U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Conference on

Sex Offender Registries

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

Papers presented by

Patty Wetterling Ralph C. Thomas Kirk Lonbom

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Elizabeth A. Pearson Mike Welter

Marlene Beckman Dena T. Sacco Norm Maleng

Lisa Gursky Sorkin Robert R. Belair Rep. Mike Lawlor

Donna Feinberg Floyd Epps Sen. Florence Shapiro

James C. Swain Kathy J. Canestrini Roxanne Lieb

Emmet A. Rathbun Doug Smith Scott A. Cooper

Donna M. Uzzell

Criminal Justice Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Conference on

Sex Offender Registries

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

April 1998, NCJ-168965

Papers presented by

Patty Wetterling Ralph C. Thomas Kirk Lonbom

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Elizabeth A. Pearson Mike Welter

Marlene Beckman Dena T. Sacco Norm Maleng

Lisa Gursky Sorkin Robert R. Belair Rep. Mike Lawlor

Donna Feinberg Floyd Epps Sen. Florence Shapiro

James C. Swain Kathy J. Canestrini Roxanne Lieb

Emmet A. Rathbun Doug Smith Scott A. Cooper

Donna M. Uzzell
ii

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and

Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project

director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, and Eric C.

Johnson, Writer/Researcher, Corporate Communications, edited the proceedings. Jane L. Bassett,

Publishing Assistant, provided layout and design assistance. The federal project monitor was

Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, National Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 96-BJ-CX-K010, awarded to SEARCH Group,

Inc., 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this

document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the

U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1998.

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or

otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of

those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The

National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.
iii

Contents

Foreword, v

Introduction, vii

Keynote address

Patty Wetterling The Jacob Wetterling story, 3

Nature and management of the problem

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Sex offenders and offending: Learning more from national data

collection programs, 8

Federal panel: Wetterling Act/Megan’s Law

compliance issues

Marlene Beckman Panel introduction, 15

Lisa Gursky Sorkin The trilogy of Federal statutes, 16

Donna Feinberg Justice Department guideline changes and clarifications, 19

James C. Swain Applying for a compliance deadline extension, 22

Federal panel members Panel question-and-answer session, 24

Federal funding support

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Federal funding support for sex offender registries, 31

FBI panel: Interim and permanent solutions

Emmet A. Rathbun History and current status of a national sex offender registry, 37

Ralph C. Thomas The impact of the Lychner Act, 40

Overview of current State laws

Elizabeth A. Pearson Status and latest developments in sex offender registration and

notification laws, 45

Litigation issues

Dena T. Sacco Arguments used to challenge notification laws — and the

government’s response, 50

Pending legislation

Robert R. Belair Status of Federal legislation on sex offenders and changes to

current laws, 54

Panel of the States: Systems for the registration of sex

offenders

Floyd Epps Review of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, 59

Kathy J. Canestrini The method of risk assessment used for the New York State Sex

Offender Registration Act, 61

Doug Smith California’s history of sex offender registration requirements and

response to new Federal mandates, 64

Donna M. Uzzell The Florida sex offender registration and notification system, 68
iv

Kirk Lonbom The Illinois registration and notification system for

sex offenders, 72

Mike Welter Development of the Illinois sex offender registration and

community notification program, 75

The local responsibility

Norm Maleng The local responsibility for control and prosecution of sex

offenders: Behind Washington State’s history of landmark sex

offender laws, 81

Panel of the States: Enacting legislation

Rep. Mike Lawlor Creating effective sex offender legislation requires collaboration

between lawmakers and justice agencies, 87

Sen. Florence Shapiro The big picture of sex offenders and public policy, 92

Panel of the States: Community notification and

verification practices

Roxanne Lieb The State of Washington study of the efficacy of

notification laws, 101

Scott A. Cooper Community notification and verification practices in

three States, 103

Contributors’ biographies, 109

Appendix, 117
v

Foreword

Americans have become

increasingly angry in recent years

in response to a series of violent

and highly publicized sexual

assaults, primarily against children,

committed by individuals with

extensive prior sexual offense

histories. This outrage has been

intensified by the perception,

justified or not, that systems

traditionally used by justice

agencies to monitor law-breakers

returned to the community do not

adequately protect the public from

that unique category of individual

known as the sex offender.

Seeking to address the public’s

concern, the U.S. Congress

established three statutes that

collectively require States to

strengthen the procedures they use

to keep track of sex offenders: the

Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent

Offender Registration Act (enacted

in 1994), the Federal version of

“Megan’s Law” (enacted in 1996),

and the Pam Lychner Sexual

Offender Tracking and

Identification Act (also enacted in

1996).

In brief, the statutes require

States to establish registration

programs so local law enforcement

will know the whereabouts of sex

offenders released into their

jurisdictions, and notification

programs so the public can be

warned about sex offenders living

in the community. (The Lychner

Act also requires the creation of a

national sex offender registry, and

it requires the FBI to handle

registration in States that lack

“minimally sufficient” programs.)

The States were assigned a

difficult task. They were given until

September 1997 to comply with the

Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law,

and until October 1999 to comply

with the Lychner Act. Those that

failed to meet the compliance

deadlines risked losing 10 percent

of their appropriation from the

Federal Edward Byrne Memorial

State and Local Law Enforcement

Assistance Program, which

provides funding for State and local

crime eradication efforts.

Compliance was complicated by

the fact that both Megan’s Law and

the Lychner Act amended portions

of the Wetterling Act, creating

confusion as to whether the

requirements of one statute

superceded those of another. There

were also questions as to whether

the registration and notification

programs, once implemented,

would survive constitutional

challenges based on claims of

excessive punishment, invasion of

privacy and denial of due process.

Another hurdle was the growing

number of individuals who fell

under the statutes’ requirements.

According to data compiled by the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

number of sex offenders jumped

300 percent between 1980 and

1994. In 1994, there were

approximately 234,000 sex

offenders under the care, custody or

control of corrections agencies —

60 percent under conditional

supervision in the community —

on any given day.

States experiencing difficulty

meeting the compliance deadlines

were given the opportunity to

request 2-year, “good-faith-effort”

extensions. Forty-two of the 56

States and territories required to

comply with the statutes requested

deadline extensions. It appeared the

States needed guidance and

clarification to help them comply

with the registration and

notification statutes.

To assist the States, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, along with

SEARCH, The National

Consortium for Justice Information

and Statistics, cosponsored the

National Conference on Sex

Offender Registries, held July 16-

17, 1997, in Bellevue, Washington.

This publication presents the

proceedings of that 2-day

conference.

The conference featured

presentations by Federal officials

who explained the requirements of

the registration and notification

statutes in detail and who answered

the questions of State

representatives. Representatives

from several States presented

information on programs that their

States had implemented in response

to the Federal requirements.

Elected officials provided a

legislative perspective to the

proceedings, and experts updated

participants on the status of legal

challenges to registration and

notification programs.

Many of the problems and issue

areas identified in these

proceedings were subsequently

addressed or ameliorated in Federal

legislation and regulations.

The issue of sex offending is as

sensitive and emotionally charged

as any faced by society. The

federally required programs are

relatively new or redesigned

approaches to controlling sex

offenders, and a period of time

must elapse before quantitative

study can be conducted to ascertain

whether they are effective. I hope

these proceedings serve during this

period as a valuable reference tool

and also as a contribution to the

ongoing debate over the methods

used to control sex offenders.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director
vii

Introduction

In October 1989, 11-year-old

Jacob Wetterling bicycled with his

brother and a friend to a store near

his St. Joseph, Minnesota, home to

rent a video. Ten months later,

Houston real estate agent Pam

Lychner prepared to show a vacant

residence to a prospective buyer. In

July 1994, Megan Kanka, age 7,

accepted an invitation from a

neighbor in Hamilton Township,

New Jersey, to see his new puppy.

As they went about their daily

routines, Wetterling, Lychner and

Kanka could not have known they

were fated to become crime

victims, or that their names would

ultimately become synonymous

with Federal laws mandating more

stringent control of sex offenders.

Wetterling’s ride home was

interrupted by an armed man

wearing a nylon mask who ordered

the boy’s companions to flee.

Wetterling has not been seen since.

Investigators later learned that,

unbeknownst to local law

enforcement, halfway houses in St.

Joseph housed sex offenders after

their release from prison.

Wetterling’s disappearance

transformed his mother, Patty, a

self-described “stay-at-home

mom,” into a tireless advocate for

missing children. She was

appointed to a governor’s task

force that recommended stronger

sex offender registration

requirements in Minnesota.

The more stringent requirements

were subsequently implemented on

a national basis when the Jacob

Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent

Offender Registration Act was

included in the Federal Violent

Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994.1 The

Wetterling Act required States to

 

1 42 U.S.C. § 14071.

establish stringent registration

programs for sex offenders —

including life-long registration for a

subclass of offenders classified as

sexual predators — by September

1997.

Awaiting Lychner at the vacant

house was a twice-convicted felon

who brutally assaulted the former

flight attendant. Her life was saved

when her husband arrived on the

scene and interrupted the attack.

The experience motivated Lychner

to form Justice for All, a Texasbased victims’ rights advocacy

group that lobbies for tougher

sentences for violent criminals.

U.S. Senators Phil Gramm of

Texas and Joseph Biden of

Delaware credited Lychner with

helping to craft the language of a

bill that established a national

computer database to track sex

offenders. The bill was named the

Pam Lychner Sexual Offender

Tracking and Identification Act of

19962 to honor the activist after she

and her two daughters were killed

in the explosion of TWA Flight 800

off the coast of Long Island, New

York, in July 1996. The Lychner

Act amended the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act

of 1994 to require the Federal

Bureau of Investigation to establish

the national offender database and

to handle sex offender registration

and notification in States unable to

maintain “minimally sufficient”

programs of their own. The

Lychner Act compliance deadline

is October 1999.

The neighbor who invited

Megan Kanka to see his puppy was

a twice-convicted pedophile who

raped and murdered her, then

dumped her body in a nearby park.

Megan’s grieving parents said they

never would have let their daughter

 

2 42 U.S.C. § 14072.

travel their neighborhood freely if

they had been alerted to the

presence of a convicted sex

offender living across the street

from their residence. Congress

passed the Federal version of

“Megan’s Law,” another

amendment to the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act

of 1994, in 1996.3 It required States

to establish some form of

community notification by

September 1997.

The process of instituting a

nationally consistent policy to

control sex offenders is complex.

One of the greatest challenges is

the sheer magnitude of the

problem. Recent figures show that,

nationally, approximately 234,000

sex offenders are under the care,

custody or control of corrections

agencies — 60 percent under

conditional supervision in the

community — on any given day.

The FBI, directed by the

Lychner Act to register sex

offenders and to notify

communities in States lacking

“minimally sufficient” programs,

used fugitive statistics from four

California field divisions (San

Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco

and Sacramento) and information

on noncompliant sex offenders

from the State’s Department of

Justice to study the assignment’s

impact on its resources. The study

found that, if the FBI were made

responsible for administering

California’s program, every agent

working in the four divisions at the

time of the study would have to be

assigned full-time just to track

down sex offenders who failed to

register as required.

There are thorny legal issues to

consider as well. Individuals

subject to registration and

 

3 104 P.L. 145, 100 Stat. 1345.
viii

notification programs have

challenged the statutes on

constitutional grounds, citing

excessive punishment, lack of due

process and invasion of privacy.

The courts have generally upheld

registration requirements, but

several courts have struck down

notification programs. Many

observers believe the notification

controversy will not be resolved

until the U.S. Supreme Court

settles the matter.

Designing an effective sex

offender registration and

notification program that can

withstand legal challenges while

meeting the needs of the

community is difficult, especially

within the relatively short time

periods for compliance spelled out

in the Federal statutes. States that

failed to meet the statutes’

compliance deadlines risked losing

10 percent of their appropriation

from the Federal Edward Byrne

Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance Program,

which provides funding for State

and local crime eradication efforts.

The statutes allowed States

experiencing difficulty in

establishing programs to apply for

a 2-year, “good-faith-effort”

deadline extension. Forty-two of

the 56 States and territories covered

by the statutes sought the

extensions.

To help States design

constitutionally viable programs

that meet Federal mandates, and to

contribute to the national debate

over the issue of controlling sex

offenders, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department

of Justice, and SEARCH, The

National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics,

cosponsored the National

Conference on Sex Offender

Registries, held in Bellevue,

Washington, on July 16-17, 1997.

The conference sought to provide

the States with tools needed to

implement effective registration

and notification programs, and also

to provide a forum where

representatives from a number of

States could exchange ideas and

compare experiences. Speakers

educated State representatives on

the requirements of the sex

offender-related Federal statutes,

updated participants on new

legislation and legal challenges to

the current statutes, and provided as

examples programs that several

States implemented in response to

the Federal mandates.

Presenters included officials

from the U.S. Department of

Justice and the FBI, representatives

from State and national criminal

justice organizations, and State

legislators and other State-level

officials. Mrs. Patty Wetterling

provided the keynote address. This

document presents the proceedings

of that conference. (Sex offenders

are referred to in the male gender

throughout these proceedings, as

more than 99 percent of convicted

sex offenders are men.)

Day One of the conference

focused primarily on the sex

offender problem from a Federal

perspective. A panel of U.S. Justice

Department officials discussed

various aspects of the Federal

statutes and conducted an

informative question-and-answer

session to address the specific

concerns of individual States. Day

Two began with a presentation by

FBI representatives concerning

preparations the Bureau is taking to

assume control of registration and

notification functions in States

unable to establish their own

effective programs.

The agenda then moved to a

State perspective. Representatives

from several States explained

procedures and programs their

States adopted in response to the

Federal mandates. State and local

elected officials enlightened

conference participants on the

legislative response to public

demands for action. The conference

concluded with an overview of the

various notification options

available to States, from passive

(where the public seeks out

information) to aggressive (where

the offender is required to notify

neighbors of his presence).

Mrs. Patty Wetterling, advocate

for missing children and cofounder

of the Jacob Wetterling

Foundation, delivered the

conference’s “Keynote address,” in

which she related the details of her

son’s abduction and the emotional

highs and lows that accompanied

the aftermath. She discussed the

creation of the Jacob Wetterling

Foundation, which aids in the

search for missing children, and

also the concern for individual

rights elected officials expressed

when a task force of which Mrs.

Wetterling was a member

recommended stringent registration

requirements for convicted sex

offenders.

The next speaker, BJS Director

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken, discussed the

general topic of the “Nature and

management of the problem,” in

particular what information

national data collection programs

can provide on sex offenders and

offending. He provided a detailed

statistical overview of violent sex

crimes — including murders,

assaults on children, rape and the

criminal histories of sex offenders

— to establish a national context on

which to proceed with the

conference.

Dr. Chaiken reported that of the

95,000 sex offenders in State

prisons, 60,000 most likely

committed their violent sex crimes

against children under age 18. The

majority of those serving time for

violent sex offenses against

children committed their crimes

against victims age 12 or under. He

endorsed the implementation of the

National Incident-Based Reporting

System, which collects more

detailed crime information, leading
ix

to higher quality crime data and,

ultimately, stronger laws.

Next, a panel of U.S. Justice

Department officials explained

compliance issues associated with

the Wetterling Act and Megan’s

Law. The panel was comprised of

Ms. Marlene Beckman, Special

Counsel, Office of Justice

Programs (OJP); Ms. Lisa Gursky

Sorkin, Chief of Staff, Office of

Policy Development; Ms. Donna

Feinberg, Office of General

Counsel, OJP; and Mr. James C.

Swain, Director, State and Local

Assistance Division, Bureau of

Justice Assistance (BJA).

Ms. Beckman served as panel

moderator and also provided a brief

update on the States’ progress in

implementing registration and

notification laws in response to the

Federal mandates. According to

Ms. Beckman, 39 States had sex

offender registration programs

prior to the enactment of the Jacob

Wetterling Act; now, all 50 States

have registration programs in place.

She added that only 6 States had

enacted community notification

laws prior to passage of the Federal

version of Megan’s Law, but as of

July 1997, 45 States had passed

notification legislation.

Ms. Sorkin spoke next on the

interrelationship between the three

Federal statutes. She explained that

the Jacob Wetterling Act places

four major obligations on States:

they must require certain offenders

to register, maintain accurate

registries, maintain and distribute

registry information to law

enforcement, and disclose

information to the public when

necessary for public safety.

Megan’s Law then amended the

Wetterling Act to make community

notification mandatory rather than

at the discretion of law

enforcement.

She added that the Pam Lychner

Act added three more requirements:

it obligates the FBI to establish a

national database to track the

whereabouts and movements of sex

offenders, it requires the FBI to

handle sex offender registration in

States that fail to meet the Act’s

definition of “minimally sufficient”

systems, and it amends the

Wetterling Act to make registration

requirements more stringent.

In her presentation, Ms.

Feinberg explained the various

registration and notification

methods States could implement to

comply with the Federal mandates.

Not all States utilize the same

procedures, Ms. Feinberg said, and

variations of programs can be used

as long as the basics of the three

statutes are met. She also explained

the steps a State needs to follow to

apply for a 2-year, “good-faitheffort” compliance deadline

extension.

Mr. Swain elaborated on Ms.

Feinberg’s comments on deadline

extension applications, and

explained the process BJA staff

would use to evaluate extension

requests. Panel presentations were

followed by a question-and-answer

session, which provided an

opportunity for individual State

representatives to seek solutions for

their unique problems.

Dr. Chaiken’s second address —

“Federal funding support for sex

offender registries” — concluded

Day One of the conference. He

indicated that programs to improve

sex offender registries would most

likely be coordinated with ongoing

efforts to improve criminal history

records through the National

Criminal History Improvement

Program, which the BJS has

administered since 1995. He also

said that if the Federal statutes are

to achieve their desired results,

proper safeguards must be designed

so the public receives the

information it needs while

restricted information is made

available only to individuals

authorized to view it.

