Rather than retype a very lengthy message, I will copy and paste a couple of messages I wrote for an article and another forum regarding travel for registrants.

These messages may be directed to someone else, but the information within the messages is accurate.

One guy told me, “REW, I think you are wrong. When a person is removed from one state, he is off the registry forever and will not have to ever register again. Exasperated, I finally told him to go ahead and do what he wants. Where is he now? He is sitting in a federal prison serving a sentence for a federal Failure to Register. He moved and disregarded my message, the United States Marshals caught him, cuffed him, and arrested him.

Here are the articles/messages I wrote several months ago--------------


Independent,

You said, “I get it Rew. I know how they are interpreting the law, and I believe you are 100% correct. You will get arrested if you cross state lines and fail to update info even if you are not required to do so by either state. The marshals will still arrest you. Make no mistake I get that.”

BINGO. The feds do not care about state laws once a registrant crosses state lines and engages in interstate commerce without notifying the authorities within 72 hours. They do not care what the state does, since once a registrant crosses state lines and does not register, he has violated federal law.

In all the DOJ reports I read, it is ALWAYS the U.S. Marshals who round up these guys who cross state lines and fail to register. If you are no longer on the registry, you are no longer a registrant, but an offender. If you cross state lines and do not update your registration according to SORNA, you have broken federal law. At that point, the state has nothing to do with it.

You may not be required by the state to update your registration information, but you sure as hell are required by the feds.

Not keeping compliant with SORNA has nothing to do with whether someone is or is not on the registry nor does it matter which state you move to, you still must keep your registration current if you have been convicted of a sex offense.

In fact, this is stated on John Dunn’s site. Look at question #5----

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.

tinyurl.com/lr9fnun

The things ThoughtAsWeak was pointing out is true in that in some states when you update your registration when you move to another state, some states may tell you that you no longer have to register. I will defer to ThoughtAsWeak on that point, as I don’t know how a receiving state will handle a registrant moving in. BUT you still have to notify the authorities. Call it registering, checking in, or saying “Hi” you have to keep your registration current to satisfy the feds.

ThoughtasWeak is correct in that the requirements for a registrant who has moved to another state may be different from state to state, but an offender still must register according to SORNA.

The reason I am a stickler about this SORNA situation is I have had numerous registrants tell me that once they are removed from the registry, they plan on moving to another state. They have no idea about the SORNA requirements; they think, reasonably, that once off the registry, they can go anywhere. I don’t want them to get to their new state and get arrested on a federal FTR. That is very important to me.

Rewdiazepam

----------------------


We have had several discussions on this forum regarding the situation in which an offender removed from the registry---or not on the registry for any reason---must keep his registration current according to SORNA.

I hear friends say, “I will be glad when (fill in your loved one’s name) is off the registry so we can go traveling across the United States.”

I always have to remind them that even though an offender has been removed from the registry in his state, or is no longer on the sex offender registry in his state he---the offender---still is required to register and keep his registration current if he crosses state lines and engages in interstate commerce, as this is one of SORNA’s requirement.

Some people have questioned me on this point, saying that it just does not make sense and once a person is removed from the registry in his native state, he is off the registry forever and will never have to register again.

I have always said that I am unaware of any case in which a registrant who was removed from the registry in his state---or was not on his state's sex offender registry for any reason--- received a federal FTR for not registering when he crosses state lines. Well, I have now.

A friend sent me a link to this federal case in which a man who was not required to register in his state still received a federal FTR because he did not keep his registration current as SORNA requires.

I have copied and pasted the document here. Instead of someone having to wade through and read the entire document, I have bolded the pertinent parts.

Here we go----


File Name: 17a0683n.06

Case No. 17-5329

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RONALD W. PAUL,

Defendant-Appellant



BEFORE: GIBBONS, COOK, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

COOK, Circuit Judge. Ronald Paul pleaded no contest in Tennessee state court to one count of rape. The judgment that effectuated the plea noted a special condition: “nor shall defendant be required to comply w/ the sexual offender registry.” That condition occasions this appeal from Paul’s conviction for violating federal sex-offender reporting requirements. Paul maintains that when Tennessee absolved him of his state obligation to register, it also eliminated his corresponding federal registration duty. Agreeing with the district court that the Tennessee judgment did not excuse Paul from complying with federal registration requirements, we AFFIRM.


I. BACKGROUND

“[T]o allow members of the public to adequately protect themselves and their children,” Tennessee requires a “violent sexual offender” like Paul to register with the state promptly after release from custody. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-39-201(b)(2), 40-39-202(30)–(31) (defining a “violent sexual offender” as one convicted of a “violent sexual offense,” which includes rape), 40-39-203(a)(1). Tennessee law requires that he thereafter (for life) provide in-person updates both quarterly and within 48 hours of any address change. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-39-203(a)(1), 40-39-204(b)(1), 40-39-207(g)(1)(B).

