for much of that transition period.

The situation also highlights another practical problem. A registrant has no way to report the new tag number before receiving it because the state has not yet provided that information. In my case, it was literally impossible to report a license plate number that I did not yet know. Yet, according to what I was told at the DMV, the old plate had already become inactive before I ever received the replacement.

This seems like an avoidable gap in the process. If the state’s records are updated before the registrant even knows the new tag number, there should be a corresponding grace period that recognizes it is impossible to report information that has not yet been received.

Because of that possibility, I would encourage anyone receiving a replacement plate to document everything. Save the USPS tracking information, keep the mailing envelope if possible, photograph the new plate, save screenshots or confirmations from the FDLE reporting portal, and keep copies of all of your records together. Those documents may help establish exactly when you first learned the new tag number and when you reported it.

This was simply my experience. I hope it helps others think ahead, keep good records, and perhaps encourages clarification of a process that seems to place registrants in a position where compliance depends on information they do not yet possess.

To screwed over,

I understand what you are saying. I am retired from the Florida Department of Revenue and used to audit the tax rolls. The point I was trying to make is that according to the detective in charge, ANY and ALL mobile homes must be on the registry, not just ones in parks. Contrary to what I was led to believe in the first place.

So, even though I don’t trust these people to not make things up, now am aware of this rule. And how “they” interpret it.

Just watch them but they said I had to report that.