AWA in Connecticut

As promised, a public defender is covering the AWA compliance bill in Connecticut. From the post:

One of the more disturbing provisions being considered by the Lege in adopting the Adam Walsh Act here in Connecticut (and this provisions mirrors one in the actual AWA, I’m told) requires…well read it for yourself:

(d) Any person who is a registered sexual offender under the laws of any other state who enters this state and fails to notify the Commissioner of Public Safety in writing not less than forty-eight hours prior to entering the state of the information required under this section or falsely reports such information shall be guilty of a class D felony.

Oh yes. There is nothing missing from that sentence. If you were looking (and correctly so) for a qualifying clause in that language that required an individual to establish a residence here before being subject to “registration” you didn’t find it because it’s not there. It’s in the proposed subsection (c).

Subsection (d), that I just quoted above, mandates that anyone entering the State, for whatever reason, notify Public Safety 48 hours in advance. This is so silly it’s scary. There are no exceptions for emergencies or unplanned trips or anything. At all.

So if you’re required to register in CA, and are driving through from Yankee Stadium to Fenway Park to see the Yankees sweep the Red Sox and you take I-95 or the Merritt or I-91 or I-84 (all of which pass through Connecticut), you have to call public safety.

I agree that the language of the bill is ridiculously broad. There is absolutely no need for a such provision to be in place for federal SORNA compliance. This really would raise the bar in terms of liberty restriction of sex offenders. If this passes, as with virtually every other sex offender restriction, a likely race to the bottom would start. The result would be these sorts of restrictions becoming the norm, and not the exception. For that reason, it is important that the Connecticut legislature think long and hard before turning such a bill into law.

Comments

[David Hess]

"So if you’re required to register in CA, and are driving through from Yankee Stadium to Fenway Park to see the Yankees sweep the Red Sox and you take I-95 or the Merritt or I-91 or I-84 (all of which pass through Connecticut), you have to call public safety."

According to the proposed law, calling public safety would not be sufficient. You have to notify them in writing 48 hours in advance.

If this is isn't restraint of the right of interstate travel, I don't know what would be.

[Gideon]

Actually, I heard that it is the intent of public safety here to push other law enforcement agencies in other states to get their legislatures to pass similar bills. Sigh.

Wait till you see the transient person provision.

[MarkM]

So technically the sex offender would have to write a letter to the state in question, then wait for confirmation of the state getting that letter before they go into that state (or risk the state saying they never got it and then being arrested). Then if the sex offender does not receive said letter (or whatever) in time to make the trip or for whatever reason have to postpone the trip, they would again have to submit another letter telling them of a new date they want to travel. That sounds like a round about way to not let sex offenders cross state lines. All the state would have to do is never acknowledge they received any letters and no sex offender would be able to legally enter the state.

[David Hess]

When AWA was originally sold it was with the argument that the states need to have uniform standards. When the SMART office released their guidelines and indicated that the standards were a "floor not a ceiling," they threw uniformity under the bus. It is now a race to the bottom to see who can come up with the toughest standards. What a mess!

[rodney]

personaly i love it! ILLEGAL STUPIDITY like this will get the whole ILLEAL house of cards tossed even quicker!

[Mark]

Unfortunately, the sentiment expressed by Rodney is probably the most effective strategy against the registries. As they expand to include more offenses and offenders (note that some states already have "Violent Offender Registries" in addition to the sex offender variety, and there are bills proposed for a "DWI Registry" in Texas), the entire concept behind the sex offender registry will collapse. After all, when everyone has a scarlet letter, what impact does a scarlet letter have?
The expansion will come naturally, as that is the impetus of bureaucracy as well as pandering politicians.

[slim]

This is freakishly unworkable. But then, the intent isn't for it to be workable. The intent, as we have all come to learn, is actually to make it unworkable so there is a much greater chance of a technical violation and and therefore an easily provable new felony charge. Very, very frustrating.

[rodney]

LOL main reaosn i love it is each time they pass another idiotic illegal law like this they up the chance of ONE of them landing on the docket of the U.S Supreme Court. At that time the complete system will DIE. Becasue EVERYTHIGN they are passing and have passed in the last 7 years is completely ILLEGAL under the only ruling ever made on sex offender registries in 2002. Just read it. The justictice themselves state it was legal BECASUE there were NO RESTRICTIONS on the people they were FREE to live ANYWHERE, GO ANYWHERE, WORK ANYWHERE just like any other american. There was NO REQUIREMENT to do anything in person. The only requirement was to RETURN A POST CARD! that's the registry they said was legal. So far the state's little agreement to keep things away from the supreme court has worked. but each new law makes that harder to do.

[Mark]

Rodney, be careful what you wish for, SCOTUS seems to make special exception to almost every argument against all these sex offender laws. The whole 'public safety' argument seems to be a workaround for any constitutional claim that may be brought up. Many towns have said they wont make all the restrictions because of the constitutional issues, if SCOTUS does finally rule on them, the amount of new laws will probably explode in endless legislation aimed at 'protecting the children'.

[Mark#1]

I'm afraid Mark is correct. Though the restrictions are increasing incrementally, under the "frog in the saucepan" theory, the restrictions have not yet gone far enough to render the registries to be punitive, rather than regulatory. Kennedy would still vote to uphold the registries, and with the current configuration of the Supremes, his is the only vote that matters. I have great difficulty imagining any "regulatory" provision of the registries that would trigger a no vote by Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas.

[rodney]

you might want to look again. I am using the justices own words here. They are the ones who said it was legal.. BECASUE it wasn't like probation/parole and it wasn't like them because it had no living or working or reporting provisions. NOW it is exactly light probation/parole the only thing chaged is the number of visits and where they happen. Especial in those states forcing the individuals to PAY for being on there. They also said there was no evidence showing any harm coming from being on the list. Well we all know that's not true NOW. We also know now that the govt claims at the time that sex offenders almost always REOFFEND was a LIE and a good case could probalby be made that they comitted fraud with it.

[MarkM]

Rodney, SCOTUS isn't immune to making excuses and sometimes those excuses don't follow an earlier excuse. If their goal is to uphold any Sex offender law in existence for 'public safety' they will make yet another excuse.

BTW sorry to the other Mark, I have been trying to use MarkM but i have been forgetting.

[rodney]

true. but most of those who didn't agree with the original 5-4 verdict are still there as for roberts if i'm not mistaken he was part of the team representing alaska at the time and so can have no voice in anything about anything from the original decision.

but sorry i'm not a politician or a lawyer. i'm a plain normal american. From where i sit if a judge tells you something is legal BECASUE your not making someone do this, and this, and this and this. Well if you change the law and are now MAKING them do this, and this and this. SORRY it's NOW ILLEGAL. i dont' need ANOTHER court hearing for it. If this was a car lot who was selling something for 1,000 dollars and then once you signed the papers informed you the price was actualy 10,000 someone would be going to JAIL. It's called "bait and switch" this is the same thing.

[vivian]

Personally, I would prefer sex offenders to spend the rest of their lives in prison. I really don't care how difficult life is for them. I know too many victims of sex abuse to feel sorry for them.
Why are predators of the vulnerable allowed out of jail anyway?