Day Two of the Conference

began with presentations on

“Interim and permanent solutions”

by two FBI representatives: Mr.

Emmet A. Rathbun, Unit Chief,

Criminal Justice Information

Services (CJIS) Division, and Mr.

Ralph C. Thomas, Supervisory

Special Agent, Policy, Planning

and Analysis Unit, Criminal

Investigative Division.

Mr. Rathbun spoke on the FBI’s

efforts to establish a National

Sexual Offender Registry,

indicating that the CJIS Advisory

Policy Board (APB) initiated

discussions in 1995 on the benefits

of such a registry and began to

consider where it should be housed.

Since the Wetterling Act already

directed States to develop offender

databases, the APB decided to

recommend the creation of an

index at the National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) listing

the State database or agency that

maintained the detailed registrant

information. Sensing no urgency

for the national registry, the APB

delayed action until the

implementation of NCIC 2000, Mr.

Rathbun said.

He said the timetable changed

when President Clinton issued a

directive in June 1996 instructing

the Attorney General to prepare in

2 months a plan to implement a

national sexual predator and child

molester registration system. The

directive made it necessary for the

FBI to develop an interim national

registry until NCIC 2000 is

delivered. He said the FBI’s interim

solution called for a link from the

National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System

(which is used to track Federal

parolees and probationers) to each

State’s sex offender database. The

FBI delivered the interim

provisions for use in February

1997, he added.

Mr. Thomas spoke on the “very

serious implications” of the

Lychner Act provision requiring

the FBI to handle sex offender

registration in States that lack
x

“minimally sufficient” programs.

He said it was difficult to measure

the provision’s impact as it had not

yet been determined how many

States needed assistance, although

it appeared there were more than

originally anticipated. According to

Mr. Thomas, registration

responsibilities, address

verification, the search for noncompliant offenders and

community notification placed a

significant burden on FBI

resources.

Ms. Elizabeth A. Pearson, Staff

Associate and Congressional

Liaison for the National Criminal

Justice Association, spoke next,

providing an overview of current

State sex offender registration and

notification laws. Ms. Pearson said

most State programs contained

these common features:

• The State maintained the

registry but information is

supplied by local law

enforcement agencies;

• Information typically collected

included the offender’s name,

address, photograph, birth date

and social security number;

• The timeframe to register ran

from immediately after release

to 30 days after release;

• Most registries were updated

only when an offender

changed his address; and

• Most laws applied equally to

offenders who were convicted

in other States.

Ms. Pearson then discussed

differences in State programs and

reviewed the history and evolution

of registration and notification

laws. She said California

established the first sex offender

registry in 1947 and that 38 States

had established registries since

1994. The State of Washington

created the first notification law in

1990, Ms. Pearson said, and as of

July 1997, only five States had not

implemented notification

procedures.

Ms. Dena T. Sacco, an attorney

with the U.S. Justice Department,

spoke next on litigation issues, in

particular, “Arguments used to

challenge notification laws — and

the government’s response.” She

said Federal registration and

notification statutes were usually

challenged on three constitutional

claims: excessive punishment,

invasion of privacy and lack of due

process.

State and Federal governments

countered that the laws were not

designed for punishment but for

community protection and that

most of the information released

during notification was already a

matter of public record, Ms. Sacco

said. Governments also argued that

there were no constitutionally

protected privacy interests, and that

due process protections did not

apply to the statutes because they

did not threaten the liberty of

registrants.

Ms. Sacco said several lower

courts and the Kansas Supreme

Court have struck down

notification statutes, and she

predicted that the issue may not be

resolved until it is considered by

the U.S. Supreme Court.

SEARCH General Counsel

Robert R. Belair spoke next on the

status of two pieces of legislation

currently before the Congress

which would clarify portions of the

Wetterling Act relating to

registration requirements.4 Mr.

Belair said enactment of the

legislation would enhance the

flexibility of current registration

requirements, extend reporting

 

4 The legislation is H.R. 1683 and S.

767, both titled the Jacob Wetterling

Crimes Against Children and Sexually

Violent Offenders Registration

Improvement Act of 1997. The U.S.

House of Representatives passed H.R.

1683 on September 23, 1997, and sent

it to the Senate. The Senate,

meanwhile, referred S. 767 to its

Judiciary Committee on May 20, 1997.

requirements to military and

Federal offenders, and improve the

ability to track offenders who live

in one State but work in another.

The next portion of the agenda,

“Panel of the States: Systems for

the registration of sex offenders,”

featured presentations from New

York, California, Florida and

Illinois officials on the sex offender

registration and notification

programs their States implemented

in response to the Federal statutes.

Mr. Floyd Epps and Ms. Kathy J.

Canestrini, members of the New

York State Board of Sex Offender

Examiners, discussed an

assessment process their program

uses to estimate the risk of

reoffense by offenders released into

the community. Factors such as

prior felony convictions, number of

victims, victim age and other issues

were considered by the Board when

assigning a risk level of 1 to 3 to a

released offender. The risk level

determined the breadth of

notification. As of July 1997, the

Board assigned a Level 3 risk

assessment — the highest level

possible — to 52 percent of the

1,540 cases it reviewed. Thirty-nine

percent received a Level 2 risk

assessment and 9 percent received

a Level 1 assessment.

Mr. Doug Smith, Chief of the

Bureau of Criminal Information

and Analysis for the California

Department of Justice, related the

history of sex offender laws in his

State, which in 1947 became the

first in the Nation to require

offenders to register. California’s

version of Megan’s Law was

passed in September 1996, Mr.

Smith said. Notification was

provided by way of a CD-ROM,

which listed 64,000 registered sex

offenders and was available to view

at 400 locations. Information will

be updated four times a year, and

the State adds approximately 3,000

new registrants annually.

According to Mr. Smith, California

also allowed police to notify
xi

possible at-risk individuals and the

community at large when a

registered sex offender was nearby.

Ms. Donna M. Uzzell, Director

of Criminal Justice Information

Services for the Florida Department

of Law Enforcement (FDLE),

discussed the history and

implementation of her State’s

registration and notification

programs. Ms. Uzzell said Florida’s

registration program was initiated

in 1993 and was amended several

times to add and expand

notification features. The FDLE

maintains a World Wide Web site

where users can search for

registered sex offenders by county,

city or by the offender’s last

name.5 Florida also provides a tollfree telephone number that

residents can call to determine

whether any registered offenders

live in their communities.6

Presentations by Illinois State

Police officials Mr. Kirk Lonbom,

Assistant Chief of the Intelligence

Bureau, and Mr. Mike Welter,

Chief of the Violent Crimes

Section, concluded the panel on

State registration and notification

systems.

Mr. Lonbom said Illinois used

two statewide electronic

information systems to keep track

of sex offenders. Mr. Welter, in

turn, reported that notification was

carried out in three phases:

• First, each school and childcare facility was given a list of

sex offenders living in the

county where the school or

facility is located.

• Second, each law enforcement

agency in Illinois had the

discretion to provide sex

offender information to any

group or individual likely to

encounter the offender.

 

5 The Web address is:

www.fdle.state.fl.us/.

6 The toll-free number is: 1-888-357-

3332 (or 1-888-FL-PREDATOR).

• Third, any person authorized to

view the sex offender registry

could access on-line

information at any local police

department or sheriff’s office.

The aggressive nature of the

Illinois registration program was

demonstrated by the fact that

among those registered were an 86-

year-old man, a quadriplegic, an

individual in the Federal Witness

Protection Program, and a man in a

coma at the time of registration,

Mr. Welter said.

King County (Washington)

Prosecutor Norm Maleng provided

a local perspective on controlling

and prosecuting sex offenders. He

said Washington State enacted the

Nation’s first notification law in

1990. Mr. Maleng said the law was

prompted by several highly

publicized sex crimes committed

by individuals with long sex

offense histories who received no

treatment while incarcerated. Mr.

Maleng discussed the importance

of registration programs as an aid

to investigations and related a story

concerning the quick apprehension

of a suspect in an attempted rape

who was tracked down by officers

using registry information.

In a second panel of the States,

Rep. Mike Lawlor of the

Connecticut General Assembly and

Sen. Florence Shapiro of the Texas

State Senate explained the

legislative response to community

pressure for action.

In a frank presentation, Rep.

Lawlor revealed that the

Connecticut Legislature’s rush to

implement sex offender programs

resulted in several mistakes that

took several subsequent legislative

sessions to correct. He said

legislators were unaware, for

example, that most individuals tried

for sex crimes against children in

Connecticut are convicted of “risk

of injury to a minor,” which was

left off a list created by the

legislature of crimes that carried a

registration requirement. He

advised elected officials to consult

with a wide variety of criminal

justice professionals before writing

legislation to address sex offense

and other crime-related problems.

Sen. Shapiro said she became

involved in sex offense issues

following the 1993 murder of 7-

year-old Ashley Estelle, who was

snatched from a playground while

her parents were nearby. The

murderer was a convicted sex

offender released from prison

shortly before the crime after

serving only 17 months of a 10-

year sentence, Sen. Shapiro said.

She said an investigation revealed

34 specific errors made by the

Texas criminal justice system in the

prosecution and incarceration of the

man prior to the murder of Ashley

Estelle.

The incident provided Texas

with three harsh lessons, Sen.

Shapiro said:

1. Clear communication between

agencies is critical to ensure

proper monitoring of offenders

as they move from one

agency’s responsibility to

another.

2. Sound public policy is crucial

to the enactment of effective

laws to control sex offenders.

3. A comprehensive legislative

and administrative approach

that takes in all factors of sex

offending is necessary to

create and implement

successful programs.

The conference concluded with

a final panel of the States that

focused on community notification

and verification practices

throughout the country. Panel

members Ms. Roxanne Lieb,

Director of the Washington State

Institute of Public Policy, and Mr.

Scott A. Cooper, Staff Attorney

with the National Criminal Justice

Association, discussed sex offender

programs that various States have

implemented.

Ms. Lieb also provided the

results of a recent Washington
xii

State study that examined the

impact of notification programs on

the recidivism patterns of sex

offenders released from

incarceration. She said the study

compared the rearrest rates of a

group of offenders released before

notification procedures were

implemented to those of a group of

offenders released after notification

procedures were in place.

According to Ms. Lieb, the

study found that the two groups

committed about the same number

of new sex offenses, but those who

committed new offenses after

notification procedures were in

place were arrested after spending

2 to 2 1/2 years in the community

compared to about 5 years for the

other set of offenders.

Mr. Cooper discussed the

approaches three States have taken

to comply with Federal sex

offender mandates. He said Alaska

provides passive notification,

which requires interested parties to

submit information request forms

and pay a $10 fee, while

Louisiana’s notification law is

unique in that it requires the

offender to conduct his own

notification to every residence or

business in a one-mile radius in

rural areas, or to every residence or

business in a three-block area in

urban areas. Louisiana courts can

also require a convicted offender to

put a bumper sticker on his car or

wear clothing indicating that he is a

convicted sex offender, although

that provision of the law had not

been enforced as of July 1997, Mr.

Cooper said.

New Jersey, like New York,

uses a risk assessment scale to

determine the level of notification

for released offenders, he said.

Several court decisions based on

constitutional challenges helped

clarify New Jersey’s law.

Mention and thanks are given

here to Mr. Ronald P. Hawley, who

ably served as conference

moderator. Mr. Hawley is Assistant

Director of the North Carolina

Bureau of Investigation’s Division

of Criminal Information and is also

Chair of SEARCH’s Law and

Policy Project Advisory

Committee.
Keynote address

The Jacob Wetterling story

Patty Wetterling

Nature and management of the problem

Sex offenders and offending:

Learning more from national data collection programs

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 3

The Jacob Wetterling story

PATTY WETTERLING

Children’s Rights Advocate

The Jacob Wetterling Foundation

I am truly honored to be a part

of this very exciting opportunity to

make the sex offender registries

law better and more workable in

every State. A complete stranger

sent me a verse from a song called

“Hope,” which we have lived on

for the last 7 1/2 years. It is about

beginnings. I would like to start

with that.

Hope is intimately tied to

beginnings, of this I’m

certain. You’re not going to

start anything without hope

of a successful conclusion.

Unless you hope strongly,

intensely enough, you may

never start at all. In any

endeavor, two-thirds of the

battle is won simply by

taking the first step. All too

often through the years I’ve

let myself be held back by

lack of confidence, fear of

failure, sometimes just plain

inertia or laziness. But I’ve

learned that if you force

yourself to make the first

move, mighty forces will

come to aid. The act of

beginning starts the flow of

power, but those who never

begin never feel that power.

Between hope and action lies

a chasm deep but also

narrow. It can be bridged by

an act of will, a decision that

says firmly, “Yes, I will take

steps to make this hope a

reality, and I will take the

first step now.” Hope, the

spark that ignites the actions

that make the dream come

true.

We have had a dream for Jacob

for 7 1/2 years. I thought it might

be helpful to share with you where

sex offender registry legislation

came from and why it is so critical

for us.

My husband and I went to a

housewarming party on October

22, 1989. We called home to give

the children the phone number

where we were. My son, Trevor,

answered the telephone and we

gave him the number.

Our older daughter was not

home that night. Jacob, his best

friend, Aaron, and Trevor were

babysitting their younger sister,

Carmen. Trevor called back and

said, “We’re bored. There’s

nothing to do. Can we ride our

bikes to the store and rent a video?”

From our house to the video store

is less than 10 minutes by bike. We

live in a town of 3,000 people, but I

said no. It was starting to get dark,

and they had never done this

before. Trevor said, “Well, let me

talk to Dad.” My husband, Jerry

said, “If you wear my jogging vest

(which is reflective) and take a

flashlight, and put a white

sweatshirt on Aaron, and if you go

straight to the store and come

straight back, it should be okay.”

I truly believe it should have

been okay. They called another

time. I do not know if any of you

are parents, but this was the third

time we talked to our kids that

night. “Carmen doesn’t want to

go,” the kids said. “Is it okay if

Rochelle comes over to babysit?”

These were responsible kids who

arranged a babysitter for their

younger sister.

The next call came from a

neighbor’s dad who told us two of

the kids came back from the store,

but somebody had taken Jacob.

They were biking home from the

store when they looked up and saw

a man with a gun standing in the

road. He told the kids to get off of

their bikes and to lie down in the

ditch or he would shoot them. He

asked their ages, which is still

confusing to me. Trevor was 10

years old and Aaron and Jacob

were 11 years old. The man with

the gun told Trevor to run into the

woods as fast as he could or he

would shoot him, so Trevor took

off. He said the exact same words

to Aaron, and Aaron took off. But

as Aaron was leaving, he saw the

man grab Jacob’s shoulder. When

Aaron caught up to Trevor and they

felt safe enough to turn around and

look back, Jacob and the man were

gone.

Nobody saw the man’s face. He

wore a mask. They did track

Jacob’s footsteps to where a car

had been parked, so they know they

left in a car. It was a generic tire

track on a dusty, gravel road in

October. The police have gathered

little information since then;

basically, we have no more than we

had that very first night.

No matter what preparations you

make, nothing prepares you for a

high-profile investigation of a

missing child case. One local

television station assembled a film

clip of activities during the first

year Jacob was missing. The clip

shows I was blessed with a sheriff

who left no stone unturned. He had

been a sheriff for years and years.

He called in 20-year-old favors,
Page 4 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

asking, “Can you do this for me?”

He pulled in everybody.

We had our State crime bureau,

the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal

Apprehension (BCA), involved.

The FBI became involved the first

night because Jacob’s classmate

was the son of an FBI agent and

because there was a weapon used.

They knew this was an unusual

case right away.

The police used all-terrain

vehicles and horses to search for

Jacob. Everybody in the entire

Midwest was aware of his

abduction. The Minnesota Vikings

wanted to wear “Jacob’s hope” hats

at a game. The National Football

League said no, so the Vikings

waited for a home game and then

they all wore their hats on the

sidelines as Jacob’s picture was

projected on to the Metrodome

highlight screen. The effect was

phenomenal. People joined hands

for Jacob. The line stretched for 5

miles. The sheriff’s department told

me the line would have been

longer, but this happened in

Minnesota in the winter. People

were huddled together, shivering

with cold, in many places. This

huge outpouring of support is still

heartening to me.

We still have no suspect. We

have no proof that Jacob is not

alive.

I remember a sense of

helplessness in the beginning. I

remember crawling into bed,

pulling the covers over my head

and thinking, “I can’t do this. It’s

too hard.” I had this image of Jacob

laying somewhere pulling covers

over his head and thinking, “ I can’t

do this. They’re never going to find

me.”

At that point, we made a very

conscious decision that we were

going to do something about this

issue. I began asking questions. I

was lucky enough to be a stay-athome mom. I knew a lot about

childhood things, but I knew

nothing about child abduction, so I

asked a lot of questions. I still ask

questions. I think one of the

complicated issues is that most

people are ignorant about those

who violate children. We do not

function in their world, which is

why sex offenders continue to find

victims.

When Jacob was abducted, law

enforcement had no experience

running a missing child

investigation. Police train for all

kinds of situations, but at that point,

7 years ago, there was not much

training for this type of

investigation.

I learned that most abductions

are short-term, lasting a few hours.

Most of the time, it is not a stranger

who victimizes a child. The way

Jacob was taken was extremely

rare. Most victims get tricked or

lured by someone they know. The

number one reason for kidnapping

is for sexual purposes. We truly

have to stop the child molester if

we are going to stop kidnappings. 

I want to read the profile of the

person who may have abducted

Jacob, because I think it is key.

Consider how this profile might be

relevant to community notification

and sex offender registration. It

reads, “The following is a profile of

persons who have committed

crimes similar to the abduction of

Jacob Wetterling. Agents assigned

to the FBI Academy’s Behavioral

Science Unit at the National Center

for the Analysis of Violent Crime

compiled the profile. Construction

of a criminal personality profile is

predicated upon careful and

objective analysis of victimology

and crime-scene data coupled with

behavioral possibilities arising

from study and extensive research

in similar cases.

