The Dobbs Wire: New SORNA regulations issued – effective Jan. 7, 2022
Headsup! New SORNA regulations were issued today – take effect Jan. 7, 2022. They will impact everybody on a sex offense registry.
In the last months of the Trump administration the Department of Justice (DOJ) suddenly issued draft regulations under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).  The draft regulations were published as required and hundreds of comments received.  After the comment period ended there was no response from the government. The silence continued as Trump exited and Biden took office. Any hopes that Biden might simply do nothing and leave the regulations in limbo evaporated. Today’s Federal Register has the finalized regulations. They’re lengthy and complicated, lots of questions as to what they mean and how they will be enforced. Without a doubt these federal regulations will make life even more hellish for the hundreds of thousands (900,000+ in 2018 according to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) listed on state sex offense registries –counting their families and significant others, several million people will be impacted. While the states are at the center of registration matters, these changes expand the responsibilities that registrants have under federal law, creating more trip wires and opportunities for prosecution. The screws are being tightened, again. The existing registry regime has produced no benefit to public safety. A more draconian regime will not change that.  As of 2021 every state has had a registry for 25 years. There’s still no coherent cry to get rid of these ineffective, destructive laws. I hope these SORNA changes will bring more people into this fight.
The regulations are linked below as published in the Federal Register. They’re online here:
Registration Requirements Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (OAG 157; RIN 1105-AB52)
Also attached is a letter from Daniel Hansmeier, Appellate Chief of the Kansas Federal Public Defender to the Department of Justice that gives perspective on the changes. Excerpt: “The proposed rule defines crimes Congress never envisioned. It seeks to punish offenders who are plainly compliant with SORNA. The regulations do not interpret SORNA; they expand SORNA by defining lawful acts (or impossible acts) as crimes.”
Bill Dobbs, Publisher The Dobbs Wire info@thedobbswire.com 85 Fed. Reg. 49332 - FPD Comment 2021-26420
This committee obviously had not intention of listening to the public comments or effecting any changes in SORNA and was a complete waste of time collecting them.
Their responses to valid and logical comments, suggesting change is needed, is responded to with a prosecutors sharp response quoting legal cases and nonsensical outdated legal jargon.
It is obvious that the committee had no interest in learning from the comments that people took valuable time out of their schedule to assemble, with facts and studies to support their findings ,that SORNA was a useless and ineffective law and did nothing to support the all important excuse of :”PUBLIC SAFETY” for which the laws are supposedly written.
Do I detect ex post facto implications here?
If I reside, or will soon reside, within a “jurisdiction” that refuses to register me since I don’t or no longer meet their requirements, I may be prosecuted federally, under SORNA, if 25 years have not passed since my sentencing (I’d be considered a Level 2 and was not imprisoned). Although, under 72.7(g)1, the feds seem to realize there are multiple reasons why a local “jurisdiction” may be unable or unwilling to register a PFR per SORNA’s requirements, those reasons are not necessarily an affirmative defense for one if prosecuted. Really? If my local sheriff’s office won’t even talk to me about registering, I ask the feds “Where is YOUR federal office in my ‘jurisdiction’? If you’re going to require me to register for YOU, why don’t YOU have a fed location where I could register?”. There are loads of folks across the country who are not required to register in their own states presently, but they WILL still be required to register under SORNA. Will they all move to another state now? Will they be arrested? Will they somehow compel their sheriff to register them anyway? These regs also indicate that, if a PFR resides in a “jurisdiction” that does not require them to register (and will, thus, refuse to), they must ultimately register for SORNA “IF” that “jurisdiction” later changes its rules and sends them some kind of notification that they must now register data for SORNA. So, in one case, you MUST register for SORNA immediately, even if not supported by your “jurisdiction”, but in another case, you don’t have to register for SORNA until your “jurisdiction” tells you to. Those options contradict each other. I wonder if the feds are pretty confident that all of the states will soon become SORNA-compliant so these regs would at least make a bit more sense. It’s like a little child wrote this BS. However, much of the existing SORNA is unclear and unspecific.
I meant to add in my previous comment that it looks more than likely that a PFR WOULD have an affirmative defense if the local sheriff refused to register him. However, if one were prosecuted, even if later acquitted, it would be an expensive prosecution in multiple ways. Also, one would be subject to successfully PROVING that he tried, tirelessly, and was still refused. And, if you weren’t contacted by the state, informing you that you now needed to register, the onus would be on you.
Appreciate the observations from those such as RM, below, that prevent me from having to read and understand all this. Also words of wisdom from G and others.
I don’t see many states adopting this because it brings people into the registry without a trial and sentencing.
You can’t constitutionally bring someone under a law that never existed at their sentencing decades later–that is legally ludicrous!
I believe this is going to backfire in a most audacious way that is literally going to anger judges off their chairs.
States do not have to follow federal law, nor can the federal government force them to do so.
If the supreme courts of the states judge this unconstitutional, (which probably many of them will) no one will have to do anything different and we cannot be held liable for registration requirements the state refuses to adopt!
I think this has a good chance of working in our favor because it is so absurd, and it may even cause some of our current duties to be relaxed.
This is why the forefathers of this country made ‘separation of powers’, so that if the legislative branch of the government ‘oversteps’ and goes over the top with a law, the judicial branch can nullify it.
While the rulemaking is 32 pages long, pages 1-11 mainly talk about the comments received and their reasoning for ignoring most of them while pages 11-28 explain the actual legal text that is on pages 29-32.
In other words, it takes 28 pages to explain 4.
Mr Alan
YOU ARE SO ON POINT!
I have no legal expertise and would be considered your “average Joe” here
I’ve lightly scanned through this and honestly, from what I can see, the “day to day” type stuff that we already are required to do here in FL are still pretty much the same. I didn’t see anything that really stood out as a change as far as reporting, where to report, and how often.
Perhaps for states or regions that are not as strict as FL is this will become more intense, but we’re already pretty accustomed to what’s listed here.
What I do see as sticking out, is their position for tightening up any legal opposition and/or push back by the “offenders” in court. This includes Ex Post Facto challenges.
Basically, if you ever had to register or were prosecuted for a qualifying offense, they are saying this applies to you regardless of whatever state you live in and you must now comply with the federal SORNA requirements, if you have not previously been doing so.
Again, I’m not an expert by any means, but this is what I’m personally seeing.
Would also love feedback from someone with a higher comprehension of legal jargon as well.