CT Bill Would Criminalize Interstate Travel Without Notice

A helpful reader sends word that Connecticut legislators are considering a bill which would make it a crime for any out-of-state sex offender to enter the state without registering within 48 hours. You may read the proposed law here. From the relevant subsection:

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.

It's likely that this law would raise right to travel issues that have not gained much traction in residency restriction cases.

Comments

[Gideon]

I'm not sure what became of that specific bill (the judiciary committee had to vote on all bills yesterday), but it looks like it may not have even been voted on. That may mean nothing, since it is the "governor's bill".

There were other sex offender related bills, though: a bill to create a 2000 feet residency restriction for sex offenders and a bill concerning sexting and several others. The former failed, the latter passed.

I blogged about all these bills here, here and here.

[Gideon]

Looks like your comment form stripped the links. Here they are, if you're interested: http://apublicdefender.com/2010/02/10/the-adam-walsh-fearmongering-and-bleeding-money-act/
http://apublicdefender.com/2010/03/18/sex-y-times-at-the-state-lege/
http://apublicdefender.com/2010/03/23/a-few-stray-thoughts/

[KipEsquire]

How would this be distinguishable from Lambert v. California?

[David Hess]

This bill also was proposed last year but died in committee.

[rodsmith]

i think anyone dumb enough to try and pass something that is so CRIMINAL and such a case of TREASON against their oath of office that ANY american has every LEGAL RIGHT to KILL THEM anywhere and anyway they can.

[Corey Rayburn Yung]

Thanks for the links, Gideon. As for Lambert v. California, given the way that courts have upheld other registration requirements (sex offenders basically have constructive notice of everything), I'm sure they won't have a problem distinguishing it in this case. As I have written before, I think that is a mistake, but I think that is the reality of the modern courts.

[David Hess]

Corey, I fear you may be right about the notice issue, but this travel law is so unique, I don't know how anyone engaged in travel would even suspect that such a law exists. It just seems so out of the blue.

[Eric Knight]

I just spoke with a representative of CT Governor Rell's office. He has confirmed the bill died in committee. I reminded him that this was the second time the bill had been proposed that, by literal interpretation of the wording, criminalized any out-of-state registered sex offender's presence in the state, no matter the circumstances. (I used the common theme of driving from NYC to Boston, for instance.)

He replied that since this was Governor Rell's last year in office, that this bill would have to be initiated by a new chief executive of the state, and probably won't be presented in the same manner.

I have decided to officially hold my breath on this issue.

[ieee]

David Hess: Some counties in the Criminal State of Georgia force the people that they Register to individually acknowledge (by initialing) each of around 20 to 30 statements, one of which says something to the effect that the Registrant knows that each state has their own laws regarding Registration and that a Registrant must understand the laws of any state prior to traveling there. I assume that any criminal government attempting to prosecute someone who has traveled into their jurisdiction and not followed their illegal laws, would use such documentation to help perpetrate their crime (i.e. the prosecution).

I do wonder how well that would hold up though because I only sign such statements because I am forced to. I also sign them with the knowledge that some of the statements are demonstrably false. A particular county that I have dealt with for many, many years has never been able to operate within the Registration laws. They have always asked for significant information on their Registration forms that is not required by law and they always have inaccurate statements on there as well. They have had legal action taken against them. They will correct something and 6 months later they will start doing it again or adding something new. BTW, this is a large county with a population approaching one million.

Nearly everything about Georgia's SEX OFFENDER laws (including their originations, basis, implementation, interpretation, defense of, enforcement, etc.) could hardly be more idiotic. It's hard to imagine anyway. The Registration forms and processes are just a very basic, simple example of their rampant stupidity. Instead of the Criminal State just creating the forms that should be used throughout the entire state and ensuring that they are accurate and legal, each county just "rolls their own". And I'll tell you, most of them barely have enough sense to make it to work, let alone do anything intelligent there. The counties have had a very difficult time with their processes and it has certainly cost a fortune. The SEX OFFENDER laws are government stupidity at its finest.

[ieee]

rodsmith: You are correct that the people who are passing these laws are criminals. They should be treated as such. They deserve punishment and so do the people who support them.

A large majority of the people listed on the Registries did something wrong (we'll leave out the consensual juvenile cases and such). Those people were punished for what they did. The retroactive harassment and punishments that are being added onto those people is not acceptable. A lot of it is not acceptable even for people who are newly convicted (because it is stupid, unfair (e.g. not applied to certainly equally deserving populations), counterproductive, immoral, un-American, etc., etc.).

The people listed on the Registries should consider Registrymongers to be enemies. They are trying to turn the United States into a P.O.S., bottom-of-the-barrel, third-world country. It's unacceptable. It is a war. Treat them as enemy combatants. Registrants should have three main goals: 1) Follow all laws, 2) Ensure that, at least for themselves, the Registries, etc., are counterproductive and a very bad idea, and 3) Identify Registrymongers and punish them.

For a very long time I have ensured that these laws are a bad idea for me. With respect to me, the Registrymongers have already lost the war and anything further will only be adding to their casualties. I will continue to harm any Registrymonger that I can in any manner within the law. Registrants should also recognize that they do not have to limit any harm directly to the Registrymongers themselves. These people have attacked your families. They have attacked your spouses and children. They should get what they give.

Lastly, these laws have caused Registered people to "snap" and lash out in retaliation. In the worst cases when they have done that, they have harmed innocent people and even murdered children. Experts warned legislators that this would happen but apparently they felt the vast benefits of Registration outweighed such things (or, they were more concerned with hatemongering). I won't condone any illegal behavior beyond civil disobedience, but karma would be better served if those people would direct their anger at Registrymongers.

[Joe Power]

I realize it may be a bit far-fetched, but I wonder what would happen (under such a law) if a plane was diverted to a CT airport and the passengers were forced to debark? (I raise this example as an analog to a case cited in a recent Volokh Conspiracy post about a passenger with a legally checked in pistol running afoul of a NJ gun law when his plane was forced to land and the passengers had to spend the night in a hotel.)

What if someone takes the train or bus from RI to NJ - is crossing the state without actually setting foot in it a violation?

If such a vote-mongering law were to be passed, I would hope that every registrant in every state would apply for permission to enter CT every day or two so the system would cost the state a fortune and collapse under its own weight (at which point registrants could legitimately claim they followed the rules if arrested) - a legal form of a heckler's veto.

[rodsmith]

joe that would be doing it the hard way. better to simply kill the first nazi who tried to enforce it against you! the law is COMPLETLY ILLEGAL ON IT'S FACE!

Therefore under numerous u.s supreme court rules is NO LAW AT ALL.

in that case people who threaten me or wave guns at me tend to get hurt or DEAD!

no matter WHAT clothing they are wearing at the time.

[Andrew]

I don't know to much about this bill that is being past but i believe it will be a good thing. Any sex offender that is traveling from one place to another should have to let the state that he or she is traveling to know. The reason I believe this is because whats to say he or she who is a sex offender is just hopping state lines to molest young kids or women. By forcing them to register that he or she is a sex offender will hopefully eliminate the chance for them to molest someone.

[Dave]

Anyone crossing state lines with the intention to commit a crime is not about to follow registration laws.

[rodsmith]

no offence andrew but i hope we also get a law requireing YOU to register YOUR location since anyone as ignorant as yourself and so willing to VIOLATE the U.S. CONSTITUTION is so OBVIOUSLY A THREAT you need to be monitored for life.