“The offender is likely to be a

white male between the ages of 25

to 35 years old; very low selfimage; likely to have committed a

similar crime in the past; may have

some physical deformity; and is

likely to have had a recent stressful

event in his life which would have

precipitated the high-risk approach

taken in this crime. The high-risk

approach also indicates the

offender may have attempted

similar acts recently and failed. The

offender is likely to be in an

unskilled or semi-skilled job that

does not include contact with the

public. Persons who know the

offender would likely notice

heightened anxiety on the

offender’s part since the crime

occurred.”

“What do you need?” I asked

law enforcement. “What would

help you find Jacob?” The police

responded, “It would have helped

to know who was in the area at the

time of Jacob’s abduction.” We

found out sex offenders were being

sent to our region by another

county, and they were put in

halfway houses. Our local law

enforcement did not know these

halfway houses were for sex

offenders. When police went to

find out who was living in the

halfway houses when Jacob was

taken, they were told, “We’re not

going to tell you. There are privacy

issues to consider.” You could find

out who was staying at the Holiday

Inn or Super 8 motels. Information

on noncriminals was available, but

not information on sex offenders.

Well, police got the information

they were looking for, and then the

law was corrected because it did

not make sense. A lot of the things

did not make sense at the time.

There was a man arrested for

burglary in St. Cloud a year and a

half after Jacob’s abduction. When

police ran a criminal history check

on him, they found he had

victimized young boys in his past.

He lived closer to the abduction site

than we do, but police did not know

about this person at the time. It

would really help law enforcement

to know. Just knowing who is in

the area is a good tool.

This information can also be

used to clear suspects right away,
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 5

rather than searching for them for

years, finding out they were not

involved and then having to go

back to the beginning. I was

appointed to a governor’s task

force in Minnesota to look at this

problem and to suggest solutions.

We did not jump into legislation

right away. I did not have the

knowledge at the time, and I would

encourage you to avoid reactionary

legislation because it is not the best

way to proceed. It is not well

planned.

Eventually, we came up with a

proposal to have sex offender

registration in Minnesota. I was

appointed by a governor who lost

his next election. When we went to

report our findings, we had to

report to a new governor. We said

we wanted to have sex offender

registration. He looked me straight

in the eye and said, “You can’t do

that. These people have rights.”

That was the wrong thing to say

to me at the time. We got our

legislation. We proceeded in

Minnesota very carefully. We are

not trying to violate anyone’s

rights. We tried to give police some

tools we felt that they could use.

After we got sex offender

registration legislation passed in

Minnesota, we went for Federal

legislation. In 1996, Attorney

General Janet Reno signed a

proclamation to develop a system

to connect all 50 State sex offender

registries. Whether it is working or

not, I think it is a good idea.

At the signing of the crime bill

after our Federal legislation passed,

we met Megan Kanka’s parents.

Megan, as you know, was

kidnapped and murdered by

someone who had committed these

types of crimes before. This was

not the first set of parents I met

whose children were victims of

crime.

Jeanna North, who was

kidnapped, still has not been found.

A man who was living on the

corner where she was last seen who

had a history of victimizing little

girls in South Dakota admitted to

kidnapping and murdering Jeanna

in North Dakota. He has not been

charged with the crime even though

he provided a full confession. He is

serving 30 years in prison for

victimizing two other little girls. I

continually hear from these parents.

If only we had known.

That statement implies that

increased knowledge will lead to

change. When you are out alerting

the public that a sex offender is

going to be released into the

community, anticipate change. That

is why you are spreading the

information, so people can respond

differently and protect their

children. Not knowing is a greater

risk. 

How you release the information

is critical. The media like to

highlight cases where notification

did not work or where somebody

was harassed. They do not want to

report on all the instances when

notification worked. When letting

people know that a sex offender is

being released into their

community, we must tell them how

they should respond. We are giving

them the information so they can

take precautions. The media also

like to play around with the word

“stranger.” We know stranger is a

ridiculous word. I hear law

enforcement using it all the time,

but people do not know who a

stranger is. What is a stranger?

Kids do not know. One time, I was

talking to a group of social workers

and a little 5-year-old girl said,

“Mommy, Jacob was abducted by a

stranger, wasn’t he?” I was

impressed; 5 years old. The girl’s

mommy said, “Yes, he was.” The

little girl said, “I’m so glad we

don’t know any strangers.”

Brilliant thought — once you know

them, they are not strangers

anymore.

Sex offenders victimize children

by gaining their trust. We are not

just telling kids to beware of the

“stranger” who is moving into their

community. We are denying that

stranger the opportunity to befriend

children so he cannot victimize

them. It is so important to

remember the intent of this bill. I

feel we worked really hard in

Minnesota so our intent was clear.

Our intent is to have fewer victims.

We want to prevent sex offenders

released from prison from violating

other children.

We are not going to make it easy

for them to have innocent victims

because people are going to know

their style. They are going to know

what these people have done in the

past. Another question you need to

ask is, “Who is good at talking to

communities to calm them down?”

People are going to be angry. They

are going to ask a lot of questions.

There is a lot of concern because

sex offender registries are unfunded

mandates. The Minnesota registry

is unfunded as well. The

Minneapolis Police Department

decided that if it was going to have

to notify the people, it was going to

do it right. Before police began the

notification process, they held

community meetings and met with

people in every single precinct in

the city. They educated the

community. These people are

living among us now, the police

said. You are only going to be told

about a few individuals, but here is

some basic knowledge to stay safe.

The police did that with no

additional funding. We had smaller

departments saying, “We cannot

afford to do this.” Minneapolis

was not given extra money to do it.

The police just decided they were

going to do it, they were going to

do it right, and they were going to

do a good job, and they have.

The Atlanta JournalConstitution just ran an in-depth

series on sexual predators titled

“Why Megan’s Law is Not

Enough.” We hear a lot about what

is wrong with notification laws.

They are a start. They are tools that
Page 6 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

are only as good as those who use

them. I know many people have

been arrested in Minnesota simply

for not registering as sex offenders.

They are back in jail. That is a

good step.

We set up a model policy task

force through our Police Officers

Standards and Training Board, and

I was really intrigued by the

process. When Jacob was first

kidnapped, I assumed the whole

world was working together to try

and find him. Boy, was I wrong.

Agencies do not always cooperate.

The sheriff’s department was not

necessarily used to working with

the BCA and FBI. All of this was

foreign to them, but they did a good

job. They pulled together.

When I sat through this task

force for model policy, I learned

that turf battles happen everywhere.

Law enforcement sometimes

blames the Department of

Corrections, and the Department of

Corrections blames the probation or

parole officers, and they think the

treatment people are at fault, and

what about social services? It is

easy to throw blame around. You

should think about this the next

time you find yourself saying, “We

are doing our job, but they are not.”

You could call a victim’s

parents and explain to them why

the investigation is not working and

see what you can do to make it

better. See what you can do to

improve communication between

agencies. Maybe another visit to

the legislature is necessary to make

the notification law more efficient.

Education does not happen just

with people in your community. I

had to educate our governor as to

why we were going to do this. We

are constantly educating legislators

so they know what we need.

Since most sex offenders are not

in prison, the people in the

community need to know what they

are supposed to be watching out for

— not just for one offender who is

going to be released but for all

those already living in the

community. When notification

meetings are held in Minnesota, the

community hears about general

safety for 30 minutes and then 5

minutes are devoted to the specific

person being released. I think that

is important, because the law does

not cover areas that people need to

be aware of.

A lot depends on attitude.

Attitude is everything in terms of

how you go after these people. Our

intent is to have fewer victims. We

want to prevent these people from

harming other children.

We need to educate. We do not

want kids walking around scared.

We want them to walk around

smart. We get phone calls and

letters from parents whose kids

escaped from attempted abductions

because they knew what to do. We

are trying for fewer victims. I do

not want to see another family live

through what our family has gone

through.

We need cooperation. There are

other agencies within your

communities. There are sexual

assault centers with speakers

available. Use resources that are

there. Call the National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children

(NCMEC) (1-800-THE-LOST). It

can provide an overview of this

issue that none of us are going to

get individually. There are also

nonprofits that work for missing

children.

We formed a professional

organization called the Association

of Missing and Exploited

Children’s Organizations

(AMECO). These are organizations

that help find missing children and

help law enforcement, and they will

also help you get legislation passed.

They have speakers and they go

after those who victimize children.

You may know about Morgan

Nick, who was kidnapped in Alma,

Arkansas. Morgan’s mother, my

friend Colleen Nick, often says that

one person with a vision is worth

99 people with just an interest. It

will take all of us to build a world

worthy of our children.

I want to thank you for taking

the time to work on this problem

together. I want to thank the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.

Department of Justice, and

SEARCH, The National

Consortium for Justice Information

and Statistics, and everybody who

organized this conference. It is very

exciting. You have a chance to see

what is working in our

communities so you can fight to

have it in your community. Find

out how we can make registries

work and what needs to change.

We know kids are getting

smarter. We know communities are

getting smarter. We do have the

right to go after those who violate

our kids. I cannot ever address a

group of children without talking

about hope. The NCMEC has given

us information on many cases

involving children who come home

after long periods of time. Most of

those come home because of law

enforcement, but not always.

Everyday citizens who are aware of

those who victimize children call

the police.

We need to know that all the

pieces are in place for our children

to come home. We can never give

up. I know of a man from

Minnesota who was reunited with

his family after 26 years. I hope it

does not take us that long to find

Jacob. I would like you to

personalize these 2 days and take

your work to heart. Never give up,

and never forget about our missing

kids.

I would like to end with a verse

that was given to me by one of

Jacob’s classmates. It was written 5

years after Jacob was abducted. It

is called “Ode to Jacob.”

My song is twice as loud now

because I have to sing for the

both of us. I sing of the joy,

pain, and growth I’m living,

and for your life, a life I hope
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 7

has song. I hope the man who

forgot what innocence is

allows you to sing, even if

it’s in your heart. I hope one

day the song we all sing

together will reach his ears,

because that’ll be the day you

can join us and sing the

harmony.

I want to thank all of you for the

work you do every day. I do not

know if you are aware of the

impact it has on our lives. When we

need you, you are there and you

have something in place to help us.

I want to extend an offer to help

you if you need me in any way to

make registry laws more effective

so we can protect our kids. I would

like to do that for you. Thank you. I

hope you have a very successful

conference.
Page 8 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Sex offenders and offending:

Learning more from national data collection programs

DR. JAN M. CHAIKEN

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

National sex offender registries

are the outgrowth of increased

technical capability and evolving

public awareness of the new uses

that can be made of offender

information recorded at each step

in the criminal justice system. The

public safety interest in this

information and evolving public

demand for greater knowledge

about criminal justice system

operations reaffirm the importance

of good criminal history record

information and the benefit of

statistically measuring the

government’s response to crime.

These two issues are fundamental

concerns of the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS).

Understanding sex offending

and its consequences require good

record keeping on both offenders

and victims. This means the

development of a continuing

partnership among the various

government components

responsible for responding to sex

offenders and sex-offense victims

and for measuring how well we are

addressing this very fundamental

public concern.

NIBRS – The next generation

of crime information

Today BJS, the FBI and

SEARCH are working toward

nationwide implementation of the

National Incident-Based Reporting

System (NIBRS), a statistical and

records management system that

takes us to the next generation of

information about crime and

offending. Today, we are also

talking about the improvement of a

criminal records infrastructure

which is complete, accurate, timely

and, most importantly, which can

be shared across jurisdictions.

What is known about an offender in

one place will soon be instantly

known in other places where that

offender may travel or settle.

Together, these two developing

national efforts pave the way

toward a more sophisticated

understanding of the many varieties

of sex offenders and sex offending.

Handgun crimes, domestic

violence, hate crimes and violent

sex offenses have been the

principal stimuli for improving our

data on crime and offenders. These

improvements, however, will

impact all types of crimes and

victims, and we will know a great

deal more about those who commit

crime.

At BJS, we view NIBRS in this

historical context of crime statistics

development: How do we get

closer to measuring and describing

the actual crime phenomenon

itself? NIBRS data permit the

collection of comparable

information across jurisdictions

about the crime, the victim, the

offender and the environment in

which their interaction occurs.

NIBRS also captures the

uniqueness of the crime problem in

each participating jurisdiction.

Rather than a narrow group of 8

Index offenses meant to

approximate what is happening

with crime, NIBRS collects

information on 57 types of crimes

— 46 Group A crimes and 11

Group B crimes. For the first time

ever in law enforcement statistics,

NIBRS provides a forum for crime

victims by providing detailed

information about who the victims

are, how many offenders they faced

in an incident, if they have any

relationship to those who offended

against them, and the consequences

of the crime to them in lost

property and injuries suffered.

Incident data are critical to our

knowledge of violent sex crimes

where the victim can be of either

sex, where the age of the victim can

be known, where a relationship

between victim and offender, if

any, can be described, where the

type of sex offense can be

characterized, and where victim

injuries can be catalogued. It is the

diary of the violent sex offense

victim’s experience as recorded by

a police officer.

In many ways, NIBRS will

expand information about violent

sex crimes similar to the way the

Supplementary Homicide Reports

(SHR) expand our knowledge and

understanding of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. For

example, the SHR allows us to

examine in great detail murders

that arise from rapes or sexual

assaults.

Detailed knowledge on

sexual assault murders

An estimated 427,000 murders

occurred in the United States

between 1976 and 1995.

Circumstances surrounding the

murder were known in about

333,000 of these murders, or in

about 8 out of 10. In those murders

where the details of the crime were

known, about 4,900 murders, or

approximately 1 in 68 murders,
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 9

involved a rape or other violent sex

offense. In 1995, murders involving

rape and other sex offenses

accounted for about 0.8 percent of

all murders with known

circumstances. That is about the

same percentage as in 1993 and

1994, but well below the peak of

1.9 percent of all murders

established in the latter part of the

1970s.

About 95 percent of the

offenders in sexual assault murders

were male, compared to 87 percent

of the offenders in all other types of

murder. About 6 in 10 sexual

assault murderers were white,

while less than half of the offenders

in all murders were white. Sexual

assault murderers were, on average,

5 years younger than all murderers

— 26 years old for sexual assault

murderers compared to 31 years

old for all murderers. Half were age

24 or younger.

Knives were the most

commonly used weapons in sexual

assault murders, accounting for 29

percent of the murders. Firearms

were used in 17 percent of sexual

assault murders; blunt objects were

used in 13 percent; hands and feet

were used in 20 percent; and other

methods, such as asphyxiation or

poisoning, accounted for about 22

percent.

About 82 percent of sexual

assault murder victims were

female. This is quite a large

percentage when you consider that,

in all murders, 24 percent of the

victims were female. About twothirds of sexual assault murder

victims were white, while about

half of all murder victims are

white. Victims averaged about 32

years of age, and about 1 in 4 were

under the age of 18.

In fact, among murder victims

age 13 to 17, rape or sexual assault

occurred in more than 3 percent of

the cases; this is higher than the

percentage found among any other

victim age group. Sexual assault

murders were about twice as likely

as all murders to involve victims

and offenders who were strangers:

39 percent of sexual assault

murders and 21 percent of all

murders involved victims and

offenders who had no prior

relationship.

More data sought on

sexual assaults of children

Except for the aggregate counts

of forcible rape of a female victim

from Uniform Crime Reporting

(UCR) statistics, little is known

from current law enforcement data

about the factors associated with

recorded crimes involving rape or

attempted rape. The goal of NIBRS

is to extract more useful data from

information collected at a crime

scene so we can maximize the use

of that information. With the

advent of NIBRS, the kinds of

information about crime previously

available only for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter can now be

used in the analysis of other crimes,

particularly violent crimes.

A police chief interested in

learning whether more sexual

assaults against children were

occurring in his or her jurisdiction

could easily focus attention on

those rapes and sexual assaults —

regardless of the victims’ sex —

where the victim was under age 18.

The chief could then compare the

rates of occurrence, taking into

account the number of age-eligible

youth in the population, to other

NIBRS jurisdictions.

Mr. Lawrence Greenfeld,

principal deputy director of BJS,

recently conducted a study of

imprisoned offenders whose

victims were children under age 18.

Utilizing BJS’s National Survey of

Inmates in State Correctional

Facilities, a self-report survey

conducted among nearly 14,000

State prisoners every 5 years, he

learned something from

incarcerated sex offenders that, to

our knowledge, had never been

reported anywhere before. Twothirds of all offenders serving time

in State prisons for rape or sexual

assault had a victim under age 18.

Since there are an estimated

95,000 sex offenders in State

prisons today, well over 60,000

most likely committed their violent

sex crime against a child under age

18. This finding is consistent with

BJS data on rape from 12 States —

which did not include sexual

assault and was limited to female

victims — that showed more than

half the victims were under 18.

What is even more shocking is

that for the majority of these

prisoners serving time for violent

sex crimes against children, their

victims were age 12 and under.

This really makes the case as to

why this type of information needs

to be collected at the incident level.

BJS repeatedly emphasizes that

there are few things more important

for police departments to record

about crime than basic information

on the victimization of children,

especially young children.

Examining NIBRS

data on rape

In order to give a clear example

of the utility of NIBRS data for

improving our understanding of

violent sex offenses, I will review

some of the interesting findings

obtained from the first batch of

NIBRS data submitted to the FBI.

(BJS received data tapes for

calendar year 1991 from the first 3

participating States — Alabama,

North Dakota and South Carolina.

These 3 States account for about

3.3 percent of the U.S. population.

BJS staff decided to focus its first

data analysis on rapes. These 3

States account for 3.4 percent of

rapes reported nationwide.)

About 10 percent of the rapes in

the 3 States did not conform to the

UCR definition of forcible rape for

these three reasons:

• in 8.7 percent of the rapes, the

victims were male;
Page 10 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

• in 0.8 percent, both the victim

and offender were female; or

• in 0.2 percent, the victim was

male and the offender was

female.

