As previously noted, the Justice Department's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) occasionally posts updates on case law developments in the sex offender realm. You can view the latest update here. Here are some of the cases from Update #26:
Delaware v. Fletcher, 2009 Del. LEXIS 250 (May 27, 2009)
The two petitioners in this consolidated case had been ordered to register based on juvenile adjudications for sex offenses. Each successfully completed their periods of probation, and asked for an expungement of their convictions, and a termination of their juvenile registration requirement. The Court held that their convictions could be expunged even though they had been required to register as sex offenders, and that once those convictions were expunged, they were no longer required to maintain their sex offender registration.
Tobar v. Kentucky, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 81 (May 21, 2009)
Petitioner had properly registered as a sex offender through a series of moves, but failed to notify Kentucky when he left a shelter and became homeless. He was properly convicted of failure to comply with his sex offender registration requirements.
Doe v. California Department of Justice, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (May 7, 2009)
Petitioners had successfully had their names removed from California’s public sex offender registry website via a special statutory procedure in 2005. In 2006, the law was changed to require that they be posted on that public web site. Their civil suit claiming equitable estoppel and ex post facto violations was dismissed.
U.S. v. Pomani, 2009 U.S. Dist. 44503 (D. S.D. March 11, 2009)
Pomani was adjudicated delinquent in federal court of an offense which occurred on tribal lands, namely, an offense similar to abusive sexual conduct (per the opinion, 18 U.S.C. 2241(c)). The court held that juveniles adjudicated of this offense are required to register by SORNA, failing to take in to account that SORNA’s Final guidelines removed the registration Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Office U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs requirement for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of 2241(c). Having held that Pomani was required to register, the court affirmed his conviction.
Miller v. McCormick, 605 F. Supp.2d 296 (D. Me. 2009)
Where petitioner had been admitted to the section 8 home ownership program, he could not be thereafter terminated because he was a lifetime registered sex offender. There is a ban in place for admission to the program for such offenders, but should an offender somehow avoid the ban, they cannot be terminated.
The two petitioners in this consolidated case had been ordered to register based on juvenile adjudications for sex offenses. Each successfully completed their periods of probation, and asked for an expungement of their convictions, and a termination of their juvenile registration requirement. The Court held that their convictions could be expunged even though they had been required to register as sex offenders, and that once those convictions were expunged, they were no longer required to maintain their sex offender registration.
Tobar v. Kentucky, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 81 (May 21, 2009)
Petitioner had properly registered as a sex offender through a series of moves, but failed to notify Kentucky when he left a shelter and became homeless. He was properly convicted of failure to comply with his sex offender registration requirements.
Doe v. California Department of Justice, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (May 7, 2009)
Petitioners had successfully had their names removed from California’s public sex offender registry website via a special statutory procedure in 2005. In 2006, the law was changed to require that they be posted on that public web site. Their civil suit claiming equitable estoppel and ex post facto violations was dismissed.
U.S. v. Pomani, 2009 U.S. Dist. 44503 (D. S.D. March 11, 2009)
Pomani was adjudicated delinquent in federal court of an offense which occurred on tribal lands, namely, an offense similar to abusive sexual conduct (per the opinion, 18 U.S.C. 2241(c)). The court held that juveniles adjudicated of this offense are required to register by SORNA, failing to take in to account that SORNA’s Final guidelines removed the registration Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Office U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs requirement for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of 2241(c). Having held that Pomani was required to register, the court affirmed his conviction.
Miller v. McCormick, 605 F. Supp.2d 296 (D. Me. 2009)
Where petitioner had been admitted to the section 8 home ownership program, he could not be thereafter terminated because he was a lifetime registered sex offender. There is a ban in place for admission to the program for such offenders, but should an offender somehow avoid the ban, they cannot be terminated.
Wow. That Miller v. McCormick case is a big loophole! Rather, the Section 8 housing is the loophole, I guess.
Posted by: Joe | July 09, 2009 at 10:59 AM
People who are not sex offenders are being falsely labeled as such when the government owned spam downloads and the person is frightened out of his rights and has few funds. This is corrupt. The man's life is politically purposefully ruined. In our family situation our only son was drunk in his home (which is not illegal) when the government owned filth downloaded. He had inadequate computer firewalls. He hated it when he awoke and saw the filty images he removed them immediately from his computers. His wife was off galavanting in Las Vegas with her stupid mother ("Girls weeks out in Las Vegas! You're not invited" "Entertain Yourself!". His precious life is ruined. He has never harmed anyone or touched anyone inappropriately in his life. He dislikes children for the most part. It is a false medical fact that was stated at his federal non-trial sentencing by a mere social worker working outside his scope of medical practice expertise that our son is a pedophile. A FALSE MEDICAL fact published in the non-sealed nonsense masquarading as "justice". His parents, his father (after whom he is named) and I were not allowed to give any type of testimony since we live in another state and it's easier to get victims for the US government pogrom if no family is available to defend him. His wife is very stupid woman though he loves her and our family is ruined. The probation officer said the government would have a "problem" if he and his wife were to have a child. (Hardly likely in any event). Our family is now concluded. Thank you USA. This is a creepy environment which reminds me of Nazi Germany. My grandfather left Germany and fought in the Boxer Rebellion and wouldn't live in California because of their emerging, corrupt love of incarcerating people at Alcatraz. All that for a lying government progrom to mislabel his only great grandson! I'm am disusted American mother.
Posted by: Jo | July 13, 2009 at 04:54 AM
Again, I reiterate: My son is not a sexual predator nor a pervert nor a pedophile. He is an only child and only son, an only grandson, an only nephew and is very well-loved and has never broken any laws as an adult. Seriously. He was too drunk to contract, or to select or watch the apparently government owned or contracted "spam" which is illegal to spam (any content whatsoever) in his progressive state. He is NOT a pedophile. He is ABSOLUTELY NOT! He Is Labeled nonetheless. This could happen to any "targeted" American I believe - even you or your son. If I were Adam Walsh's parent I'd feel pretty bad that the law was used in this way. My son has/had nothing to do with any of the filth being marketed in America with US concurrence evidently. I filed a complaint with the FTC about spamming filth to my son so that he would be impacted by this government pogrom. That's what this is, ladies and gentlemen, - a government pogrom designed to gather selected others into prisons to ruin them and their families if we have no interest what-so-ever if the labels are in fact ACCURATE or NOT! How, exactly are we more just than other countries who do care about justice and truth?
Posted by: Jo | July 13, 2009 at 06:02 AM