Our son begs us every year to let him come to Florida because we (his parents) go there in the winter to vacation around Christmas time. We have to gently and politely tell him no and that it is for his own good. We give him the reasons and he gets it on an intellectual level. He'd still love to be in warm weather in late December. We feel bad but because it used to be a Christmas tradition. But no more.

@Advocate 2, do you know of any other state that requires anyone ever convicted of a sex offense to register if they come to the state, regardless if their state registration has expired? Our son is a Tier One and God willing (assuming there are no more legislative changes) will be off the registry one day. Is this a common practice among other states?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Actually michigan the walsh act kind of over rules the laws of the states. They re defined sex offender as someone who has committed a sex offense, regardless of when committed. So lets say you have been removed from the state registry, if you travel interstate commerce you must register within 72 hours. If not, you are under federal penalty. That is the cut throat of the IML recently passed, it will apply to all who have a record period. I would strongly advise anyone with said records to learn as much as possible of relocating to another country that is not obsessed with sex crimes. I have certifications in auto and marine mechanics, electrical, plumbing, hvac and refrigeration. I am seriously looking at leaving the US and never looking back. If i didnt have a wife with close family ties and kids, i would have already left this crumbling nation.

Sikovitali is absolutely correct.

Michiganfamily, If your son is ever removed from his state registry, if he moves to another state he will have engaged in interstate commerce and he will then have a federal requirement to register in the new state.

I am off the registry in Oklahoma, and I am going nowhere. If I moved to Kansas, I would be mandated to start registering all over again.

Let me attempt to clarify this SORNA situation as I understand it.

Sex offenders have a state requirement to register with local law enforcement in the state they reside. SORNA also requires sex offenders to register and keep their registration current. So you have two different sets of laws that require a registrant to register. In the link below, you will find this text----" Requires registered sex offenders to register and keep their registration current in each jurisdiction in which they reside, work, or go to school."

http://tinyurl.com/ze56gag

The problem then becomes that while there is a sheriff's office or a PD to register with the state, there is no place designated for a registrant to register federally. As long as there is a state obligation to register, the feds allow the state to do all the paperwork and enforce the registry. See the paragraph below.

Even though SORNA states that every registrant also has a federal requirement to register as well as the state requirement, SORNA more or less allows each individual state or jurisdiction to enforce the registration. But, there clearly is a responsibility for a registrant to register under SORNA even if the state did not adopt SORNA.

In the link below, if you read far enough, you will see this text-----" Failure by states to implement SORNA does not relieve individuals subject to act of their obligation to register under SORNA."

http://tinyurl.com/zzxv9ct

The feds are not likely to bother a registrant as long as that registrant is required to register in their state.

The big problem is when a registrant is removed from the registry of the state he resides. You would think that removal would be absolute and you could do anything you want or move anywhere, but that is not the case.

If a registrant is completely removed from the registry in his state, he had better stay put and never move across state lines. Moving across state lines would be an engagement in interstate commerce and then the registrant would be subject to a federal requirement to register.

See the link below. The appellate attorney from Oklahoma who won the Starkey case in 2013 addresses this situation. In the link below, read question #5 in the white text. The text states-------

5. Does the Federal Law Apply to me?

""As of July 1, 2013, the State of Oklahoma has not adopted the Federal Sex Offender Registration Act. HOWEVER, if you have been convicted of a listed crime and you travel in interstate commerce, you have made yourself subject to a Federal requirement to register.""

http://tinyurl.com/lr9fnun

So if anyone is removed from a state registry, he or she had better stay put. Moving to another state would cause a federal requirement to register. But as long as anyone is under the control of the state registration requirements, SORNA is not a problem UNLESS they want to move to another state as JustAnotherNobody mentions. Then their registration requirements could be enhanced.

Regarding the "Certification of Rehabilitation" in California, as Thought mentioned. If an offender in California is removed from the registry through this method, it does not erase his crime, but does relieve him of the duty to register in CALIFORNIA. But, if the person removed ever establishes residence in another state, which will entail him engaging in interstate commerce, then he would have to register in the state to which he moved.

If he did not register in the new state, he might have United States Marshalls on his doorstep some evening wondering why he did not register in the new state.

I wrote this up superfast, so if anyone sees any mistakes, let me know. I certainly want accurate information to be available to all the members here on the forum.

rewdiazepam

It is sad how this has progressed over the years since enacted in 94. First it was to inform neighbors, then counties, then states, then the nation, now the world. The US is making an attempt to spread their way of doing things globally, IML is clear evidence. Sure, sex traffickers exist and perhaps should be globally monitored, but a 70 yr old grandpaw who inappropriately touched a grandchild? Yeh, he has issues but is he an international threat? I used to be a straight up republican, until the 109th congress, and the current congress passing AWA and IML under suspension of rule. They are as anti-constitution as the other party who started this mess under Clinton. What would happen in the feds passed a law putting restrictions on anyone who ever had a DUI? The crimes are not comparable, but the application is. As i see it, suspending the rules to pass such laws is like saying they do not apply to actual human beings.