A. Paul’s Registration History

Following his release from custody, Paul registered as a sex offender at the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, despite the notation on his judgment. The registering officer testified that she not only processed Paul’s initial registration but also that she explained Tennessee’s registration requirements and gave Paul a copy, which he acknowledged by signing a form. He continued to register a few times each year; eventually, he skipped several quarters and then stopped registering entirely.

All 12 registration forms Paul signed reiterated his Tennessee registration obligations. The final form included specific notice of a duty to register under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Less than a month after Paul last registered, he traveled to the Philippines, and did not return to the United States for over a year. When he returned to Tennessee for a five-week stay, however, Paul failed to report or register a Tennessee address. For that failure, a grand jury indicted him for violating SORNA. A jury later convicted him. Paul appeals, continuing to argue, as he has throughout this protracted litigation, that he should not have been prosecuted and that dismissal was warranted.1

II. ANALYSIS

“We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on legal grounds.” United States v. Philp, 460 F.3d 729, 732 (6th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599, 602 (6th Cir. 2012) (statutory construction and constitutionality issues are reviewed de novo).

A. Applicable Law and Procedure

SORNA requires sex offenders to inform authorities of where they live, work, and attend school. See 34 U.S.C. § 20913(a). The Act “establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of [sex] offenders.” 34 U.S.C. § 20901.

SORNA defines a sex offender as “an individual who was convicted of a sex offense” and subjects such an offender to certain registration requirements. Id. § 20911(1). Paul pleaded no contest in Tennessee to one count of rape, qualifying him as a “sex offender” under SORNA and subjecting him to federal registration duties. Among its requirements, SORNA obligates sex offenders to register “in each jurisdiction where the offender resides.” Id. § 20913(a).

B. Paul’s Violation

The government argues that the following statutory language justifies Paul’s conviction: “Whoever . . . is required to register under [SORNA] . . . travels in interstate or foreign commerce . . . and . . . knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required by [SORNA]; shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 2250.

Paul “travel[ed]” internationally to the Philippines and failed to register the Tennessee address where he resided for the five weeks after returning to the United States. The only element Paul can dispute is whether he “knowingly” failed to register that address.

C. Court Denies Dismissal and Grants Government’s Motion in Limine

In practice, sex offenders register according to the requirements of their state of residence; that registration also satisfies SORNA. The wrinkle here is the exemption language in Paul’s Tennessee judgment. As Paul sees it, the special Tennessee condition eliminated all his registration requirements, prompting him to seek dismissal of this SORNA-based case. The district court denied dismissal, however, concluding that SORNA imposes a distinct federal duty that Paul’s Tennessee judgment could not and did not release. The court also granted the government’s pretrial motion to withhold from jury consideration the legal issue of whether Paul’s Tennessee judgment excused him from SORNA’s reporting requirements.

To conclude that SORNA required registration despite Tennessee excusing it, the district court analyzed the language and legislative history of SORNA as well as case law—a task the law assigns to judges, not to jurors. And though Paul wishes to cast this as a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, he cannot reasonably do so. The judge—as occurs in every trial—gave the jury the law applicable to the case: that SORNA obligated Paul to register as a sex offender. Whether he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt remained in the jury’s hands. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 513 (1995) (“[T]he judge must be permitted to instruct the jury on the law and to insist that the jury follow his instructions.”).

At trial, Paul conceded that he was “convicted of a qualifying sex offense that requires him to register under [SORNA]” and that the records of his international travel were “true and accurate.” In defense, he put before the jury the language from his Tennessee judgment, pressing the jury to find that it showed that he did not knowingly violate SORNA. The jury returned a guilty verdict.

D. Paul’s Challenges

Paul advances several theories for why he cannot be convicted under SORNA. He generally targets aspects of SORNA’s operation as undercutting Tennessee’s state sovereignty. That is, the way Paul assesses it, applying SORNA to him effectively invalidates the exemption Tennessee meant to confer.

He also argues that the federal registration requirement is “tie[d] . . . directly to the state requirement,” such that only an individual who is required to register by his state of residence may be prosecuted. In support of that theory, he points to SORNA’s requirement that a sex offender register in the “jurisdiction” where he resides as presupposing an existing state obligation. 34 U.S.C. § 20913(a). Paul suggests that three of our cases addressing SORNA convictions of defendants who had also violated state registration requirements confirm his view.

See United States v. Harper, 502 F. App’x 447 (6th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Felts, 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Trent, 654 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2011).

