Safe from sex offenders? Legislating internet publication of sex offender registries

Urban Lawyer

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-18

  Locke, Christina ^a   Chamberlin, Bill F ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY CARE; INTERNET; LAW ENFORCEMENT; SAFETY; SERVICE PROVISION;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34547829225     PISSN: 00420905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (206)

1. Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).
2. Id.
3. This information was obtained by visiting the Internet site of each state that has a sex offender registry page available.
4. Parents for Megan's Law, Inc., Commonly Asked Questions, http://www.parentsformeganslaw.com/html/questions.lasso (last visited Dec. 20, 2006).
5. Id.
6. KAREN J. TERRY & JOHN S. FURLONG, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION: A "MEGAN'S LAW" SOURCEBOOK A2 (2d ed. 2004).
7. Center for Sex Offender Management, An Overview of Sex Offender Community Notification Practices: Policy Implications and Promising Approaches (Nov. 1997), available at http://www.csom.org. The Center for Sex Offender Management is a national project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Corrections, State Justice Institute, and the American Probation and Parole Association. Id. The purpose of the center is to support state and local jurisdictions in managing registered sex offenders, Id.
8. Id.
9. Devon B. Adams, Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Fact Sheet, NCJ-192265 (Mar. 2002), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sssor01.pdf.
10. Press Release, Department of Justice, Department of Justice Activates National Sex Offender Public Registry Website (July 20, 2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pressreleases/BJA05028.htm. The site address is www.nsopr.gov.
11. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).
12. McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32-33 (2002) (noting that when convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault); Center for Sex Offender Management, Recidivism of Sex Offenders (May 2001), available at http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html (synthesizing current research on the reoffense rate of sex offenders).
13. Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program (Title XVII of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (2004).
14. Jacob Wetterling was an eleven-year-old Minnesota boy who was abducted by an armed, masked man in 1989, while Jacob was riding his bicycle home from a store. The abduction apparently garnered a significant amount of publicity nationwide, and a Minnesota senator sponsored the legislation that became known as the Jacob Wetterling Act. Jacob's whereabouts are still unknown. See also Keith S. Hampton, Children in the War on Crime: Texas Sex Offender Mania and the Outcasts of Reform, 42 S. TEX. L. Rev. 781 (2001) (reviewing sex offender laws in the historical context of high-profile child abductions and murders).
15. 42 U.S.C. § 14071.
16. Id.
17. Id. § 14071(g)(2)(A).
18. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 90 (2003).
19. Final Guidelines for Megan's Law and the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, 62 Fed. Reg. 39,009, 39,009 (July 21, 1997).
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 39,011.
23. Megan's Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145, § 2, 110 Stat. 1345 (1996).
24. Pam Lychner Act, Pub. L. No. 104-236, § 2, 110 Stat. 3093 (1996).
25. Id.
26. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003).
27. Id. § 604.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).
32. Press Release, The White House, President Signs H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (July 27, 2006), available at 2006 WL 2076691 (Adam Walsh disappeared from a Florida department store on July 27, 1981. He was later found murdered).
33. 42 U.S.C.A. § 16918 (2006). The law also required state registries to be searchable by either zip code or a geographic radius determined by the computer user. Id. The U.S. Attorney General has discretion to develop mandatory and optional exemptions from public registries, in addition to the ones outlined in the law. Id. Mandatory exemptions outlined in the law are victim identities, Social Security numbers, and references to arrests without convictions. Id.
34. 42 U.S.C.A. § 16923 (2006).
35. 42 U.S.C.A. § 16925 (2006).