@REW Would this also be true with simple travel requirements? In other words, if my son was off the registry and merely VISITED by didn't MOVE to another state, would he then be permarently registered in the state he visited? Are you suggesting my son should never travel out of Michigan once removed from the state registry?

Thank you for the above information.

Yes I know it is quite a common practice Michigan - it is one of the worst travesties of this system - SO WRONG!

In some of the court documents I have read regarding the SORNA and interstate commerce, the feds consider crossing state lines as engaging in interstate commerce.

So if I was ever removed from the registry in one state, I would be very careful even traveling to another state and crossing state lines.

Interestingly enough, I emailed John Dunn, the appellate attorney in Tulsa who won the Starkey case and he also says that the feds could prosecute anytime a former registrant crosses state lines and engages in interstate commerce.
.
rewdiazepam

All prosecutions i have seen were when someone moved and did not register. I havent seen where anyone was in violation for say a weekend visit. I would caution any stay over three days would trigger obligation to register. I still cannot understand how a guideline which has not been implemented by most states can be grounds for prosecution. I cannot understand how what is a local or state issue can become a federal issue, but the commerce clause argument has already been shot down. This needs to go before SCOTUS again, since Smith vs Doe, there have been many restrictions placed on registrants that are contrary to the reasoning for registration being found constitutionally sound in the 2003 decision.

Basically what this means is that even though by law you have completed your sentence in one state another state is holding you accountable for the same crime a second time - it is so unconstitutional it is not even funny. The first time I heard of this I was appalled and in disbelief!

It needs to be challenged and go to SCOTUS but like in so many things in our country someone has to be brave enough to risk it to start the fight. It is a scary proposition.

Way back when this country was being founded and did not yet have the final Constitution we were governed by a document called The Articles of Confederation. The document had a lot of issues and the states were basically in chaos. There was almost a second revolution (in fact there was a mini one). One of the issues with the Articles was that the states still had much of their power to govern the way they saw fit. While to some that might sound good it caused the exact problem we are talking about ... There were too many laws that were vastly different in one state to the next that citizens never knew what applied. They knew they had to go back to the drawing board and draft a more detailed document - that is when the fed govt got a whole lot bigger. But the one thing that was addressed was that one state to the next could not do things that would but a citizens "in limbo" just because they crossed state lines. It was not only about the law but many other things. I am going to do a little research and see if that clause could apply to a situation like this.

The thing is though the Interstate Commerce act (as far as I can tell) involves just that - commerce. I do not doubt that they are somehow applying it to RSOs issues but I do not see how -

Advocate,

You said, "Basically what this means is that even though by law you have completed your sentence in one state another state is holding you accountable for the same crime a second time."

This is the one time I don't quite agree with my dear friend, Advocate. The state is not holding you accountable, the federal government is. The federal government is the legal entity who arrests and prosecutes these type of state-to-state crimes where a sex offender crosses state lines, travels to another state, but fails to notify the proper authorities in the new state.

Why is that? Because it is a federal crime to fail to move from one state to another state without registering. SORNA kicks in which is federal legislation, so the feds prosecute.

If you troll the DOJ and FBI web sites, you constantly see press releases such as this. Notice that this press release is from the Department of Justice site-----

http://tinyurl.com/gun47sn

"As part of his guilty plea, Switala admitted that he was previously convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree in Michigan, which required him to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, and that he had moved from North Carolina to Syracuse in November 2015 without ever registering in New York or updating his registration in North Carolina."

You will see hundreds of these types of cases in which the feds prosecute and not the state. Notice it is always the United States Marshall who make the arrests and a federal prosecutor who files the charges.

Mr. Switala, the defendant in the press release, was charged federally for a SORNA violation, not a state violation.

rewdiazepam

It is totally illogical and counterinuitive that a different set of travel requirements become enacted once one is removed from their state's registry than when they were on it. The requirements actually become more onerous. For example, if you are a current registrant in a different state, Texas gives you a grace period of Ten days before you have to register there. So does Arizona. But my understanding is that because Sorna is 72 hours across the board, those longer grace periods no longer apply once removed from the state registry because SORNA is a federal piece of legalization which states don't get involved with. In all seriousness and candor, this is one of the craziest, illogical, twisted things I have ever heard.

Thank you Rew for helping me to understand this issue more. :o)

In a really unbelievable way, if one wants to travel, they are better off staying on their state's registry than coming off.

I am looking at petitioning for removal here in Ga. There are many law firms that say they can do this for five figures. I wonder is it worth it? There are MANY other websites that post info, mapping, etc. just as the state registry does. Would one need legal leverage on being removed from the others as well? Say you are removed from the GBI site here in Ga, would the court order apply to other private run sites as well? There is actually one here in Ga posting employers names and addresses which is not on the state site. It is not required but they are using info from the sheriffs dept. to post online. So im pondering how much and how long it would take to truly be out of public view. Still, the criminal record is still public. I cannot imagine finding employment with such stigma, i have opened and closed many businesses over the years it is like standing up, then getting knocked down.