Rape victims were about evenly

divided between whites and blacks.

In about 88 percent of forcible

rapes, the victim and offender were

of the same race. About 80 percent

of the rape victims were under the

age of 30, and about half of these

were under the age of 18. Victims

younger than 12 years of age

accounted for 15 percent of those

raped, and another 29 percent of

rape victims were between the ages

of 12 and 17. Among the youngest

victims of rape — those less than

12 years old — the victim knew the

offender nearly 90 percent of the

time.

According to law enforcement

agencies reporting these data, 43

percent of these young victims

were assaulted by family members,

almost 4 times the proportion found

among victims age 30 or older (11

percent). Older victims (age 30 or

older) were about 12 times as likely

as the youngest victims (less than

age 12) to have been raped by a

stranger (36 percent versus 3

percent).

Among victims age 18 to 29 —

the largest age group of rape

victims — about two-thirds had a

prior relationship with the rapist,

but the rapists were 7 times as

likely to have been acquaintances

as opposed to family members (57

percent versus 8 percent). Just over

40 percent of the rapists were age

30 or older, about twice the

percentage of victims of this age

group (41 percent versus 20

percent). About 1 in 8 rapists was a

juvenile offender (under age 18). In

9 out of 10 rapes where the

offender was under age 18, the

victim was under age 18 as well.

Just over 60 percent of the rapes

took place in a residence. About 1

in 3 rapes by a stranger took place

in a residence, while 9 of every 10

family rapes occurred in a

residence. The 3 States collectively

averaged 8 rapes a day, ranging

from 11 per day on Saturdays to 6

per day on Wednesdays. Nearly

one-third of the rapes took place

between midnight and 4 a.m. and

there was little variation in time of

day by the victim/offender

relationship or by the location

where the rape occurred. The

largest percentage of rapes

occurred during the 12-hour block

between 8 p.m. Friday and 8 a.m.

Saturday.

Five percent of the rapes

involved the use of a gun, 7 percent

involved a knife, and 80 percent

involved the use of physical force

only. Rape by a stranger involved

the use of a gun 10 percent of the

time, about 5 times as likely as

family rapes (2 percent). About 8

percent of rapes committed by exspouses involved the use of a gun

and another 12 percent involved the

use of a knife.

Fourteen percent of rapes

involving black offenders and black

victims involved the use of a gun,

about twice the percentage of

white-on-white rapes (7 percent).

Interracial rapes, black-on-white or

white-on-black, were equally likely

to involve use of a gun or knife (22

percent compared to 21 percent).

Rapes occurring in or near a

roadway or alley were the most

likely locations where the offender

used a gun (13 percent).

About 40 percent of rape victims

suffered a collateral injury, with 5

percent suffering a major injury

such as severe lacerations,

fractures, internal injuries or

unconsciousness. More than half of

spousal rapes, rapes by ex-spouses

and stranger rapes resulted in injury

to the victim, while about onequarter of parent-child rapes

resulted in major injury. Injuries

were most common among victims

age 30 or older and in rapes where

the offender used a knife. Nearly 6

in 10 rapes involving a knife

resulted in injury to the victim.

As these examples show,

NIBRS fills in the details about

crime which help law enforcement

planners target the most common

characteristics of crime and

consider prevention strategies

based upon firm knowledge about

crime. Questions about whether

violent sex crimes are increasing or

whether such crimes involving

children are declining in Bellevue

or Seattle or in any of the other

9,000 cities and 3,000 counties in

the United States are difficult to

answer at both the local or national

level other than by mostly

anecdotal or impressionistic

evidence.

NIBRS provides a framework

for systematically documenting and

analyzing patterns of violent sexual

assault crime and offending in a

local community, for comparing

that community to contiguous or

comparable communities anywhere

in the United States, and for

comparing one’s own community

to the Nation as a whole.

Criminal history records

show picture of sex offenders

Criminal history records are the

best formal portraits for examining

the lives of those who commit

violent sexual assaults. In 1995,

there were about 130,000 arrests

for rape and other sex offenses.

These arrests should have resulted

in entries to criminal history

records, since the vast majority of

those arrested for violent sex

crimes were adults: 84 percent of

those arrested for rape and 83

percent of those arrested for other

sex offenses were age 18 or older.

The number of persons in prison

for sexual assault offenses other

than rape is growing rapidly since

1980, second only to drug offenses.

It increased 15 percent per year,

compared to an overall average of 7

percent per year for drug offenses.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 11

The criminal history record can

play an important role at each stage

in the case processing of those

arrested for violent sex crimes. One

of the most critical case decisions

occurs shortly after arrest when

conditions for pretrial release are

established by the court. BJS data

from large urban counties indicate

that just over 1 percent of felony

filings are for rape.

About one-half of felony rape

defendants are released from

detention prior to the disposition of

their case. Only about 3 percent of

rape defendants have no bail set

and are not considered eligible for

release. About two-thirds of rape

defendants have additional charges

besides the charge of rape. For

most, the additional charges are

also felonies. About one-half of

those released prior to adjudication

by the court obtained release by

non-financial means, such as

release on recognizance.

About one-half of the rape

defendants in the BJS sample from

large urban counties had a prior

history of arrests, with the vast

majority of those arrests having

been for felony offenses. About

one-quarter of rape defendants had

at least five prior arrest charges. In

fact, an estimated 27 percent of

these rape defendants had a

criminal justice status, such as

probation or pretrial release, at the

time of the rape arrest. Most rape

defendants with a prior arrest

history also had a history of

convictions. About one in eight

rape defendants had a prior

conviction history that included

violent felonies.

Among rapists who gained

pretrial release, about one in five

violated the conditions of that

release by failing to appear in

court, by being arrested for a new

crime or by violating some other

condition of release. Clearly, an

accurate and current criminal

history record, which incorporates

information not only on prior

criminal behavior and convictions

but also on conformity with prior

pretrial release conditions, would

be a critical factor in determining

whether or not a defendant should

be released.

BJS data reveal that about twothirds of convicted rape defendants

receive a prison sentence, 19

percent receive a jail term and 13

percent receive probation following

conviction. A prison sentence for

convicted rapists depends heavily

on how their cases were

adjudicated. Sixty-three percent of

those who pleaded guilty were sent

to prison, while 89 percent of those

convicted by a jury received a

prison sentence. When a jury

decided guilt, the average prison

term was twice as long as the term

imposed following a plea, a

difference of 13 years.

Research has consistently shown

that the gravity of the offense,

combined with the extensiveness

and seriousness of the criminal

record, are key factors in the

sentencing decision. There is little

specific knowledge, however,

about the extent to which criminal

history information is used or the

specific weight given to an

individual’s criminal record by

prosecutors, judges or juries in rape

cases. BJS data on felony case

processing indicate a 20-

percentage-point difference for

violent offenders in the likelihood

of receiving prison if they have a

prior conviction history.

About one in five violent sex

offenders in prison had been on

probation or parole at the time of

the new offense for which they

were incarcerated. In order to play

a significant role in the sentencing

decision, such records of justice

system handling should necessarily

be complete and accurate and

should provide the capacity to

identify those with prior histories

of violence and sexual assault.

There is no doubt that courts will

rely upon that record for

determining the substance of the

sentence they impose.

For many offenders, few other

entries appear on the criminal

history record following

sentencing. Based on a 1995 survey

of State criminal history records

repositories, it is clear that local

jails and probation and parole

agencies rarely provide details on

the dates of entry to or exit from

custody or supervision and the

manner in which supervision is

terminated. Prisons are a bit better

because they often fingerprint

offenders at admission and release

to ensure the prisoner’s identity.

Such fingerprint cards may then be

sent to a State Identification Bureau

that enters the information on the

state rap sheet.

An obvious key element of a

criminal history record should be

the status and movement

information relative to convictions

received. Such information is

especially critical for those who

must make decisions regarding sex

offenders in the community.

Information about those offenders

with prior records of unsuccessful

community supervision would be

of enormous value in completing

presentence investigations and

determining dischargeability, level

of supervision or risk to the public.

Recidivism is the best available

measure of the public safety

consequences of sentences, whether

it is failure following imprisonment

or failure following a sentence to

community supervision. By

definition, recidivism must be an

outcome that is determinable from

a criminal history record.

BJS’s most recent recidivism

study tracked a sample of prison

releases representing 109,000

offenders discharged from prisons

in 11 states in 1983.

Rap sheets revealed more than

19,000 prior arrests for rape and

sexual assault preceding the most

recent imprisonment and 4,000

arrests for rape or sexual assault in
Page 12 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

the 3 years following release in

1983.

Offenders convicted of rape or

sexual assault accounted for just

over 4 percent of those released

from prisons in the study States in

1983. Over the 3-year period

following release, about one-half of

both rapists and sexual assaulters

were re-arrested for a new crime,

more than one-third were reconvicted, and more than onequarter were re-imprisoned within

the 3-year follow-up. An estimated

28 percent of released rapists had a

new arrest for violence and 8

percent were re-arrested for rape. A

similar BJS 3-year study of felony

probationers nationwide found that

20 percent of rapists were rearrested within 3 years and 3

percent were re-arrested for a new

rape.

Follow-up study of

discharged prisoners

BJS is now initiating the largest

follow-up study of discharged

prisoners ever undertaken, with the

joint support of FBI CODIS staff

and the Corrections Program Office

in the Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. Plans

call for tracking self-representing

samples of releasees from 12 to 15

States and undertaking follow-up of

every single sex offender released

in those States. When we complete

this effort, we expect to have about

10,000 offenders convicted of rape

or sexual assault who were

discharged in 1994 and followed

through criminal history records for

3 years. If follow-on funds are

obtained, we may continue to track

these offenders.

This is a very opportune time for

this kind of study because of the

many improvements that occurred

in criminal history records since

our last study. The National

Criminal History Improvement

Program (NCHIP) created

automated records where we had

only manual records before.

NCHIP will allow us to look at

arrest transactions in States other

than the State in which the offender

was released. This was something

that caused great difficulty for us in

the last study. Most importantly,

the timeliness of arrest reporting

and greater completeness of

disposition reporting will provide

records that bear little or no

resemblance to the records we used

in the last study, where disposition

information was missing more

often than not.

Progress in the battle against sex

offending and sex offenders is

dependent upon improved

knowledge about the crimes and

the offenders — goals common to

both NIBRS and NCHIP. NIBRS,

the crime statistics model for now

and the future, will forge a greater

partnership between crime and

justice data at the local and national

levels. Such data will provide more

information and descriptions of the

context of crime, which are

essential for policy development

and funding support at the Federal

level.

The kinds of questions being

posed to all levels of government

by our citizens about violent sex

offenses and offenders can only be

answered by data which sensitively

describe the conditions under

which victims and offenders

interact, the basic reason for

NIBRS. It is moving us that much

closer to the actual description of

the criminal incident, the place

where our understanding of crime

is least likely to be distorted by

other factors. The FBI and BJS are

committed to ensuring that all

jurisdictions have the most useful

information on how victims and

offenders come together and the

consequences of these contacts. We

believe NIBRS holds the promise

for this kind of information

opportunity.
Federal panel: Wetterling Act/Megan’s Law compliance issues

Panel introduction

Marlene Beckman

The trilogy of Federal statutes

Lisa Gursky Sorkin

Justice Department guideline changes and clarifications

Donna Feinberg

Applying for a compliance deadline extension

James C. Swain

Panel question-and-answer session

Federal panel members
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 15

Panel introduction

MARLENE BECKMAN

Special Counsel, Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Good afternoon. Today, this

panel is going to bring you the

news — the good news and the notso-good-but-getting-better news.

The good news is the progress

we have made in State

establishment of sex offender

registration and notification

programs. In summary, the Jacob

Wetterling Act, Megan’s Law and

the Pam Lychner Act,1 taken

together, require States to develop

registration systems for convicted

child molesters and other sex

offenders, require States to release

to the public relevant information

about registered offenders when

necessary to protect the public, and

require the U.S. Department of

Justice to build and maintain a

database to track registered

offenders nationwide.

 

1 In order to comply with the Jacob

Wetterling Crimes Against Children

and Sexually Violent Offender

Registration Act (42 U.S.C. § 14071),

States must register child molesters and

sexually violent offenders residing in

their States. Megan’s Law (104 P.L.

145, 100 Stat. 1345) requires release of

relevant information to protect the

public from child molesters and

sexually violent offenders. The Pam

Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and

Identification Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. §

14072) amends certain Wetterling Act

requirements and creates

responsibilities for the FBI.

Since enactment of these laws in

1994 and 1996, we have come a

long way toward establishing a

coordinated approach among local,

State and Federal governments to

address the challenge of making

our communities safer from sex

offenders. Prior to the enactment of

the Jacob Wetterling Act, 39 States

had some form of sex offender

registration. Today, all 50 States

have sex offender registration

systems in place. Prior to the

enactment of Megan’s Law, six

community notification laws had

been enacted. Following the

passage of Megan’s Law, there was

a period of intense activity with 21

States passing notification

legislation. Today, 45 States have

passed legislation that either

authorizes community notification

or allows individuals or agencies

outside the criminal justice realm to

access sex offender registration

information. That is the good news.

The not-so-good-but-gettingbetter news is that the majority of

States do not yet meet all of the

Federal requirements of the

Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law.

They are in danger of losing 10

percent of their Byrne Program

money as a result.2 This panel will

 

2 Editor’s Note: The Edward Byrne

Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance Program,

administered by the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice,

provides formula grants to States to

improve the functioning of the criminal

justice system, with emphasis on

violent crime and serious offenders.

Under the Wetterling Act, States must

establish a 10-year registration

requirement for persons convicted of

address the issues surrounding

Federal compliance.

The first speaker, Lisa Gursky

Sorkin, will speak briefly about the

three statutes and their

interrelationship. She will also talk

about the development of the

Department of Justice’s guidelines

for the Wetterling Act and Megan’s

Law. The second speaker, Donna

Feinberg, will speak more

specifically about the Federal

registration requirements. She will

also address the basis on which

States will be considered for a 2-

year “good-faith-efforts” extension

of the statutory deadline for

compliance.

The third speaker, James C.

Swain, will talk about the policies

and procedures for the States’

submissions of their registration

and compliance programs and their

requests for extensions of the

deadline to the Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

Each speaker will be allotted

approximately 10 minutes, which

will leave us time for questions.

We feel this provides a very

important opportunity for us to hear

from you.

 

certain crimes against minors and

sexually violent offenses and must

establish a more stringent set of

registration requirements for highly

dangerous sex offenders, characterized

as “sexually violent predators.” If a

State fails to comply with the

Wetterling Act, 10 percent of the

State’s Byrne formula grant may be

withheld.
Page 16 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The trilogy of Federal statutes

LISA GURSKY SORKIN

Chief of Staff, Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

Good afternoon. I am going to

provide a brief overview of the

Federal laws intended to guide

States in developing their sex

offender registration and

notification programs. A trilogy of

statutes now exists that defines

Federal policy concerning

registration and notification for

convicted child molesters and other

sexually violent offenders.

We recognize that there is some

confusion about the way these laws

fit together, how they work

together and what they mean for

the States. I want to shed some

light on these questions, and also

talk about the written guidelines the

U.S. Department of Justice

produced to help States comply

with the Federal laws.

Wetterling Act

The first of this trilogy of

statutes is the Jacob Wetterling

Crimes Against Children and

Sexually Violent Offender

Registration Act, which was

enacted as part of President

Clinton’s 1994 Crime Act.1 It

requires States to establish effective

registration systems for convicted

child molesters and other sexually

violent offenders. It also requires

the establishment of a more

stringent set of registration

requirements for a subclass of the

most highly dangerous offenders,

who are designated under the Act

as “sexually violent predators.”

The Wetterling Act provides a

set of minimum national standards

for the States to follow in

developing conforming registration

 

1 42 U.S.C. § 14071.

programs. The States’ obligations

under the Wetterling Act fall

roughly into four categories, which

I will describe in brief.

First, States must require certain

offenders to register. Convicted

child molesters and other sexually

violent offenders must register and

provide law enforcement with

current addresses for 10 years.

Sexually violent predators, the

most dangerous subclass of

offenders, must provide the State

with more extensive registration

information. They must continue to

register until they are found to no

longer be sexually violent

predators. The Wetterling Act

contains standards and procedures

for States to follow to determine

who is and who is no longer a

sexually violent predator.

Second, States need to ensure

that they maintain accurate

registries. What good are registries

if they include offenders with stale,

old addresses? The Wetterling Act

provides procedures for States to

follow to conduct proactive,

periodic address verification. States

need to verify addresses annually

for most offenders, and quarterly or

every 90 days for sexually violent

predators.

Third, States must maintain and

distribute registry information to

law enforcement. This requirement

has several facets. States must

ensure that registry information is

contained at a central State

repository. We do not want registry

information scattered throughout

numerous counties or cities. When

police conduct an investigation,

they need to know where they can

find registry information. The

Wetterling Act requires this.

We also want to ensure clear

lines of communication between

local and State law enforcement.

The Wetterling Act contains a

number of provisions to help

ensure that these folks are working

together during an investigation or

just conferring about the movement

of sex offenders in general. This

also applies to communication

between States. Under the

Wetterling Act, if an offender tells

the State he is moving to a new

State, the old State needs to tell the

new State that this offender is on

his way. The Wetterling Act

encourages open lines of

communication between different

levels of law enforcement, both

within and among States. That is a

very important policy goal.

Fourth, States must disclose

information to the public when

necessary for public safety. I will

discuss this requirement shortly in

connection with the Federal

Megan’s Law.

I want to emphasize that States

do not need to change their laws or

statutes to comply with the

Wetterling Act. The Wetterling Act

only requires each State to have a

conforming registration program.

States can accomplish this by

statute if they want, but they can

also use regulations, administrative

practices or policies to comply.

The Wetterling Act gives States

until September 13, 1997, to

establish conforming registration

programs. This is 3 years from the

date of enactment. The Attorney

General can extend this deadline by

2 years for States making good-
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 17

faith efforts to comply. States

unable to adopt conforming

registration programs by September

1997 will lose 10 percent of their

Byrne Formula Grant funding.

Megan’s Law

The second in the trilogy of

Federal laws is Megan’s Law,

enacted in May 1996.2 (Numerous

States have enacted their own

versions of Megan’s Law, named

after 7-year-old murder victim

Megan Kanka.) The Federal law

amended the community

notification provisions of the

Wetterling Act. Originally, the

Wetterling Act allowed States to

release information to the public if

they felt it was warranted, but

release of information was not

required.

Megan’s Law requires States to

release registration information to

the public when it is necessary for

public safety. This requirement is

often referred to as “mandatory

community notification.” The

compliance deadline for Megan’s

Law is the same as for the

Wetterling Act. States need to have

conforming notification programs

by September 1997. The Attorney

General can also extend this

deadline by 2 years on the basis of

a State’s good-faith efforts. States

that fail to implement a conforming

system will lose 10 percent of their

Byrne Grant funds. (This is not an

additional 10 percent added on to

10 percent for noncompliance with

the Wetterling Act; Megan’s Law

is part of the overall Wetterling

scheme and is treated the same

way.)

 

2 Pub. L. 104-145, 100 Stat. 1345.

Pam Lychner Act

The third law in the Federal

trilogy is the Pam Lychner Sexual

Offender Tracking and

Identification Act of 1996, enacted

in October 1996.3 The Lychner Act

imposes a number of obligations on

Federal, State and local

governments to enhance public

safety. The Lychner Act has three

principal requirements:

• First, it obligates the Attorney

General to establish a national

database at the FBI to track the

whereabouts and movements

of convicted sex offenders.

• Second, the Act requires the

FBI to handle sex offender

registration in States lacking a

minimally sufficient sex

offender registration program.

The term “minimally

sufficient” is defined in the

Lychner Act.

• Third, the Lychner Act amends

the Wetterling Act to prescribe

more stringent registration

requirements. For example,

under the Wetterling Act, as

originally enacted, most

offenders needed to register

with the State for 10 years.

Under the Lychner Act, a

number of offenders will need

to register for life. These

include aggravated offenders

and recidivists, along with

sexually violent predators.

The Lychner Act establishes two

basic requirements for the States.

First, the extent that the Lychner

Act amends the Wetterling Act, the

States will need to make sure that

their registration programs enacted

under the Wetterling Act meet the

new Lychner Act requirements.

Lifetime registration is one

example of a new State

requirement. The Lychner Act

gives States 3 years from the date

of enactment, or until October

1999, to implement its provisions.

 

3 42 U.S.C. § 14072.

To put this in perspective, States

need to comply with the Wetterling

Act as originally enacted, plus

Megan’s Law, by September 1997.

Lychner Act requirements take

effect 2 years later. The

enforcement provisions under the

Lychner Act amendments to the

Wetterling Act are the same as for

the rest of the Wetterling Act. A 2-

year, good-faith extension is

available, and 10 percent of the

State’s Byrne Formula Grant

money is at stake.

The second general requirement

for the States under the Lychner

Act is enhanced communication

with the FBI about convicted sex

offenders. The Lychner Act

imposes a number of freestanding

requirements on the States that are

not part of the Wetterling Act.

These requirements are designed to

facilitate the FBI’s role in sex

offender registration. The FBI

needs to have the most accurate and

up-to-date information to maintain

a national database that works. The

source of that information is the

States.

The Lychner Act thus imposes a

number of requirements to make

sure States are communicating with

the FBI about sex offenders living

in their jurisdictions. These

requirements take effect 1 year

from the date of enactment of the

Lychner Act, or by October 1997.

Justice Department

guidelines

This has been a brief overview

of Federal sex offender registration

and notification laws. I want very

briefly to address the Justice

Department’s guidelines for these

statutes, which have generated

almost as much confusion as the

statutes themselves. Both seem to

change with frequency.

In April 1996, the Justice

Department published final

guidelines for implementation of

the Wetterling Act. These

guidelines described the Act’s
Page 18 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

various requirements. They were

intended to help the States develop

conforming registration systems.

Exactly 1 year after the final

guidelines were published, we took

the next logical step and published

proposed guidelines. These were

published on April 4, 1997.4

We did this for two reasons:

Number one, we had not previously

provided guidance for Megan’s

Law because it was enacted after

we had published the final

Wetterling Act guidelines. We

wanted to provide more

information about what Megan’s

Law meant. Number two, in the

course of working with the States

after the previous final guidelines

were published, we learned that we

needed to provide more guidance in

a number of areas.

Several interpretive questions

had arisen, and we recognized that

more information was needed. In

this latest round of proposed

guidelines, we attempted to resolve

some of the interpretive questions

that were raised.

These proposed guidelines were

published for public comment. The

public comment period ended in

early June 1997 and the final

guidelines were published in the

Federal Register in July 1997. 5

 

4 62 Fed. Reg. 16180 (April 4, 1997).

5 62 Fed. Reg. 39009 (July 21, 1997).
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 19

Justice Department guideline changes and clarifications

DONNA FEINBERG

Attorney, Office of General Counsel

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

I would like to discuss

approaches States may take to

establish sex offender registration

and notification programs in

compliance with the Wetterling

Act. This information may be

found in the Justice Department’s

revised guidelines for the

Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law,

which have been published in the

Federal Register.

1

Since the original Wetterling

Act guidelines were published in

April 1996, a majority of States

submitted enacted or proposed sex

offender registration provisions to

the Justice Department for

preliminary review. The review

process raised a number of

questions, which are addressed in

the revised guidelines. The

guideline clarifications concern

some of the following issues.

Registration procedures

Several clarifications cover

initial registration procedures.

When an offender is released from

incarceration or placed on

probation or parole, the Wetterling

Act requires courts and/or prison

officers to follow certain

procedures. They must notify the

offender of State registration

obligations, obtain registration

information from the offender, and

submit it to the registration agency.

Some States assign this

responsibility to probation or parole

 

1 “Final Guidelines for Megan’s Law

and the Jacob Wetterling Crimes

Against Children and Sexually Violent

Offender Registration Act,” 62 Fed.

Reg. 39009 (July 21, 1997)

officers whose responsibilities

relate to correctional matters or the

execution of sentences. The revised

Wetterling Act guidelines make it

clear that assigning these

responsibilities to such officers is

permissible.

The Act provides that, if a

person who is required to register is

released from incarceration, the

responsible officer must obtain the

required registration information

and forward it to the registration

agency within 3 days of receipt.

Many States do not wait until the

release date to obtain the

information. They require offenders

to submit the information 30 or 60

days prior to release. The

guidelines make it clear that this

approach is permissible as long as

the information is forwarded to the

appropriate agencies no later than 3

days after release.

Once the initial registration

information is obtained, some

States require the responsible

officer to send it to the State

registration agency and to the local

law enforcement agency

concurrently instead of transmitting

the information to the State agency

only, which is then required to

forward it to the responsible local

law enforcement agency. The

guidelines make it clear that

concurrent transmission is

permissible if registration

information is promptly made

available to both the State

registration agency and the local

agency with jurisdiction over the

offender.

The guidelines make clear that

the Wetterling Act does not

preclude a State procedure where

the prison officer or court transmits

the initial information indirectly to

the State agency by sending it first

to the local law enforcement

jurisdiction where the registrant

will reside, assuming the local

agency is then required to forward

the information to the State agency.

Procedures of this type will be

deemed in compliance as long as

the information is submitted to the

local law enforcement agency

within the applicable time frame —

no later than 3 days after the

offender’s release. The State

procedures must also ensure that

the local agency forwards the

information promptly to the State

registration agency.

Address changes

The Wetterling Act requires

registrants to report address

changes to the State registration

agency within 10 days of moving.

However, many State programs do

not require registrants to send their

address changes directly to the

State agency. Information is

submitted to a local law

enforcement agency or other

intermediary, such as a parole or

probation officer, who is required

to forward it to the State agency.

The revised Justice Department

guidelines make clear that a

registrant can submit address

changes through an intermediary as

long as the registrant provides the

intermediary with the new address

information within the time frame

specified in the Act — or no later

than 10 days after a move — and

State procedures ensure that the
Page 20 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

intermediary forwards the address

change information promptly to the

designated State law enforcement

agency.

Sexually violent predator

A number of the guideline

clarifications involve the sexually

violent predator registration

requirements. The Wetterling Act

prescribes more stringent

registration requirements for the

subclass of offenders characterized

as “sexually violent predators.”

Some States require that sexually

violent predators be civilly

committed as opposed to making

them subject to more stringent

requirements. The revised

guidelines clarify that this approach

is permissible.

The Wetterling Act requires that

the sentencing court determine

whether a person is or is no longer

a sexually violent predator. The

guidelines clarify that this

requirement only means the

determination must be made by a

court that is legally competent to

institute the more stringent

registration requirements

prescribed for sexually violent

predators, which could be the court

in which the offender was

convicted of the underlying sex

offense but does not have to be.

Under the Wetterling Act, States

have discretion with regard to the

timing of the determination of

whether an offender is a sexually

violent predator. A State may

decide that the predator

determination be made at the time

of sentencing or as part of the

original sentence, but it is not

required to do so. The predator

determination could also be made

instead by a competent court when

an offender has served his prison

term and is about to be released

from custody.

Should a State choose to subject

all persons convicted of a sexually

violent offense to the more

stringent registration requirements,

it would not be necessary for

sexually violent predator

determinations to be made by a

competent court with the assistance

of a board of experts prior to the

commencement of the registration

obligation. However, it would still

be necessary for a court, assisted by

a board of experts, to terminate the

heightened registration

requirements of sexually violent

predators. Moreover, even if it is

determined that a person is no

longer a sexually violent predator,

the guidelines make clear that this

does not relieve the person of the

Wetterling Act’s 10-year

registration requirement, which

applies to any person convicted of a

criminal offense against a minor or

a sexually violent offense.

Length of registration

Another guideline clarification

involves the length of registration.

The Wetterling Act requires that

released convicted offenders be

subject to registration and periodic

address verification for at least 10

years. However, sexually violent

predators must be made to register

for life unless relieved of the

obligation by a competent court

determining that the offender is no

longer a sexually violent predator.

The revised guidelines make it

clear that a State would not be in

compliance if it allows offenders’

registration obligations to be

waived or terminated before the

end of the prescribed 10-year

registration period based on

findings such as rehabilitation or

that continued registration does not

serve the purposes of the State’s

registration provisions.

Address verifications

Other guideline clarifications

cover address verification

procedures. The Wetterling Act

requires annual address verification

with the designated State agency

for all offenders, who are required

to return within 10 days an address

verification form sent to the

registrant’s last reported address.

Verification intervals are 90

days rather than annually for

sexually violent predators. Some

States delegate address verification

functions to local law enforcement

agencies. The revised guidelines

permit this approach to periodic

address verification as long as

procedures ensure that the State

registration agency is promptly

notified if, through the process, it is

discovered that the registrant is no

longer at the last reported address.

The revised guidelines also clarify

that States may require the

registrant’s personal appearance at

a local law enforcement agency to

return an address verification form

rather than returning the form by

mail.

Notification methods

Another guideline clarification

involves the methods States may

use to notify local jurisdictions

about registration and change of

address information.

After receiving registration

information from the responsible

officer or court, the State law

enforcement agency must

immediately enter the information

into the appropriate record system

and notify the local law

enforcement agency where the

person expects to reside. The

Wetterling Act allows States to

decide what method they will use

to notify local law enforcement

agencies. Permissible options

include written notices, electronic

or telephone transmissions, and online access to registration

information.

Extensions

States currently unable to

comply with the Wetterling Act

and Megan’s Law should consider

submitting requests for an

extension of the September 13,

1997, compliance deadline.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 21

A State should submit its most

recent proposed or enacted

registration and community

notification program along with a

letter explaining its “good-faith

efforts” to comply with the

Wetterling Act and requesting an

extension of the statutory deadline.

The letter should describe the

State’s efforts to comply with the

Wetterling Act, including an

explanation of the concrete steps

taken and the progress made since

its passage in September 1994.

The State should also explain

why it has not been able to

establish a compliant program by

the deadline. In addition, the State

should describe in detail its plan to

establish a compliant program by

the end of the extension period and

submit a timetable specifying the

anticipated time frame indicating

when each step of its overall plan

will be taken.
Page 22 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Applying for a compliance deadline extension

JAMES C. SWAIN

Director, State and Local Assistance Division

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice

As the last member of the panel,

it falls on me to sum up and to

review our process for handling

extension requests. Ms. Nancy

Gist’s June 18, 1997, letter outlines

what the States must do to meet the

good-faith extension

requirements.1

Today’s speakers have made

every effort to be helpful and

responsive. Both Lisa Gursky

Sorkin and Donna Feinberg spoke

not only about the registration and

notification legislation, but also

about the guideline changes made

in response to some of the concerns

raised about issues such as local

versus State reporting

requirements.

Additionally, this panel was

scheduled in response to your

requests for hands-on assistance

with the very difficult matter of the

September 13, 1997, Wetterling

Act compliance deadline. We will

continue technical assistance after

this meeting through SEARCH,

through our own staff and through

our general counsel so we can bring

all the States into final compliance

with the registration and

notification statutes.

As for the extension request

letters you have been submitting, I

want to tell you where we stand

today.

 

1 The letter by Ms. Gist, Director of the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, is

included as Appendix 1.

All but 14 of the 56 States and

territories have now applied for a 2-

year extension to come into full

compliance with the Wetterling

Act. We have been able to contact

most States to point out the kinds

of problems meeting the criterion

set out in Ms. Gist’s letter that we

are finding in the extension request

letters already submitted.

We will review each extension

request, and then the staff at the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

will contact you to provide

assistance. That is the first step.

In reviewing the extension

request letters you plan to submit,

please consider the following:

• Does your letter include a copy

of your State’s proposed or

present legislation or

regulation or does it refer to a

document that was already

submitted?

• Does your letter address the

good-faith efforts and concrete

steps your State has taken to

date to come into compliance?

• Does it provide a timeline

indicating the steps that will be

taken to comply with the

Wetterling Act?

BJA staff will contact each State

to go over any elements missing

from your extension request letters.

When a letter meets the basic

requirements, we will refer it to

Donna Feinberg in our general

counsel’s office. She will review

the request to see if good faith is

demonstrated and if concrete steps

have been taken to legally justify

and warrant a 2-year extension.

If an extension is justified, we

will prepare a very short and

straightforward letter from Ms. Gist

to you indicating approval of a 2-

year extension for your State. After

you receive that extension, we want

to work with you intensively to

bring your State into full

compliance with the Wetterling

Act. Technical assistance will be

made available to you. We are

going to try to be very helpful.

Every time I think about the

States and the Federal government

working together, a number of

stories come to mind about how the

Federal government is helpful to

you as your partner. Former U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Tom C.

Clark used to tell an old story that I

think is appropriate.

It seems there were these

fellows who would travel to a

remote cabin every year to hunt.

They would hunt bear, play cards

and drink beer, and not necessarily

in that order. The loser at cards

would have to leave the cabin to

hunt for bear. If he found one, he

would kill it and bring it back so

everyone could help skin it. The

loser on this particular day dutifully

left the card game, which remained

in progress, and went to hunt bear.

He was confronted by a bear just

as he rounded a corner. The man

pulled his rifle to his shoulder and

took aim but the gun misfired. The

man took one look at the bear —

who was very angry at this point —

threw down his gun, and ran back

to the cabin with the bear in hot

pursuit. He pulled open the cabin

door and then jumped behind it,

using the door as a shield. The bear

stormed into the room, and the man
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 23

slammed the door shut. “I’ve got

your bear,” he shouted. “ Now skin

it.”

We brought you this wonderful

bear. Now all you have to do is

skin it and bring back the material

we need on this very important

topic. We will work with you and

do anything we can to help you

reach compliance. Thank you very

much.
Page 24 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Panel question-and-answer session

Marlene Beckman, Panel Moderator

Lisa Gursky Sorkin, Panel Member

Donna Feinberg, Panel Member

Ms. Marlene Beckman: I want

to mention one thing before we

begin taking questions from the

floor. The Office of Justice

Programs, in cooperation with the

State Justice Institute and the

National Institute of Corrections,

has funded a contractor to establish

the Center for Sex Offender

Management. The Center provides

technical assistance and training

opportunities.

If your jurisdiction or State is

interested in implementing the

containment theory of sex offender

management or exploring the

Arizona model of lifetime

probation, which has useful data on

sex offenders and sex offender

issues, this is an opportunity for us

to work with you. We expect to

begin work very soon with

jurisdictions around the country

that want to improve their

management of sex offenders in the

community.

We understand sex offender

registration and notification laws

are available, but we can build on

these to enhance community safety.

We want to work with jurisdictions

interested in going further in

managing sex offenders in the

community. With that, I will open

the floor to questions.

Question: The letter our State

received indicating our compliance

with the Wetterling Act included

information about electronically

transmitting information to the FBI.

If we are not yet transmitting that

information to the FBI, will we lose

10 percent of our Byrne Formula

Grant Funds?

Ms. Donna Feinberg: The

Wetterling Act only requires that

States transmit conviction data and

offender fingerprints to the FBI if

they have not already been sent

there. The Lychner Act, which has

more stringent requirements, may

be what you are referring to, but

those requirements are not in effect

for another 2 years.

Ms. Lisa Gursky Sorkin: You

may be referring to an FBI

communication asking States to

send information in conjunction

with the National Sexual Offender

Registry. The Attorney General set

up a national registry at the FBI in

response to a presidential request.

The FBI asked the States to make

sure their offender data are

included in the national registry.

