Friday, May 20, 2011

Topic: States in Compliance with Adam Walsh Act

CLICK: For the full story of
"Who Killed Adam Walsh" and "How the Adam Walsh Act was Named"

What the Adam Walsh Act Requires
To Protect Registrants and their Families

Congress recognized that public registries do cause registrants and their families to become targets for all sorts of harmful acts, accordingly Congress wrote into the Adam Walsh Act the following (Note the word SHALL which means it must be in any public State registry):


(f) WARNING.—The site shall include a warning that information
on the site should not be used to unlawfully injure, harass, or commit a crime against any individual named in the registry or residing or working at any reported address. The warning shall note that any such action could result in civil or criminal penalties.
Some states, even before AWA also had various messages to WARN the public against harming registrants, but Congress went beyond, including registrants and their families, when Congress learned of several attacks against family members, at least one resulting in the death of the wife of a jailed accused offender. Other acts by all sorts of persons including vigilantes can be found in our "Vigilantism" blog and also in our "Murdered / Killed" blog. Interesting note: The State of Washington DID NOT have a centralized sex offender registry until March of 2009; this state has had 16 persons killed who were registered sex offenders or persons accused of a sex offense.
Because of those acts over the years, eAdvocate has been a staunch supporter of -AT A BARE MINIMUM- these WARNINGS messages, and now the Community Room also supports them. However, what we have found is, States may have the warning but sometimes it is tucked into their public registry where the public may or may not see it. Such makes it useless.

It is our belief that such WARNING MESSAGES should be on the Opening Page of the public registry, and on any displayed page of a registrant's information. In addition it should be BOLD like banks are required to do with percentage rates. We will always push for that minimum.

States, Tribes and Territories
which are considered in Substantial Compliance with:
The Adam Walsh Act SORNA Title-I

The SMART Office COMPLETE list of states & tribes in compliance is HERE, only the following are considered in "substantial compliance" with cases which challenged AWA/SORNA provisions successfully,
OhioSep-2009Portions Unconstitutional: State v. Williams and State v. Bodyke and In re C.P.
South DakotaApr-2010--
MichiganMay-2011Portions Unconstitutional: Doe v Snyder
NevadaFeb-2011Portions Unconstitutional: ACLU of Nevada v. Masto
LouisianaJul-2011 HERE and HERE and HERE Still researching..--
KansasJul-2011Portions Unconstitutional Doe v Thompson
MarylandJul-2011Portions Unconstitutional: Doe v Dept of Pub Safety & Corr Ser and Dept of Pub Safety v. Doe
MissouriDec-2011 --
South CarolinaJul-2011--
TennesseeSep-2011 Lawsuit pending: Doe v Haslam
PennsylvaniaSep-2012Portions Unconstitutional: Commonwealth v Neiman Jr. and
In re J.B.
OklahomaFeb-2017Portions Unconstitutional STARKEY v. OKLAHOMA --
(Lost Compliance)
Compliant then lost compliance--(Notice Smart Office link, changes 8-1-16 re: juveniles then Delaware made a change in 2013 retroactive (pg-20) and was no longer compliant
----Compliance Date MM-YYYY source SMART Office List

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate (BACK to the Top Page)

No comments: