NM: Out-of-state convicted registrants sue Sheriffs over New Mexico Registration laws.
Eight out-of-state sex offenders now living in New Mexico are suing the Department of Public Safety and various sheriffs over a policy that places them on the State’s registry for life, even when their out-of-state offense only mandated a 10-year registration requirement (sound familiar?)
READ THE COMPLAINT: NM – Out of State
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Have the courts in Washington lost their minds?
If a 21-year-old in Florida has sex with a 16-year-old, then he/she is eligible to be placed on the sex offense registry in Florida for life. If the same thing happens in Washington state, it is not a sex crime.
So if these 21-year-olds in Florida, who had sex with their consenting 16-year-old girlfriends, decide to move to Washington, then they will be placed on the registry and suffer all the draconian laws/ordinances that go with it, while now living in a state that does not consider this particular sexual act a crime. These out-of-state residents are being punished for NOT committing a crime in Washington.
There are other states that do not consider this situation a crime, with New York being one of them.
The Justices on the Washington State Supreme Court need to get their heads out of the sand and start ruling with some common sense.
https://www.q13fox.com/news/change-in-legal-ruling-creates-stricter-rules-for-washington-sex-offenders
You’re facts are incorrect. First of all, it is not illegal for a 21-year old to have consensual sexual activity with a 16-year old in Florida. It is illegal for a person 24 years of age or older to do so under Florida Statute sec. 749.05(1). Second of all, a person 24 years of age or older who engages in unlawful sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age is eligible to petition the circuit court for removal of the requirement to register either 20 or 25 years after release, depending on the date of the offense, pursuant to Florida Statute sec. 943.0435, provided that they are not arrested for any misdemeanor or felony offense after release.
I am not expressing agreement or disagreement with any of your opinions. Nor am I expressing any opinion on the relevant Florida statutes. I am only pointing out factual errors in your post.
Apologies @RM,
I must disagree in respect to what you posted above.
The Romeo & Juliet Law applies when the following criteria is met:
The victim is between the ages of 14 and 17.
The victim was no more than four years younger than the offender.
The victim must have been a willing participant in the sexual activity.
The offender does not have any previous sex crimes on their record.
This is applicable in the State of Florida. Anything sexual in nature that is committed by someone who is 18 or over with anyone who is under the age of 18 in Florida is subject to criminal charges. If the crime fits the criteria of the Romeo & Juliet statute, a petition may be made AFTER conviction.
The Romeo and Juliet law in Florida doesn’t create an offense. It only provides a mechanism for relief from registration for certain offenders who committed specific offenses, most often an offense described in F.S. sec. 800.04.
Please refer to Florida Statute Section 794.05(1), regarding Unlawful Sexual Activity with Certain Minors (16/17 years of age):
794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.—
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
It is not an offense in Florida for a 21-year-old to have consensual sexual activity with 16 or 17-year-old.
You’re statement that “Anything sexual in nature that is committed by someone who is 18 or over with anyone who is under the age of 18 in Florida is subject to criminal charges” is just not correct.
Um ok that’s one bs scenario that isnt even very important and the laws aren’t for them. They are for the 5 yr old that got sexually assaulted in one state by a man who goes on to move to another state where he isn’t registered so that he can go about finding his next victim to abuse. It’s common sense. These laws aren’t in place for 21 yr olds and 16 yr olds. They are to PROTECT CHILDREN.
If registration laws are only intended to protect children, they do an awfully poor job of doing so. I worry for any child whose caregiver relies on the registry for their children’s’ safety.
If you agree that 21-year-olds and 16-year-olds should no longer be covered by these laws, you may need to contact your legislator to change them.
Am I missing something here?
after your released from the club and happen to move to another state to reside that states says hey you Was a member of the club at 1 time and now your in our state so you have to register as a new Member?
There’s no mechanism for removal from multiple state registries. Each state has its own criteria for who must register.
so i been off 15yrs i move to a different state possible i have to register if they deside to join me up?
Unexperencedonthis
that is the million dollar question ive been asking !!
“off 15yrs i move to a different state possible i have to register if they deside to join me up?”
seems we paid the price for our crime my case 10yrs and now Im still trapped in this state fear of moving so another state can be forced to join up again,
well Iowa is not to much better. Iowa congressman D fisher
Introduced 2023
90th General Assembly
Bill Summary
A bill for an act modifying sex offender registry requirements by requiring sex offenders whose registration requirements have expired to reregister, and making penalties applicable.
Subject
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1536560
As I posted at SOSEN on this topic, it seems to me that New Mexico’s law requiring a hearing to determine if registration is required for a new resident is like trying him/her under New Mexico law for a crime committed in another jurisdiction. I’m pretty sure there’s a 10th circuit case that held the registry is punishment, so they theoretically could argue double jeopardy grounds as well as lack of jurisdiction .
A hearing is not punishment. Neither is registration, but hopefully the 10th cir. will soon rule otherwise.
A former offender who views a NM registration hearing as punishment can simply waive the hearing and allow the state to make a determination without them. But apparently that’s the only option the state is providing them anyway, in defiance of the state’s own statute, and that’s why the former offenders are suing.
As I understand it, the hearing would be to determine if the crime committed in the other state would require registration if committed in New Mexico. Simply calling it a hearing doesn’t change that it is the functional equivalent of trying a person for a crime committed elsewhere under NM law and punishing/”regulating” accordingly. Really, the only difference is that the NM court can’t impose another prison sentence.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if NM has another plethora of rules and restrictions for new resident registrants whose crime(s) were committed in other states to discourage them from moving there in the first place, or to make rearrest (if not reconviction) inevitable.
Millard v. Rankin has already held that the registry is punitive, regardless of legislative intent to the contrary, as has several other federal courts. Granted it was only a district court, so it’s not established precedent in the 10th circuit. But last I heard it is pending appeal by the state (Colorado) and near certain to be upheld.
If Millard v Rankin is near certain to be upheld, then that is big news that everyone here needs to know about.
Hi Jacob, you mention “Millard v Rankin” and Also mention “that is big News that everyone here needs to know about.” But you did not provide any information and/or a link to the mention case. thanks.
The case number for Millard v. Rankin is USDC Colorado Civil Action No. 13-cv-02406-RPM. The opinion was issued in 2017, and the Colorado AG announced intent to appeal shortly after. No word since.
Should also point out that the registry was only determined punitive as applied to the petitioners in this particular opinion. Also that the “near certain to be upheld” remark is a personal assessment based on the opinion itself and the rarity of a circuit appeals court overturning one of its districts.
The word is, it’s in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. We wrote about it extensively and even provided the link to oral arguments in the case. If you search our site, you should find it.
Re Miller v Rankin, see message just above mine that I was responding to.
*Millard