This is related but distinct from

the Wetterling Act, Megan’s Law

and Lychner Act requirements we

talked about.

Question: Can you explain the

requirements for States that civilly

commit sexually violent predators?

Must a State board of experts be

established to civilly commit these

predators?

Ms. Feinberg: The revised

guidelines make clear that civil

commitment is an acceptable

alternative to imposition of the

more stringent registration

requirements on sexually violent

predators. That is, if your State

requires civil commitment of

individuals determined to be

sexually violent predators, the State

would not need to impose address

verification at 90-day intervals and

lifetime registration and address

verification while the sexually

violent predators are civilly

committed. However, the State

would still need to have a system

whereby a board of experts assists a

competent court in making the

determination as to whether an

individual is — or is no longer — a

sexually violent predator.

Question: When you talked

about community notification, it

was unclear whether guidelines

allowed for the release of

information on adult offenders

whose victims were also adults. In

Illinois right now, we cannot

release information to the

community on any offenders whose

victims were adults. We can only

release information on offenders

whose victims were children.

Ms. Feinberg: The guidelines

make clear that the mandatory

disclosure requirement applies to

offenders convicted of crimes

against minors and to offenders

who have been convicted of

sexually violent offenses, including

offenses against adults. States have

discretion to determine when it is

necessary to disclose registration

information to protect the public

about registrants convicted of

covered offenses against minors

and adults.

Question: Offenders are

required to verify their addresses

by returning forms sent to their last

known addresses. Do they have to

send back fingerprints and

photographs with the forms?

Ms. Feinberg: That is a

Lychner Act requirement. Under

the Wetterling Act, the State law

enforcement agency is required to

send out a nonforwardable address

verification form to the offender’s

last reported address. The offender

must sign and return the form

within a specific time period
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 25

verifying the offender’s current

address.

Question: Do they also have to

return fingerprints and

photographs?

Ms. Feinberg: Not at this time

for compliance with the Wetterling

Act. That is a requirement of the

Lychner Act.

Ms. Beckman: States can enact

Lychner Act requirements now if

they want, but they are not required

to do so for another 2 years.

Question: Does the Lychner

Act cover any crime committed by

an adult against a child? What if an

18-year-old steals a 13-year-old’s

bicycle?

Ms. Sorkin: The Lychner Act

does not change the offense

category requirements covered in

the Wetterling Act. The Wetterling

Act requires States to register

convicted child molesters and other

sexually violent offenders. The

statute defines what these

categories mean. The Lychner Act

does not enlarge the category of

offenders who need to register.

Ms. Beckman: You need to

read the Wetterling Act and the

Lychner Act in conjunction with

each other.

Question: I have a question

concerning address verification.

Does the language in our State’s

verification and notification

legislation actually have to describe

the verification process?

Ms. Feinberg: No, the State’s

address verification procedures do

not have to be specifically spelled

out in its legislation. If your State

has an administrative policy

establishing its verification

procedures, the policy should be

submitted to BJA along with

whatever legislation your State has

enacted or proposed so we can

review them together for

compliance with the Wetterling

Act.

Question: Is it absolutely

necessary to verify an address by

sending a nonforwardable form to

the last known address? Most of

our State’s residents use post office

boxes. They can change residences

as many times as they want and

still keep the same post office

boxes. How do we verify addresses

under those circumstances?

Ms. Feinberg: The

nonforwardable address

verification form is a statutory

requirement of the Federal

legislation.

Question: I am not talking

about forwarding a form to a new

address. I am talking about moving

from place to place and keeping the

same post office box. My post

office box and my physical location

have nothing to do with each other.

Ms. Beckman: That is a very

good point. What you are saying is

the post office box is meaningless

for address verification.

Ms. Sorkin: The Wetterling Act

contains a very specific procedure

that States need to follow to verify

addresses. We have seen States

start to build on that minimum

requirement. There are States that

now require house visits, for

example. Law enforcement is

actually checking the offender’s

address to make sure that person is

still living there. But the Wetterling

Act very specifically requires the

mailing of the address verification

card.

Question: But what if the

verification card does not work?

Ms. Beckman: Your State may

want to institute more stringent

registration requirements. The

Wetterling Act sets a floor. In your

particular State, you may need to

build on that floor. That is perfectly

okay. You can always do

something more.

Question: When an offender is

on probation or parole in Oregon,

the local police, probation or parole

officer is responsible for sex

offender registration. When the

offender’s probation ends, the State

Police are responsible. If the

offender moves while he is on

probation or parole, does the

Wetterling Act require us to inform

the State Police?

Ms. Feinberg: A registrant has

an obligation to notify the

designated State agency of any

address changes under the

Wetterling Act. If, under State

procedures, the registrant notifies

his probation or parole officer of

address changes, that officer must

notify the State registration agency.

Question: As the offender’s

supervising officer, do I have to

notify the State Police when the

offender notifies me of his move?

Ms. Feinberg: Yes, if the State

registration agency is the State

Police. In addition, the local law

enforcement agency with

jurisdiction where the person has

moved must be notified if the

person has moved to another

jurisdiction.

Ms. Sorkin: You want to make

sure the information at the State

level is accurate and updated.

Question: When the offender

requires supervision, I am the

registration agency. When they no

longer require supervision, the

State Police are the registration

agency. That is the issue.

Ms. Sorkin: Under the

Wetterling Act structure, there

needs to be an overall central

repository in the State that contains

information on all the State’s sex

offenders. If your State follows the

Wetterling Act requirements, then

you need to let the central

repository know when an offender

changes his address. You are

keeping track of the offender.

Question: Does the Department

of Justice have the right to grant a

waiver to a State that may follow a

different procedure to verify

addresses than the one required by

the Wetterling Act, but one that

still achieves the same goals? We

do not verify address in our State

by using a nonforwardable

postcard, but we still have an

effective procedure in place to meet
Page 26 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

the verification requirements. Do

you have the legislative authority to

grant waivers in these instances?

Ms. Sorkin: No, we do not. We

are sympathetic to your concerns

because we have received similar

inquiries from other States with

respect to address verification and

the Wetterling Act. The Act is very

specific and does not give us the

authority to exempt States from

complying with certain provisions.

We tried to give States as much

flexibility as we possibly could in

our guidelines. We bent over

backwards in interpreting some of

the statutory provisions, but at the

end of the day, we still have

statutory language we need to

implement.

Ms. Beckman: Let me also say

that we are moving toward greater

flexibility. The Justice Department

is trying to keep its eye on the goal

of good sex offender registration

and notification systems. There

may be five different ways to reach

that goal. As long as we all get to

that goal, that is what is important.

I would encourage you to explain

in your submission the system you

have and we will do what we can to

be flexible, but we are limited by

the words of the statute. We do

recognize that the goal is an

effective statute or program that

will make sure people register and

ensure that the community is

notified. Let us see if we can work

together to get to that point.

Question: Can you please

explain the Lychner Act’s 3-year

implementation schedule?

Ms. Beckman: This is the

clarification of the Lychner Act

timetable.

Ms. Sorkin: There are a number

of sections of the Pam Lychner Act

that directly amend the Wetterling

Act. This means that every State’s

registration and notification

programs must conform to these

new requirements. The compliance

timetable for these provisions of

the Lychner Act is 3 years from the

date of enactment, or October

1999. Among these new provision

are ones concerning the length of

registration and the lifetime

registration provision I mentioned

earlier. There are also provisions

covering who needs to serve on the

State boards of experts that help the

sentencing court determine who is

a sexually violent predator. Overall,

there are about five changes that

the Lychner Act makes to the

Wetterling Act. Congress allows 3

years for States to comply with

these new Lychner Act

requirements. The deadline is

October 1999. The Lychner Act

also imposes a number of other

requirements on the States to

ensure that the FBI can do its job

under the Lychner Act. Those

requirements take effect in October

1997, 1 year from the Lychner

Act’s date of enactment.

Question: What are the other

requirements that the Lychner Act

imposes?

Ms. Sorkin: The other Lychner

Act requirements are scattered

throughout the statute. We can

create a specific list for you, if you

wish. They concern making sure

the FBI has accurate and up-to-date

registration information, sending

required information to the FBI,

and also making sure offenders

know what their responsibilities

are.

Question: Does the Wetterling

Act cover offenders who are in the

military?

Ms. Sorkin: It is my

understanding that sex offenders

who are convicted in military

courts are not covered by the

Wetterling Act. Basically, it covers

State law offenders who are subject

to registration requirements. There

is legislation pending in Congress

right now that would extend

registration requirements to Federal

and military offenders.

Question: Under the Federal

guidelines, what systems do States

have to have in place in regard to

juvenile offenders and community

notification?

Ms. Feinberg: Under the

guidelines, juvenile offenders do

not have to be covered by State

registration provisions unless they

are convicted as adults. If they do

not have to register, the State does

not have to provide notification to

the community regarding juvenile

offenders.

Ms. Beckman: Again, the

Federal Wetterling Act and

Megan’s Law provide minimum

requirements. If a State chooses to

go further and create legislation

that covers juvenile offenders, that

is certainly up to the State.

Question: Are you going to

come up with any specific criteria

to help with risk assessment?

Ms. Feinberg: I do not believe

we are going to determine risk

assessment criteria for States to

follow.

Question: Under the Lychner

Act, what happens if someone

moves to your State from another

State that requires registration, but

the individual does not meet your

State’s criteria for registration?

Ms. Feinberg: The Wetterling

Act covers a number of specific

offenses. States have a certain

amount of latitude in determining

which State offenses need to be

covered under their systems, but

they should be fairly similar. One

State may not cover the exact

offense that another State may

cover because of differences in

State criminal offenses. Chances

are, however, if someone required

to register in one State moves to

your State, he will probably be

required to register under your

registration provisions as well

because of a conviction for an

offense that your State program

needs to cover for compliance with

the Wetterling Act. States need to

cover offenders who move to their

States and require them to register

within 10 days of establishing

residency.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 27

Question: How do these three

statutes affect individuals who are

registered as sex offenders and who

committed their offenses on Indian

land?

Ms. Sorkin: In our guidelines,

we encourage States to require

Federal, military and tribal

offenders who live in their

jurisdictions to register because

convicted sex offenders pose a

similar public safety risk,

regardless of where the offender

was convicted. We have

encouraged States to do this, but

our reading of the statute is that the

Wetterling Act as it currently exists

does not require them to register.

Question: Do the statutes

indicate who should sit on the

boards of experts that consider the

sexually violent predator

designation for certain offenders?

Ms. Feinberg: The State has a

lot of discretion in that respect. The

revised guidelines make it clear

that the board should be composed

of at least two people who are

experts in the treatment and

behavior of sex offenders. Other

than that, the board just has to be

authorized under State law and it

must have the authority to assist the

court in making determinations

about sexually violent predators.

Under the Lychner Act

amendments to the Wetterling Act,

the boards should also include

representatives of victims’ rights

groups and representatives from the

law enforcement community.

Ms. Beckman: The additional

Lychner Act requirement is not

effective for another 2 years.
Federal funding support

Federal funding support for sex offender registries

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 31

Federal funding support for sex offender registries

DR. JAN M. CHAIKEN

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS) has administered the

National Criminal History

Improvement Program (NCHIP)

since fiscal 1995. This is the kind

of program that percolates up from

the States to the Federal level.

Pressure and lobbying from State

representatives persuaded Congress

to include NCHIP grant programs

in the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act and the National

Child Protection Act.1 Congress

then actually appropriated funds for

those grant programs.

NCHIP has supported efforts to

improve databases containing

information about criminal history

records, protection orders, domestic

violence and child abuse. The

recent Supreme Court decision

concerning the Brady Act does not

change the grant program.2 We will

 

1 Brady Act, Pub. L. No. 103-159

(November 30, 1993); National Child

Protection Act of 1993, Pub. L. No.

103-209 (December 20, 1993).

2 Printz et. al. v. United States, U.S.

Supreme Court Case No. 95-1478,

argued December 3, 1996, decided

June 27, 1997. Two county sheriffs

filed separate actions protesting an

interim Brady Act provision that

required Chief Law Enforcement

Officers of local jurisdictions to

maintain an interim system to check the

criminal histories of gun purchasers

until a national system is established in

November 1998. The U.S. Supreme

Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the

petitioners that the provision was a

violation of the 10th Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution (States’ rights),

although the provision was ruled

severable from the remainder of the

Brady Act, which was left intact.

be continuing in fiscal 1998 and

completing the originally

authorized $220 million of funding.

We believe NCHIP has resulted

in enormous strides forward in the

quality, accuracy, completeness

and accessibility of State criminal

history records. The statistics are

not yet in to prove this point, but

we are confident that when

SEARCH completes its survey of

the States at the end of 1997, the

comprehensive nature of the

advances brought about by this

Federal funding program will be

clear to us all.

Federal focus on

sex offender registries

The latest NCHIP program

announcement, just sent to the

States in draft form, includes a hint

that our next planned focus area

will be sexual offender registries.

NCHIP applications for fiscal 1997

cannot request funding for sex

offender registries. A number of

you obtained Federal funding for

your sex offender registries through

domestic violence grants or other

record-upgrade grants.

On June 21, 1996, President

Clinton issued a directive to the

Attorney General to identify

obstacles to building a national sex

offender registry in response to the

universal movement toward Statelevel sexual offender registries and

the fact that many sexual offenders

may be mobile and crossing State

lines. As with many data systems

of this type, the Attorney General

delegates the building of the

Federal computer components to

the FBI and delegates these

functions to BJS: assisting States to

help them participate in the

national system; collecting related

statistical and evaluative

information; and providing

technical assistance to the States.

BJS’s role is vital to ensure that

the FBI’s systems are more than

empty computer shells and modems

with no useful information in them.

FBI officials refer to this as

“populating” the FBI’s computers.

It is a good expression, because a

national sex offender registry with

no offenders in it may look nifty,

but it is not worth much to law

enforcement or the public. On

August 24, 1996, President Clinton

announced his goal to begin

development of the registry based

on plans developed by the FBI, BJS

and other Justice Department

components. The President said he

would include $25 million for BJS

to provide grants and other

assistance to States in his fiscal

year 1998 budget request.

This request made its way

through the Congressional

appropriations process. The funds

will be made available to help

improve sexual offender registries

across the Nation and to conduct a

more formal review of individual

States’ reporting systems, which

vary in sophistication.
Page 32 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Registry effort coordinates

with record improvements

Because this Presidential

initiative is so closely tied to

ongoing efforts to improve criminal

history records and to provide for

the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS)

as required by the Brady Act, BJS

plans to coordinate it with the

overall goals of better and more

useable records on the criminal

careers of offenders. The

President’s requested funding

would be used largely to enhance

existing State systems and

databases to better meet the

requirements of the Jacob

Wetterling Act, Megan’s Law and

related State legislation. Funds

would also be used to establish,

identify, collect and maintain a

standard level of sexual offender

data for exchange through a

National Sexual Offender Registry,

to be managed by the FBI.

This effort would promote

automated input from courts and

corrections, while helping to

automate registries currently not

automated. Monies would be made

available to develop on-line access

for law enforcement throughout the

States. Procedures and software

would be developed for automated

input. These funds can be used to

develop systems and procedures for

sharing registry information with

the FBI’s interim system or for

working toward the permanent

system, which is to be part of NCIC

2000.

As with all of NCHIP, the

requested funds will be available to

assist States in complying with

either State or Federal law.

Complete, accurate and up-to-date

records that are readily accessible

to local law enforcement and that

can be linked to records in the

national registry for sharing with

other States are funding priorities.

States will be permitted to use

BJS’s Federal funds without regard

to whether offenders are being

registered under State law or

according to Federal law or

regulations.

Federal funding applications for

each State’s sexual offender

registry will be submitted by an

agency designated by the governor

to administer the funds. In many

cases, this will be the same as the

State’s NCHIP agency. We believe

this approach will speed the

establishment of registries. As soon

as funds are available, BJS will

know the State agency eligible to

apply for funding, and we can

prepare an expedited process for

applying for the sex offender

registry portion of the NCHIP

funding for fiscal 1998.

Technical assistance will be

made available by BJS directly to

the State agency that needs help

upgrading its systems or interfacing

its registries with FBI records.

Public notification

issues examined

Much study has been devoted to

the issue of whether to notify the

public about sexual offenders living

in communities. Peter Finn of Abt

Associates, a government and

business consulting and research

firm, conducted a study that

examined registration and

notification systems in 32 States.

He found that, although registration

has been evaluated and shown to be

useful in apprehending repeat

offenders, the notification statutes

are too recent for clear evaluation

of results. The one empirical study

mentioned in Finn’s report found

no evidence that notification

reduces recidivism.3

Therefore, as we proceed in

improving registration and

notification procedures, it is

important to keep in mind the

privacy rights being jeopardized,

and the number of people who are

being harassed or losing

employment or stature as a result of

registration. This provides a

counterbalance to the public

benefits of notification. Most of us

believe the public benefits will be

large, but we have to be openminded enough to await clear

evidence and act appropriately if,

on balance, the benefits are small.

Appropriately enough, Finn

cites the BJS’s own publication,

“Correctional Populations in the

United States,” which reports that

the number of sexual offenders is

on the rise, jumping more than 300

percent between 1980 and 1994.4

Though there are inpatient and

outpatient treatment programs for

sex offenders, treatment is effective

at best with a handful of offenders,

and there is a general perception

that recidivism rates are high. In

1983, sex offenders were less likely

than other offenders to recidivate,

but they were much more likely to

recidivate into sexual offending.

BJS receives numerous requests

from individuals who want to

know, “What are the recidivism

rates of sexual offenders?” As I

mentioned this morning, the latest

national statistical information we

 

3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of

Justice, Sex Offender Community

Notification, Research in Brief series,

by Peter Finn, Abt Associates

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, February 1997).

4 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Correctional Populations in

the United States, 1994, by Jodi M.

Brown, et. al. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, June

1996) p. 10.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 33

have on this important topic is from

1983. We are pleased to have

obtained funding from the FBI and

the Corrections Program Office

within the Office of Justice

Programs recently to field a study

that will update these statistics. The

study will focus specifically on

sexual offenders and examine

whether DNA data assist in

identifying and convicting such

offenders.

Many States have enacted

community notification laws in

response to heightened awareness

of the seeming proliferation and

recidivism of sex offenders. These

laws are designed to make sex

offender information available on

request to individuals and

organizations. They authorize or

require probation and parole

departments, law enforcement

bodies or prosecutor offices to

disseminate information about

released offenders to the

community at large.

Community notification reflects

the perception that registration

alone is inadequate to protect the

public against sex offenders, and

that notification provides the public

with a better means of protecting

itself. Notification advocates

believe that informing the public

about the presence of a sex

offender in the community will

allow residents to take action to

keep themselves and their families

out of harm’s way. Others believe

that making offenders notify

communities on their own may be

ill-advised, has great potential for

unreliability and is inconsistent

with efforts to rehabilitate

offenders.

However, there is a great deal of

work involved to determine the

geographic range of identification;

to decide who receives notice; to

consider hearings for offenders

who want to contest their

notification status; and the actual

process of notification. For those

who do not know, typical

information made available in one

or more States includes an

offender’s name, address, date of

birth, social security number, a

photo, fingerprints, criminal

history, place of employment and

vehicle registration. Eight States

currently include blood samples for

DNA identification, and Michigan

includes a DNA profile in the

registry if it is available.

Notification laws have been

challenged in the courts. I think it is

safe to say that States may

encounter two types of legal

problems related to sex offender

notification. First, civil suits may

be brought against agencies and

individuals involved in the

implementation of the notification

statues, perhaps for failure to

remove or expunge an erroneous

registration record, a record that

was reversed by the courts, or one

that had a time limit for remaining

in the registry. Second, legal

challenges to the statutes

themselves could occur.

While offenders in some States

have sued to reduce their

notification status without

challenging the constitutionality of

the notification statute, the courts

have generally upheld the

notification level originally

established. Though all States have

some form of registry in place,

certain States have more elaborate

systems and technical resources

than others. Some may only be

capable of initiating very limited

record keeping to provide

identification of newly convicted

eligible sexual offenders. For these

jurisdictions, assistance will be

provided to automate or retrieve

relevant records of offenders’ past

convictions. States with more

advanced registries will want to

focus their grant funds on

developing communication

interfaces with the FBI.

National registry:

A powerful tool

The National Sexual Offender

Registry, with the participation of

the States, has the potential to be a

powerful tool for the law

enforcement community. However,

the registry will only be as valuable

as the effectiveness of its database.

Proper safeguards must be

implemented to assure that the

public has access to information

that is supposed to be publicly

available while only authorized

persons have access to restricted

information about sex offenders.

Since the laws on this vary from

State to State, the challenges are

obvious, especially if an offender

travels back and forth between two

States. Also, to ensure accuracy,

the system must be available for

quick and regular updates to reflect

current data in your State and in

neighboring States. The

development of such databases is,

unquestionably, a big challenge,

but the BJS looks forward to

supporting State efforts to develop

and enhance the means of making

your communities safer.

As part of our commitment to

you, the BJS funded this

conference. We hope you find it

useful.
FBI panel: Interim and permanent solutions

History and current status of a national sex offender registry

Emmet A. Rathbun

The impact of the Lychner Act

Ralph C. Thomas
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 37

History and current status of a national sex offender registry

EMMET A. RATHBUN

Unit Chief, Criminal Justice Information Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

I am here today to speak on the

history and current status of the

National Sexual Offender Registry.

In the Fall of 1995, the FBI’s

Criminal Justice Information

Service’s Advisory Policy Board

(CJIS APB) began to discuss the

benefits of a national sex offender

registry and where the registry

could best be housed.

Suggestions were made to

designate the registry as a National

Crime Information Center (NCIC)

“Hot File” or to include it in the

Interstate Identification Index (III).

Since the Wetterling Act1 strongly

encouraged States to establish

sexual offender registries, and

many States had started to

implement them, the APB

determined that a national index

listing the State database or agency

that maintained the detailed

registrant information would be

appropriate.

The APB also decided that this

index would be designated as a

NCIC Hot File to allow maximum

accessibility to all law

enforcement. The Board delayed

establishment of the Hot File until

after delivery of the NCIC 2000

system to avoid the cost of

programming both systems since

no urgency for the national registry

was evident, either legislatively or

from users.

On June 25, 1996, President

Clinton issued a directive to the

Attorney General instructing her to

develop a plan to implement a

 

1 The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent

Offender Registration Program, 42

U.S.C. § 14071.

national sexual predator and child

molester registration system. He

asked that the plan be ready for his

review by August 20, 1996. The

President’s directive made it

necessary for the FBI to develop a

national registry mechanism to

operate on an interim basis until

delivery of the NCIC 2000 system.

The directive required the creation

of a national system based on the

Wetterling Act that allowed

national access to the sexual

offender registration information

maintained in each of the

individual State systems.

The FBI’s long-term plans still

called for the creation of a sexual

offender Hot File in the NCIC 2000

system, but the Bureau had to

assemble an interim plan to meet

the President’s goals for a national

sexual offender registry to be

available in the period before the

NCIC 2000 system is up and

running.

To address the President’s

directive, the FBI looked for the

lowest impact solution in terms of

development cost and

implementation time. The FBI’s

interim solution, proposed to the

President under the Attorney

General’s signature on August 22,

1996, called for a modified version

of its existing Flash Program with a

link provided to each State’s sex

offender registry through the

National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System

(NLETS). (The Flash Program is

used to track Federal parolees and

probationers.)

At its October 1995 Board

meeting, NLETS decided that

States should create a “message

key” that would permit the

electronic search of State sex

offender registry information, just

as driving record information is

shared across State lines. NLETS

requested that the message keys be

in place by November 1996.

During his Saturday radio

address on August 24, 1996, the

President announced he had

received the Attorney General’s

plans for implementing a National

Sexual Offender Registry. He

committed to the Nation that the

Attorney General’s planned system

would be operational within 6

months, or by February 24, 1997.

Through diligent hard work and

determination, the FBI was able to

deliver the interim provisions for

use on February 23, 1997.

The interim provisions

encourage States to submit sexual

offender registration data —

including the registrant’s name,

date of birth, the date the

registration began, the date the

registration expires, the case

number and the registering

agency’s Originating Identification

Number (ORI) — to the FBI for

inclusion in the subject’s criminal

history record. To ensure that all

entries into the FBI’s database are

based on positive fingerprint

identification, the FBI also requires

the subject’s FBI number and State

identification number, if the State

has established such a number for

the subject.
Page 38 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The FBI recognizes that some

law enforcement agencies may not

have forwarded the records of all

convicted sexual offenders for

inclusion in the III. In these

instances, the FBI requires the

submission of a criminal fingerprint

card along with the registration

data so a record can be established.

To maximize the amount of

information contributed to the

interim national sexual offender

registry, the FBI accepts input,

modification and deletion data in

three formats: Batch tapes; on-line

transmissions to the III; or through

the use of the FBI’s “Flash/Sexual

Offender Registration/Cancellation

Notice” I-12 Form.

It is important to note that the

submitting State is responsible for

ensuring that the registrant data are

current and accurate. The FBI

encourages States to develop the

capability to add, modify and delete

registry data via the III. Even States

that are not III participants can use

the III for sexual offender

registration purposes.

The registry data are posted to

the subject’s criminal history and

provided as a part of the subject’s

record each time an authorized

record request is made. A subject’s

status as a registered sexual

offender is prominently displayed

in response to both III name

searches (QH) and record requests

(QR) transactions. In answer to a

name check, the response notes that

the subject of record is a registered

sexual offender. To determine the

Originating Agency Identifier

(ORI) number, case number and the

registry start and expiration dates, a

record request must be made.

Sexual offender registration will

be noted in a subject’s rap sheet in

the same manner, regardless of

whether the rap sheet is obtained

via the III, in response to a record

request (QR) or via the mail. A

notice indicating that the record

subject is a registered sexual

offender will appear immediately

prior to the identification

information included in their FBI

identification record. Specific

registration information will appear

at the end of the FBI identification

record similar to the format used

for the inclusion of a wanted

notice.

Registration information

presented in the FBI identification

record will include the name the

subject is registered under; the

registering agency’s name and ORI

number; the registering agency’s

case number; the date registration

began; and the date registration

expires. The expiration date may be

“non-expiring” for individuals

required to register for life.

The registering agency’s ORI

provided in the rap sheet can be

used to contact the registering

agency via NLETS, or by other

means, to obtain specific

registration data.

To date, more than 17,000 III

records contain sexual offender

registration data. Nine States2 are

actively registering offenders at the

national level. Several others are

testing software for on-line access,

or are preparing to submit paper

registration forms. The sexual

offender registries of 9 States3 are

available via NLETS.

Although we are often inclined

to focus on the gross statistics,

painful cases such as those that

prompted enactment of the Jacob

Wetterling Act, Megan’s Law and

the Pam Lychner Act remind us of

the importance of each entry into

the national index, whether it is in

the interim system or the NCIC

2000 file. The national index is a

tool law enforcement officials can

use to identify citizens in their

 

2 Arizona, Georgia, Nebraska,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, South

Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and

Washington.

3 Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,

Massachusetts, North Carolina, South

Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

communities who are known sexual

offenders and respond accordingly.

It is intended to serve foremost as a

preventative measure and,

secondarily, as an investigative aid.

The tool will only work, however,

with the cooperation and

participation of all States.

 The convicted sexual offender

registry will be a Hot File in NCIC

2000. As most of you are aware,

NCIC 2000 is being developed as a

replacement system to the current

NCIC system. In addition to

providing a new software and

hardware environment, NCIC 2000

will add new capabilities, new data

fields, enhanced security and

greater capacity and growth

potential.

By maintaining the registry in

NCIC 2000, enormous benefits are

anticipated. As a Hot File, the

registry information will be

available to law enforcement under

routine circumstances. A Hot File

check is done almost every time a

vehicle is stopped for a traffic

violation or a traffic stop. The

officer checks to see if the vehicle

is stolen or if the driver has any

outstanding warrants. By

maintaining the registry in NCIC

2000, sex offender information will

be available to officers conducting

routine traffic stops.

With this knowledge, the officer

may be able to prevent a crime

such as this scenario: A car with a

male driver and a young boy is

pulled over for speeding. A check

on the name and date of birth of the

driver results in a hit from the

registry identifying the offender as

a pedophile.

Since vehicle information can be

included in the registry, searches by

license plate may also identify the

individual as a registered sexual

offender. Consider this scenario:

An individual is sitting in his car in

front of an elementary school. An

officer’s instincts alert him that

something seems out of place. A

check on the individual’s license
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 39

plate results in a hit from the

registry.

Also, law enforcement may

become aware of offenders who

fail to re-register after moving.

Based on the law within a

respective State, an arrest may be

permitted under these

circumstances. Unique to the

registry is the capability to conduct

on-line searches by ZIP code that

may identify possible suspects

during an active investigation.

NCIC 2000 contains two new

capabilities that will facilitate the

new burdens required under the

Pam Lychner Act.4 First, images

(offenders’ mug shots) can be

entered by the user and linked to a

record. Second, a fingerprint (right

index) can be linked to the record,

and a user can initiate a fingerprint

search by scanning the right index

finger of the subject.

All records in the convicted

sexual offender registry require an

FBI number to enable flagging of

the subject’s criminal history

record. This ensures the benefits of

the interim system will continue

and allows compliance under the

Pam Lychner Act (which requires

that registry information be

released for conducting

employment-related background

checks under the National Child

Protection Act of 1993).5

 

4 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender

Tracking and Identification Act of

1996, 42 U.S.C. § 14072.

5 Pub L. No. 103-209 (December 20,

1993).

The Wetterling Act does not

require Federal agencies to register

sexual offenders. However, the

U.S. Department of Justice

guidelines relating to the

Wetterling Act encourage States to

require registration of Federal and

military offenders. Although the

Wetterling Act, as amended to date,

fails to address responsibilities of

other Federal agencies associated

with registering Federal offenders,

the amendment imposed by the

Lychner Act has the potential to

place a tremendous burden on the

FBI, both in terms of field offices

registering offenders and the CJIS

Division processing fingerprints.

Mr. Ralph Thomas, the next

speaker, will offer further

discussion on the matter.
Page 40 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The impact of the Lychner Act

RALPH C. THOMAS

Supervisory Special Agent – Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit

Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

I work at the FBI Criminal

Investigative Division in the

Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit.

This unit addresses policy issues

that could impact the operations of

the Criminal Investigative Division

at FBI headquarters in Washington,

D.C., as was well as FBI criminal

investigations being conducted in

the field. I want to provide some

background information on the task

force we assembled at FBI

headquarters in October 1996 to

address the Bureau’s

responsibilities under the Pam

Lychner Act.1 I have been de facto

chair of this task force since my cochair received a promotion to

another position.

The task force is comprised of

representatives from various

divisions at FBI headquarters,

including the Criminal

Investigative Division, the Criminal

Justice Information Services (CJIS)

Division, the Information

Resources Division (which

manages the information that goes

into systems used by the FBI), the

Congressional Affairs Office, and

our finance office. Virtually every

division of the Bureau is

represented except for the

Counterintelligence Division.

The first meeting of this task

force was held in October 1996.

We discussed the FBI’s sexual

offender registration obligations

 

1 The Pam Lychner Sexual Offender

Tracking and Identification Act of

1996, 42 U.S.C. § 14072, requires the

FBI database be used for registration of

sex offenders for States that do not

maintain “minimally sufficient sexual

offender registration program(s).”

under the Lychner Act and

attempted to assess other policy

issues relating to the Act, including

some very serious resource

implications that may arise. At the

meeting’s conclusion, we decided

that it is the task force’s goal to

address policy and procedure for

effective implementation of the

Lychner Act at both FBI

headquarters and out in the FBI’s

field offices nationwide.

It is difficult to determine what

the FBI’s role will be in meeting

the registration requirements of the

Lychner Act. The Act requires the

FBI to register released sex

offenders in States that do not have

minimally sufficient registration

programs. Since we do not know

how many States will be deemed

“minimally sufficient” in terms of

their registration obligations, we do

not fully know what our

responsibilities are going to be.

Congress created this provision

for direct registration with the FBI

as a back-up or fail-safe measure.

We were to act as a back-up in the

remote possibility that some States

would not have minimally

sufficient sex offender registration

programs. It now appears there may

be a lot more States than we ever

anticipated that will not be

minimally sufficient when it comes

to their registration programs.

Therefore, we are in the process of

implementing the Lychner Act

guidelines, but we do not know

what our responsibilities are until

the U.S. Department of Justice lets

us know how many States will not

have minimally sufficient

programs.

In terms of the potential impact

of the Lychner Act on FBI

resources, I will reiterate that the

FBI must register sex offenders

who reside in States that do not

have minimally sufficient sex

registration programs as defined by

the Lychner Act. This registration

must include a current address,

fingerprints and a photograph.

Registration must continue for at

least 10 years, although the most

serious, repeat sex offenders, called

sexually violent predators, must

register for life.

By complying with the Lychner

Act, the FBI would have a

significant burden placed on all its

field offices, which would have to

actively take part in the registration

process by taking fingerprints and

photographs of offenders who are

required to register. This would be

problematic, considering that we

have very remote satellite offices in

the FBI called Resident Agencies.

We have 56 major field offices, but

we also have one-man, special

agent offices scattered throughout

the United States. You can likely

foresee some of the registration

problems that could happen with

sex offenders located in the remote

plains of North Dakota, for

example. Where do they register?

Do they register with the Resident

Agency or do they register with the

FBI field office? Will our smaller

offices have the necessary

resources to register sex offenders?

These are the types of questions we

discuss during our task force

meetings.

In addition, we will have to

assign personnel and organize

efforts to input the FBI’s
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 41

registration information into the

interim National Sexual Offender

Registry system and, ultimately,

into National Crime Information

Center 2000. The CJIS Division

would be required to verify the

offender’s fingerprints prior to

entry of the registration record in

the national registry. Currently, we

have a bit of a backlog with

fingerprints. That is a problem we

are going to have to work out

before the implementation of the

Lychner Act requirements.

Another issue concerns

procedures to record address

changes. The FBI must establish a

method to notify appropriate State

or local authorities and to modify

the national registry when a

registered offender changes

residences. This creates further

burdens on the CJIS and

Information Resources Divisions at

FBI headquarters.

Address verification is another

responsibility. The FBI must

periodically verify the addresses of

sex offenders it registers. The

address of a sexually violent

predator must be verified every 90

days. That puts substantial

demands on the manpower of our

violent crime squads in the field,

inasmuch as the only effective way

to verify an offender’s address is to

physically contact the offender.

Address verification also requires

submission of additional

fingerprints and photographs. The

FBI’s CJIS Division would once

again have to verify the submitted

fingerprints.

Another major responsibility

involves the search for fugitives.

The FBI must locate offenders

whose addresses cannot be verified.

If a registered sex offender cannot

be located, the FBI will have to

obtain an arrest warrant and include

the offender on the NCIC’s wanted

persons file. Our field office

personnel would conceivably have

to conduct fugitive investigations to

locate these offenders for

registration violations.

The cost of that burden is very

difficult for the FBI to quantify.

Our budget office put together

some projections using fugitive

statistics from our California field

offices along with information

about noncompliant sex offenders

provided by the California

Department of Justice. The results

were potentially staggering in terms

of the impact on FBI personnel and

nonpersonnel resources.

The bottom line, based on the

computations, was that we would

have to take every agent in each of

our four California field divisions

— San Diego, Los Angeles,

Sacramento and San Francisco —

and assign them full-time to look

for sex offenders who are

noncompliant (those who cannot be

located or who did not register).