But Paul fails to appreciate the duality of the sex offender registration systems. Yes, a sex offender’s SORNA obligations are coextensive with corresponding state registration requirements. But SORNA imposes duties on all sex offenders, irrespective of what they may be obliged to do under state law. As the government cogently argues, if Congress meant for sex offenders’ SORNA requirements to depend on state registration requirements, the Act would specifically say so. Like the government, we read SORNA to bind all individuals “convicted” of sex offenses, not just those with corresponding state obligations. 34 U.S.C. § 20911(1).

We have not interpreted SORNA otherwise. With this legislation, Congress sought to create nationwide uniformity for sex offender registration and resolve inadequacies stemming from the “patchwork of federal and 50 individual state registration systems.” United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496, 2505 (2013) (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 565 U.S. 432, 435 (2012)). The district court correctly denied Paul’s motions to dismiss.

E. Paul’s Additional Arguments

Full Faith and Credit

Paul also argues that enforcing SORNA against him deprives his Tennessee judgment of the full faith and credit it must be accorded under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1. To prevail, Paul would need to show that the Tennessee judgment validly excused him from all registration requirements under both state and federal law. But nothing in the Tennessee judgment addressed Paul’s SORNA obligations. The Tennessee court meant to relieve him of “comply[ing] w/ the sexual offender registry,” not “any” or “all” registries.

Vague as Applied

Paul additionally claims that SORNA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his situation because it requires him to go to a state office to register for federal purposes when his Tennessee judgment specifically promised that he need not register there. A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008); see also United States v.Blaszak, 349 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 2003). Paul raises no cognizable challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA as applied to him. See United States v. Lechner, 806 F.3d 869, 875 (6th Cir. 2015) (explaining that a defendant must show the statute was vague “as applied to his particular case” (quoting United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746, 750 (6th Cir. 2012))).

He highlights only his confusion about his requirements under his Tennessee judgment. That confusion, however, stems from the Tennessee judgment, rather than from SORNA. Nor can Paul credibly argue that he lacked notice of SORNA’s requirements. When he
last registered in 2009, the final page of his registration instructions included a section titled:

“Notification of Federal Duty to Register as a Sex Offender.” This section included the following details of his SORNA requirements:

Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a federal law, persons with sex offense convictions must register as a sex offender and keep their registration current in each jurisdiction (state or territory) in which they reside . . . . [C]onvicted sex offenders are required to notify the jurisdiction where they are required to register not later than three business days (48 hours under Tennessee law) after any change of name, residence, employment, or student status. Failure to comply with these obligations subjects the convicted offender to prosecution for failure to register or update their registration under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2250, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, which may be independent of any additional state law violations.

On the registration form, Paul marked an “X” next to a line saying he “read and underst[oo]d the requirements” and signed his name. He initialed the bottom of each instruction page. We find that Paul had fair notice of SORNA’s registration requirements.

Tenth Amendment and Commandeering

Paul alleges that his federal prosecution nullifies Tennessee’s police power in violation of the Tenth Amendment. He claims that SORNA deprives Tennessee of the ability to decide who must register in the state and that SORNA violates anti-commandeering principles by requiring Tennessee to register him. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).

Neither argument has merit. Again, Tennessee ostensibly relieved Paul of his registration obligations under Tennessee law, nothing more. Paul acknowledges that SORNA is a valid exercise of federal authority under the Spending Clause. See United States v. Stock, 685 F.3d 621, 626 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207–12 (1987)) (finding state action conditioned upon the receipt of federal funds valid); Felts, 674 F.3d at 606–08 (same). And Paul misidentifies the relevant actor. SORNA compels action by sex offenders, not states. Stock, 685 F.3d at 626. Tennessee could have refused to accept Paul’s registration. In that case, Tennessee would have had to forgo some federal funding and Paul would have had an affirmative defense. See 18 U.S.C. § 2250(c) (excusing a SORNA violation if “uncontrollable circumstances prevented . . . compl[iance],” the sex offender “did not contribute to the creation of such circumstances in reckless disregard of the requirement to comply,” and the sex offender “complied as soon as such circumstances ceased to exist”); Stock, 685 F.3d at 626 n.3; Felts, 674 F.3d at 607–08. But we are not presented with that scenario here.

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we AFFIRM.

Rewdiazepam

------------------------------

The author of these tables went to great pains to make sure the data presented was accurate. He actually called and talked to someone in charge of the registry in each state before he created these tables. The author is a reputable person, I believe.

@hosea,

You said, “I have been doing some research on Hawaii and found that there requirements seem to indicate that if you are off the registry in the state you were convicted then you are not required to register in the state of Hawaii.”

If a registrant is removed from the registry in his state then he would be well advised to stay put. Once removed, if he moves to another state, he WILL be registering again. SORNA says that any sex offender must keep his registration current in the jurisdiction he lives.

A registrant moving to another state has 72 hours to register or he will be subject to federal law.