36. E.g., Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003);
37. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003);
38. see also Andrea L. Fischer, Note, Florida's Community Notification of Sex Offenders on the Internet: The Disregard of Constitutional Protections for Sex Offenders, 45 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 505 (1997) (analyzing the constitutionality of Florida Internet notification);
39. James Graziano, Creating New Victims: Megan's Law, the Third Circuit and Punishment, 22 RUTGERS L. REC. 10 (1997) (examining the analysis of Megan's Law by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit);
40. Keith S. Hampton, Children in the War on Crime: Texas Sex Offender Mania and the Outcasts of Reform, 42 S. TEX. L. REV. 781 (2001) (reviewing sex offender laws in the historical context of high-profile child abductions and murders);
41. Note, Making Outcasts Out of Outlaws: The Unconstitutionality of Sex Offender Registration and Criminal Alien Detention, 117 HARV. L. REV. 2731 (2004) (exploring sex offender registration and criminal alien detention in terms of constitutional violations);
42. William F. Shimko, Case Note, Smith v. Doe, 4 WYO. L. REV. 477 (2004) (criticizing the United States Supreme Court decision based on the reported flaws of the Mendoza-Martinez test);
43. Daniel J. Solove, The Virtues of Knowing Less: Justifying Privacy Protections Against Disclosure, 53 DUKE L.J. 967 (2003) (analyzing the shortcomings and privacy implications of using the Internet to disseminate sex offender information);
44. The Supreme Court, 2002 Term - Leading Cases, 117 HARV. L. REV. 327 (2003) (arguing that Internet registries are punitive in nature and not necessarily effective);
45. Daniel L. Feldman, The "Scarlet Letter Laws" of the 1990s: A Response to Critics, 60 ALB. L. REV. 1081 (1997) (presenting the popular arguments against Megan's Laws and his defenses to them).
46. U.S. CONST. art. I, §§ 9, cl. 3, 10.
47. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
48. Smith v. Doe, 538 United States 84 (2003);
49. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003).
50. 538 U.S. at 91. John Doe I and John Doe II were convicted of sexual abuse of a minor. Both were released from prison in 1990 and completed rehabilitative programs for sex offenders.
51. 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws 41.
52. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. at 89.
53. Id. at 96.
54. Id. at 97;
55. see Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
56. Id. at 97.
57. 538 U.S. at 98.
58. Id. at 101.
59. Id.
60. Smith, 538 U.S. at 102.
61. Id. at 103.
62. Id.
63. Id. at 104.
64. Smith, 538 U.S. at 105.
65. Id.
66. Id. Justice Kennedy wrote: The fact that Alaska posts the information on the Internet does not alter our conclusion. It must be acknowledged that notice of a criminal conviction subjects the offender to public shame, the humiliation increasing in proportion to the extent of the publicity. And the geographic reach of the Internet is greater than anything which could have been designed in colonial times. These facts do not render Internet notification punitive. The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender. Widespread public access is necessary for the efficacy of the scheme, and the attendant humiliation is but a collateral consequence of a valid regulation.
67. Id. at 99.
68. Id. at 106.
69. Doe v. Tandeske, 361 F.3d 594 (2004).
70. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003).
71. Id. at 6.
72. Id. at 7-8.
73. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
74. "[T]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantee of 'due process of law' to include a substantive component, which forbids the government to infringe certain 'fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Id. at 301-02.
75. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. at 8.
76. Id. at 4.
77. Id. at 8.
78. Id. at 4-5.
79. See generally Maureen S. Hopbell, Balancing the Protection of Children Against the Protection of Constitutional Rights: The Past, Present and Future of Megan's Law, 42 DUQ. L. REV. 331 (2004) (providing a general overview of the judicial challenges to Megan's Law);
80. Caroline Louise Lewis, The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act: An Unconstitutional Deprivation of the Right to Privacy and Substantive Due Process, 31 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 89 (1996) (considering the constitutional infringements upon sex offenders imposed by the Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law).
81. No state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
82. "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall 'be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.'" Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 164 (1977).
83. "The underlying idea [of the Double Jeopardy Clause], one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity." Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187 (1957).
84. "The Eighth Amendment [which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment] stands as a shield against those practices and punishments which are either inherently cruel or which so offend the moral consensus of this society as to be deemed 'cruel and unusual.'" South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 821 (1989).
85. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits punishment that is disproportionate to the crime. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1247 (7th ed. 1999).
86. "A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial." Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 323 (1867).
87. See supra note 3.
88. Devon B. Adams, Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Fact Sheet, NCJ-192265 (Mar. 2002), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sssor01.pdf.
89. Id.
90. The states that require the use of the Internet to disclose registry information are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See ALASKA STAT. § 18.65.087 (2006);
91. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-3827 (2006);
92. ARK. CODE ANN. § 12-12-909, 913 (2006);
93. CAL. PEN. CODE § 290.46 (2006);
94. COLO. REV. STAT. § 16-22-111 (2006);
95. CONN. GEN STAT. § 54-258(a)(1) (2006);
96. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4336;
97. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4121 (2006);
98. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 775.21(7)(C) (2006);
99. HAW. REV. STAT. § 846E-3 (2006);
100. 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 152/115 (2006);
101. IND. CODE ANN. § 36-2-13-5.5 (2006);
102. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17.580 (2006);
103. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 34-A, § 11221 (2005);
104. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 6, § 178D (2006);
105. MINN. STAT. § 244.052 (2006);
106. MO. REV. STAT. § 43.650 (2006);
107. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:7-13 (2006);
108. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 29-11A-5.1 (2006);
109. N.Y. CORRECT. LAW § 168-q (2006);
110. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-208.15 (2006);
111. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2950.13 (2006);
112. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9798.1 (2006);
113. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-37. 1-12 (2006);
114. S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 22-24B-21 (2006);
115. TENN. CODE ANN. § 40-39-206 (2006);
116. TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. 62.005 (2006);
117. UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-27-21.5 (2006);
118. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, § 5411A (2006);
119. VA. CODE ANN. § 9.1-913 (2006);
120. WASH. REV. CODE § 4.24.550 (2006);
121. W. VA. CODE § 15-12-2 (2006);
122. WIS. STAT. § 301.46(5n) (2006);
123. WYO. STAT. ANN. § 7-19-303 (2006).
124. IOWA CODE § 692A.13 (2005),
125. MO. REV. STAT. § 43.650 (2006),
126. WASH. REV. CODE § 4.24.550 (2006).
127. The states that statutorily permit the use of the Internet to disclose registry information are: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. See ALA. CODE § 15-20-25 (2006);
128. GA. CODE ANN. § 42-1-12 (2006);
129. IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-8323 (2006);
130. IOWA CODE § 692A. 13 (2005);
131. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 22-4909 (2006);
132. MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. PROC. § 11-717 (2006);
133. MICH. STAT. ANN. § 28.728 (2006);
134. MISS. CODE ANN. § 45-33-49 (2006);
135. MONT. CODE ANN. § 46-23-508 (2005);
136. NEV. REV. STAT. § 179B.250 (2006);
137. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 651-B: 7 (2006);
138. N.D. CENT. CODE § 12.1-32-15(13) (2006);
139. OKLA. STAT. tit. 57 § 584 (E) (2005);
140. OR. REV. STAT. § 181.592 (2006);
141. S.C. CODE ANN. § 23-3-490 (2005).
142. MICH. STAT. ANN. § 28.728 (2006);
143. S.C. CODE ANN. § 23-3-490 (2005).
144. The states with statutes that distinguish which sex offenders' registry information must be posted online are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
145. In 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act codified federal definitions of tiers into three levels. 42 U.S.C.A. § 16911 (2006).
146. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 6, § 178K (2004).
147. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 6, § 178D (2006).
148. The states that limit Internet dissemination to those registrants convicted of the most serious crimes are: Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming.
149. The states with statutes that call for some or most sex offender registry information to be released via the Internet are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.
150. NEV. REV. STAT. § 179B.250 (2006).
151. IOWA CODE § 692A. 13 (2005).
152. The states that do not distinguish among sex offenders for the purposes of Internet dissemination are: Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Ilinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
153. The states that have statutes requiring periodic updates of online sex offender registry databases are: Arizona, California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
154. The states that require information updates within a certain time period are: Arizona, Indiana, Delaware, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia.
155. Virginia requires information to be updated "each business day" VA. CODE ANN. § 9.1-913 (2006);
156. Kentucky statute dictates registry information to be updated every day but Saturday, Sunday, and state holidays, KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17.580 (2006).