“SORNA requires sex offenders to register and keep their registration current in each jurisdiction in which they reside, are employed, or attend school. A sex offender must also initially register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if it is different from the jurisdiction of residence. Jurisdictions’ registration programs must incorporate these requirements to implement SORNA.”

tinyurl.com/yden9anj

“What are the requirements for keeping registry information current?

A sex offender must, not later than three business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status, appear in person in at least one jurisdiction in which the sex offender is required to register and inform that jurisdiction of all changes in the information required for that sex offender in the sex offender registry. This information must immediately be provided to all other jurisdictions in which the sex offender is required to register. Jurisdictions must also require a sex offender to provide notice if he or she is leaving the jurisdiction prior to the move; the sex offender must provide information about the jurisdiction to which he or she is going.

So, once off the registry in one state, a registrant must register within 72 hours of being in another state.

The state in which the registrant was removed from the sex offender registry will not have to register in that state, but once he crosses the state line and engages in interstate commerce, he has 72 hours to register. Of course, they have to catch him and know when he entered the state. But if after 72 hours, he has not registered, then he becomes subject to federal law. At that time, if the United States Marshals find out, they will arrest him, he will be charged with a federal FTR, and possibly face prison time.

So, you can travel after he is removed from the sex offender registry, but keep it under 3 days.

You might say, “REW, what if a registrant is not moving to another state, but only visiting. Unfortunately, the courts will probably rule that traveling is the same as moving as far as SORNA is concerned

tinyurl.com/ydym6yp3

There is an excellent discussion about this situation by following the link above.

“This page speaks in terms of “Moving” however states will interpret simply going into another state (traveling), as a move. Accordingly, if you move or travel to another state you will need to know their laws BEFORE entering that state, lest you be stopped by the police and accused of “Failure to Register” and end up in their prison.

And worse yet, the Adam Walsh Act takes effect the minute you cross any state line, whether or not that state has enacted it (USA v Paul Shenandoah), and if you fail to follow AWA (register in the new state) you might end up with a federal prison sentence, and a civil commitment hearing at the end of that sentence, then civilly committed for the rest of your life.

We had a good discussion about that scenario on the board. You can find it here----

tinyurl.com/y7p835wn

Hope this clarifies things.

Rewdiazepam


Well, I have been off the registry for three years now and have never registered. And I have not been arrested. The DOC in my state told me I was under no obligation to continue to register in my state. But as John Dunn mentioned on his site, if I ever leave my state, I will no longer be in state control, but will make myself vulnerable to registering again in the new state. Once I leave the state, I will be under jurisdiction of the feds and would be forced to begin registering again.

If a registrant is removed from State “A”, he no longer has to register as long as he remains in State “A”. Remember, as I have said, the state maintains the registry, not the feds. So as long as the registrant stays in State “A” where he has been removed, he is under jurisdiction of the state and the feds defer the enforcement of the registry to the states.

As long as he remains in State “A”, there will be no federal marshals looking for him.

Also, please remember what I have said several times in this thread that SORNA is only enforced when a registrant crosses state lines and is then under the jurisdiction of the feds. As long as he stays within his state, he is safe from the federal marshals.

Now, what if a registrant is removed from State “A” and moves to another address in State “A” without crossing state lines? Does he have to register according to SORNA? I personally do not think so since he has not crossed state lines and become under the jurisdiction of the federal law---SORNA.

Independent, you asked, “When you get off the registry in your home state why would you stop keeping your registration current with the police??”

B/c SORNA defers to the state as far as enforcing the registry and SORNA does not get involved in state matters. There is no reason to keep registering if SORNA will not bother you.

Independent, you said, “According to sorna you are supposed to keep it current no matter what.”

SORNA will not go after a registrant until he crosses state lines and engages in interstate commerce. I have not seen one---not one---DOJ report in which the federal marshals or the feds apprehended a registrant who failed to register by moving within his own state. When the U S Marshals get involved it is ALWAYS a case in which a registrant from one state crossed state lines to move to another state without registering.

Although SORNA does not say so in its statutes, the feds seem to stay out of the states and allow the states to administer the registry.

As a result, I don’t think the SORNA requirement to keep your registration current applies if a registrant stays within his state and stays out of federal jurisdiction. Btw, neither do the two attorneys I have spoken to.

The wording in SORNA is vague at times and could have been better written. The interpretation of many of SORNAs provisions have also never been challenged in court, so nobody knows for sure about some of these situations.

I realize that everything regarding SORNA does not quite make sense, but it helps a lot if you understand the jurisdictional aspect.

I think I understand SORNA fairly well, but there is one or two aspects that are fuzzy to me. Some of these questions might not be able to be answered for sure until a court makes a ruling on that specific situation.

Rewdaizepam