157. New York requires monthly updates of "Tier 3" online information. N.Y. CORRECT. LAW § 168-q (2006).
158. Arizona and Texas each have statutes that require annual updates to the registry information. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-3827 (2006),
159. TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. § 62.005 (2006).
160. 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 152/115 (2006).
161. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9798.1 (2006).
162. MINN. STAT. § 244.052 (2006).
163. CAL. PENAL CODE § 290.46 (2006). California's law mandating a website for sex offender registration contains two unique provisions that are worth noting. First, the law directs the California Department of Justice to translate the web page into "languages other than English" at the department's discretion. Second, the new law makes it a crime for registered sex offenders in California to enter the website, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
164. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 6, § 178K (2006);
165. NEV. REV. STAT. § 179B.250 (2006);
166. VA. CODE ANN. § 9.1-913 (2006);
167. WIS. STAT. § 301.46(5n) (2006).
168. KEVIN J. CONNOLLY, LAW OF INTERNET SECURITY AND PRIVACY 45 (2004).
169. Id.
170. 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 152/115 (2006). Vermont repealed its user registration requirement in 2006. 2006-192 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 29 (Lexis Nexis).
171. 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 152/115.
172. ILL. COMP. STAT. 730/152-115 (2006).
173. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 105 (2003).
174. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 5 (2003).
175. "The [w]eb site warns that the use of displayed information 'to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution.'" Smith v. Doe, 538 United States at 105.
176. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. at 5.
177. 42 U.S.C.A. § 16918 (2006).
178. The states that statutorily require warnings or disclaimers on their sites are: Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont.
179. The states that statutorily require warnings against using the information to harass offenders are: Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont.
180. NEV. REV. STAT. § 179B.250 (2006).
181. CONN. GEN STAT. § 54-258(a)(1) (2006),
182. GA. CODE ANN. § 42-1-12 (2006).
183. "Not less than once per calendar quarter, the Department of Public Safety shall issue notices to all print and electronic media in the state regarding the availability and means of accessing the registry." CONN. GEN STAT. § 54-258(a)(1) (2006).
184. GA. CODE ANN. § 42-1-12 (2006).
185. The resolution urges the Louisiana State Police "to increase public awareness of the existence of Louisiana's Sex Offender Registry through the use of public service announcements, including but not limited to providing information on how to access and search the database." H.R. Con. Res. 32, 2004 Leg., Reg. Sess. (La. 2004).
186. See Adams, supra note 73.
187. See statutes cited supra note 75.
188. See discussion supra note 87.
189. See discussion supra note 88.
190. See statutes cited supra note 97.
191. 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 152/115 (2006).
192. See discussion supra note 108.
193. States that legislate database publicity are Connecticut, Georgia, and Louisiana.
194. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 604, 117 Stat. 650 (2003).
195. Devon B. Adams, Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Fact Sheet, NCJ-192265 (Mar. 2002), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sssor01.pdf.
196. Press Release, Parents for Megan's Law, National Megan's Law Report Card: States Failing to Make the Grade (Oct. 18, 2004) (on file with author).
197. Alvin Malesky & Jeanmarie Keim, Mental Health Professionals' Perspectives on Sex Offender Registry Web Sites, 13 SEXUAL ABUSE: A JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & TREATMENT 53, 58 (2001);
198. see also Peter Finn, Sex Offender Community Notification, National Institute of Justice, NCJ-162364 (1997), available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov.
199. See sources cited supra note 126.
200. See sources cited supra note 126.
201. See sources cited supra note 126.
202. See sources cited supra note 126.
203. See Roxanne Lieb & Scott Matson, Community Notification in Washington State: 1996 Survey of Law Enforcement, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, No. 96-11-1101 (Nov. 1996) available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=96-11-1101.
204. See Malesky & Keim, supra note 126;
205. Susan R. Paisner, Exposed: Online Registries of Sex Offenders May Do More Harm Than Good, WASH. POST, Feb. 21, 1999, at B01.
206. Convicted Sex Offender Commits Suicide over Neighborhood Signs, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 22, 2005, available at http://www.starbanner.com.