That means every agent in every

one of these four divisions, not just

those who investigate violent

crimes but also those who

investigate drug and organized

crime, white-collar crime and

espionage cases — basically, every

FBI agent in every one of our

California offices.

Community notification is the

final issue. If appropriate, the FBI

may release relevant information

concerning a registered offender

that is necessary to protect the

public. Again, this would involve

FBI personnel from the CJIS

Division, the Information

Resources Division, the Criminal

Investigative Division and the

Office of Public and Congressional

Affairs. We are currently working

on a policy that addresses the

community notification provisions

of the Act. One possible strategy

would utilize a centralized database

at FBI headquarters that would be

available to our field offices.

One of the reasons I looked

forward to attending this

conference was to learn more about

the States’ Wetterling/Lychner Act

implementation strategies. Please

call me at FBI headquarters to talk

about these issues, because the

FBI’s registration and notification

obligations under the Pam Lychner

Act will not succeed unless we

work closely with the States and

with local law enforcement

officials.

My telephone number at FBI

headquarters is (202) 324-3241.

Please call me if you have any

questions or need more information

about the Jacob Wetterling and

Pam Lychner Act requirements and

how your State can meet them.
Overview of current State laws

Status and latest developments in

sex offender registration and notification laws

Elizabeth A. Pearson

Litigation issues

Arguments used to challenge notification laws

— and the government’s response

Dena T. Sacco

Pending legislation

Status of Federal legislation on sex offenders

and changes to current laws

Robert R. Belair
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 45

Status and latest developments in sex offender

registration and notification laws

ELIZABETH A. PEARSON

Staff Associate/Congressional Liaison

National Criminal Justice Association

I want to talk today about the

history and evolution of State sex

offender registration and

notification laws and their quick

development, especially within the

past few years. I want to briefly

discuss the pros and cons of

registry and notification laws and

what supporters and opponents of

the laws have to say about them.

I will also touch on the nuts and

bolts of registration and notification

systems, the similarities and

differences of State laws, and

legislative efforts certain States

undertook in 1997 to change their

laws. I do not intend to present an

exhaustive list of enactments, but I

will provide a flavor of what is

going on in the States.

Finally, I want to address cost

issues and other policy implications

in terms of implementation of these

laws. Sex offender registration and

notification is a resource-intensive

proposition, so I want to examine

cost issues as well as other

impediments and facilitators to

implementation.

Evolution

The first thing I would like to

discuss is the evolution of sex

offender registries. Registration

laws require sex offenders to

provide certain identifying

information to law enforcement and

corrections officials when they are

released from custody for

supervision in the community. All

States had these laws on the books

as of 1996.

Massachusetts created its

registration and notification

provisions in August 1996,

becoming the last State to do so.

The first sex offender registry was

created by California in 1947.

Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and

Alabama followed suit in the 1950s

and 1960s. Clearly, the most recent

period of activity has been in the

1990s, with 38 States creating

provisions since 1994.

Notification systems have

evolved much more recently. They

allow information from the sex

offender registry to be disseminated

either to specific people in the

community or in a specific manner,

or to be made available for public

view. The purpose of the

information release is to increase

public awareness of sex offenders

in a particular area.

The first notification law was

created in Washington State in

1990 when the Community

Protection Act was approved.1

Since then, 44 other States have

created notification systems.

Recent information from the

Washington State Institute for

Public Policy indicates that Hawaii,

Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska and

New Mexico are the five States that

currently do not have notification

provisions.

 

1 WASH REV. CODE ANN. §

9A.44.130 (West 1988 & Supp. 1997).

Pros and cons

People who support and

advocate for sex offender

registration and notification cite the

following reasons for doing so:

• The significant number of

sex offenders under

community supervision. A

December 1996 statistic from

the Bureau of Justice Statistics

indicates that, on any given

day, there are approximately

234,000 sex offenders under

the care and custody of the

States, 60 percent of whom are

under conditional supervision

in the community.2

• Fear of recidivism. Research

finds that sex offenders

commit a wide range and a

large number of sexually

deviant acts in their offending

lives and are reluctant to fully

disclose their offense history.

• Tools for law enforcement to

assist in investigations, and

grounds for holding those

who do not comply with

registration laws. Law

enforcement is aided by laws

that help identify people and

that keep offenders under

surveillance and in line with

their responsibilities to

register.

 

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders,

An Analysis of Data on Rape and

Sexual Assault, by Lawrence A.

Greenfeld (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, February

1997).
Page 46 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

• Deterring sex offenders.

Offenders may be reluctant to

commit new crimes if they

know information about the

crimes will be added to the

registry and would be passed

on to the community.

• Offering citizens information

to protect their children and

their families.

Those who oppose registration

and notification laws cite the

following reasons:

• False sense of security. Some

fear that registration and

notification systems promote a

false sense of security. They

fear citizens may rely too

heavily on the information

being released and not account

for sex offenders who are not

registered because they may be

new to an area, or because they

plea bargained to a lesser

crime not included in sex

offender registration laws.

• Vigilantism, harassment.

There is concern about

vigilantism and harassment of

offenders trying to get their

lives back together.

• Offenders avoid treatment.

Some fear these laws inhibit

offenders from seeking

treatment.

• No data on effectiveness.

There is also a lack of

evaluation of proven

effectiveness in terms of

compliance and arrest rates.

• Migration. There is the fear

that communities with lax or

less-stringent registration and

notification provisions will

make it more difficult to track

offender movements.

Common features

Information from the

Washington State Institute for

Public Policy and other sources

indicate that most State registration

laws share several common

features.3

The first is that these registries

are maintained by a State agency,

while local law enforcement is

responsible for collecting

information. This is not the case in

every State, but it is common in

most States.

Typically, the information

collected includes the offender’s

name, address, photograph, birth

date and social security number. In

most States, the initial timeframe to

register runs from immediately

after release to 30 days. Duration of

the registration requirement is

typically 10 years or more. Most

registries are updated only when an

offender notifies law enforcement

he is changing his address. Most

laws apply equally to offenders

convicted in other States.

Differences

A number of features are

different from State to State with

respect to registration laws.

The first is the lifetime

registration requirement. As of

1996, only 15 States required

lifetime registration for some or all

of their sex offenders.

Another feature that differs is the

petition for relief from registration

requirements. According to

information published by Elizabeth

Rahmberg-Walsh in her text, “The

Sex Offender,” at least 11 States

allow offenders to petition for relief

from registration requirements.4

Rahmberg-Walsh also conducted

research on the difference between

expunging records and petitioning

 

3 Staci Thomas and Roxanne Lieb, Sex

Offender Registration: A Review of

State Laws (Olympia, Washington:

Washington State Institute for Public

Policy, 1995).

4 Elizabeth Rahmberg Walsh, Megan’s

Law — Sex Offender Registration and

Notification Statutes and Constitutional

Challenges, THE SEX OFFENDER,

Civic Research Institute, Inc., 1997, p.

24-4.

for relief. She found that at least 11

States have expungement

provisions, 10 of which apply when

the conviction is set aside or

reversed. Only Connecticut

automatically expunges the

offender’s record after his

registration term expires.

As of 1996, 13 States had

address verification provisions,

most of which require annual

registration. Four States required

verification every 90 days. Of

these, New Jersey and Vermont

require address verification every

90 days for all offenders, whereas

New York and Pennsylvania

require only sexually violent

predators to verify addresses every

90 days.

The information I have on the

retroactive application of

registration and notification

requirements is not the most up-todate, but I think it is interesting. In

1995, the New York State Division

of Criminal Justice Services

surveyed 44 States which, at that

time, had registration provisions.

Twenty-two States had provisions

in place to apply registration

requirements retroactively under

certain circumstances. I note that

many of those States had court

cases pending to assess the

retroactivity application. I think

most decisions based on retroactive

application of registry laws

indicated that retroactive

application in this sense was

considered regulatory and remedial

and not punitive. It was, therefore,

permissible.

Another unique feature concerns

the registration of juvenile

offenders. As of 1996, 13 States

required youths convicted as sex

offenders to register. Of course,

juveniles tried in adult court are

required to register.

Sanctions for failing to register

and penalties for violation of

registration laws vary significantly.

Most States levy misdemeanor

charges for those types of
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 47

violations, although several States

increase the penalty severity for

repeat offenders. Four other States

— California, Mississippi, Oregon,

and Washington — vary the

penalty based on the severity of the

offense.

As of 1996, 9 States allow DNA

to be collected and inserted in the

registry. Federal laws do not

require DNA collection, depending

instead on fingerprint and

photograph identification.

Four notification categories

Notification methods fall into

four basic categories:

• Active or broad notification.

State law defines which types

of offenders require

community notification, as

well as the scope of the

notification effort. In other

words, citizens do not have to

seek out information before

they are notified.

• Limited disclosure. Refers to

those States that notify certain

groups or agencies about the

presence of sex offenders in

their community based on a

fear that those groups may be

negatively impacted.

• Passive notification. Requires

community groups or

individuals to take the

initiative to request

information about sex

offenders in the community.

• Combination. The fourth

category combines ingredients

of the previous three.

— Active notification

The first category I want to

address is active notification. There

are three ways States conduct

active notification.

The first is “tiering.” Many

States have a tiered process to

assess risk and then base

notification on that risk assessment.

In Minnesota, which enacted its

community notification law in

1996, the Department of

Corrections provides this

information. Risk assessment and

notification levels are based on a

tiered process. For example, firsttime offenders are considered lowrisk, which corresponds to a levelone notification. Information sent

to law enforcement may be shared

with other law enforcement,

victims and witnesses. This is a

fairly common method of

notification. Other states that utilize

the tiered process are Arizona, New

Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington

and Wyoming.

Many States allow law

enforcement some discretion in

releasing information they find

relevant and necessary to the

community. Two examples are

Tennessee and Montana. Tennessee

notification is based on the need to

protect the public. Information is

released by county sheriffs, who

actively make the notification

determinations themselves. In

Montana, notification can begin

when a court order exists allowing

the release of information. When

that happens, officials use a press

release to distribute the information

to the community.

Many States specifically define

the method and scope of the

notification necessary. Examples

include Alabama, Louisiana and

Delaware. In Alabama, residents

are notified by mail and copies of

registry information are posted in

various public buildings. The scope

of notification is dependent on the

size and the population of the area.

— Limited disclosure

The second category of

notification is limited disclosure.

Several States allow limited

disclosure of sex offender

information to organizations or

officials who might be vulnerable

to sex offenders in the community.

One example is Indiana, where the

statute requires notification to all

public and nonpublic schools; to

State agencies that license or hire

individuals who deal with children;

and to registered daycare facilities.

— Passive notification

Passive notification is the third

category. It allows the public to

view sex offender information

maintained at a central location.

This process is used in several

States, including Alaska, Colorado,

Kansas, Michigan and Oklahoma,

where the State maintains a list of

registered sex offenders for view at

the local level.

— Combination

The final category combines

elements of the previous three.

Several States use a combination of

notification methods. California,

for instance, recently released a

CD-ROM containing sex offender

information. It also established a

World Wide Web page and a 900-

prefix telephone number residents

can call to get information about

sex offenders. Here, the passive

approach is combined with a more

active approach, which allows law

enforcement agencies to disclose

information to the community.

Wisconsin has a similar system.

It established an 800-prefix

telephone number with law

enforcement discretion in

determining the scope of

community notification. Texas

provides notification via the

newspaper in both English and

Spanish. Residents of a particular

community can obtain information

from their law enforcement

agencies that is directly related to

that specific community.

Risk assessment

Risk assessment is important to

the success of registration and

notification programs. According to

the Washington State Institute of

Public Policy, risk is most often

assessed upon conviction or release

from incarceration. There are

several types of risk assessment.

Some States classify risk based on
Page 48 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

the history of offense. For example,

California’s classification is based

on the violent sex offenses and

violent non-sex offenses that the

offender has in his criminal history.

Other States use risk assessment

tools, objective measures or

guidelines to help determine the

offender’s risk level.

Some States allow the court to

make the risk determination and

some States use a board or panel of

experts to assess risk.

For example, the Minnesota End

of Confinement Review Committee

consists of a treatment specialist, a

victims’ rights representative and a

law enforcement official to help

make risk determinations for the

State.

No risk level is assigned in

broad notification. Notification is

automatically dispensed for certain

sex offenders. In Georgia, for

example, the notification

requirement applies to all convicted

child sex offenders.

Finally, in some States, such as

Tennessee, law enforcement

officials determine the risk an

offender poses to the community.

Technology

As many of you are aware,

technology has entered the

discussion of registration and

notification laws. California just

released a CD-ROM containing

registry information. Several States

have telephone banks people can

call to access registry information:

they are California, Florida,

Wisconsin and New York. In

Florida and Wisconsin, the State

provides an 800-prefix telephone

number. California and New York

provide a 900-prefix telephone

number.

Florida, Indiana and Kansas

offer sex offender information on

Web sites. One county in Michigan

has established a Web site run by a

local newspaper using information

provided by the sheriff. Benton

County, Oregon, also has a Web

site.

Legislative changes

Various legislative actions have

changed certain States’ registration

and notification laws over the past

year. The first area I want to talk

about is compliance legislation. A

lot of States are struggling to come

into compliance with the Federal

law. A couple of States considered

and a couple passed compliance

legislation.

The first I would like to discuss

is Illinois. The Illinois Legislature

has approved two bills to amend

current law to bring the State’s

registration and notification

provisions into compliance with the

Jacob Wetterling Act. It is my

understanding that neither bill has

been signed. They are awaiting the

governor’s signature. He is

expected to sign one or the other.

They contain similar provisions to

bring Illinois into compliance with

the Wetterling Act and the Federal

Megan’s Law.

The bills would require a

released sex offender to register

with the proper agency within 10

days of release rather than the

current 30 days. The Illinois State

Police would conduct address

verification by mail and sexually

dangerous individuals would

register with local law enforcement

every 90 days for life.

The second State I want to

discuss is North Dakota. In 1997,

North Dakota enacted a compliance

bill to create a qualified board of

experts to make sexually violent

predator determinations.5 The bill

requires sex offenders to register

for 10 years. Sexually violent

predators would be required to

register for life.

Wyoming was one of the States

that instituted notification

 

5 HB 1048, 55th Legislative Assembly,

State of North Dakota, (March 24,

1997) (enacted).

provisions in 1997. The Wyoming

law is similar to the Minnesota law

in that it provides a tiered process

to conduct notification.6 It

considers a variety of risk

assessment factors. Is the offender

under supervision or receiving

counseling or therapy? Does his

criminal history include a high

probability of recidivism? What

were his offenses?

The State of Nevada enacted a

significant piece of legislation

related to sex offender laws that

included some very interesting

provisions, and I thought I would

share them with you. The bill

expands the conditions that a

convicted sex offender must meet

while on probation.7 They include

abiding by a curfew, submitting to

a polygraph examination and

abstaining from alcohol use. It

allows for the collection of DNA

samples and imposes a fee on

offenders in certain circumstances

to support collection and testing of

that information. It clarifies that

real estate agents are not

responsible for disclosing

information to buyers or buyers’

agents about sex offenders in the

community. It also extends current

law to allow some collection of

information on juvenile offenders.

Utah and Washington made

slight technical changes to their

laws. Utah added some offenses to

comply with Federal law and also

added an address verification

component.8 Washington made

several clarifications. The revised

Washington law now requires the

Washington Association of Sheriffs

and Police Chiefs to develop a

model policy for law enforcement

when disclosing information about

 

6 HB 0061, 54th Legislature of the State

of Wyoming, (Feb. 20, 1997) (enacted).

7 SB 325, 97th Legislature of the State

of Nevada, (July 16, 1997) (enacted).

8 SB 5759, 55th Legislature of the State

of Washington, (April 22, 1997)

(enacted).
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 49

sex offenders.9 It also requires the

Department of Health and Human

Services and the Sentence Review

Board to report to the legislature on

the number of offenders who are in

each classification level.

Cost

We have cost information from

New Jersey detailing what that

State spent supporting registration

and notification systems. In fiscal

1997, New Jersey spent

approximately $700,000 from the

Local Law Enforcement Block

Grant Program and from State

funds to update its DNA database.

A reported $400,000 in State funds

and $200,000 in State forfeiture

money was allocated to State

prosecutors to try sex offender

cases. Some $700,000 in State

funds went to public defenders for

tier classification hearings.

Challenges

The National Institute of Justice

(NIJ) prepared a Research in

Action report on this topic,

published in February 1997.10 In

1996, NIJ representatives talked to

13 criminal justice practitioners in

8 States as well as 2 national

experts on sex offender laws. They

found there were few impediments

to implementation and that States

are not having a difficult time

implementing these laws, with the

exception of resources.

However, survey respondents

revealed several challenges they

faced. The first was assigning risk.

Respondents found it difficult from

time to time to assign risk because

 

9 HB 0348, Legislature of the State of

Utah, 1997 General Session, (March 5,

1997) (enacted) .

10 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice, Sex Offender Community

Notification, Research in Brief series,

by Peter Finn, Abt Associates

(Washington D.C.: Government

Printing Office, February 1997).

they sometimes lacked the

information to apply criteria

consistently. Respondents also

reported that the process of

tracking and identifying out-ofState offenders is incredibly

difficult at times.

The National Criminal Justice

Association, the organization I

work with, conducted in-depth case

studies of 4 States and their

experiences implementing

registration laws. We found the

following impediments to

notification and registration:

• The first is dissemination of

registry notification in

passive notification States.

One person we interviewed in

Alaska said there were

questions in the community

and from the public library

about the wider dissemination

of the information once it has

been purchased lawfully.

• Another is the impact of

notification on incest victims.

I do not think this study is the

first to identify that as a

challenge. There is certainly

concern that reporting these

types of crimes would have a

chilling effect because of the

victim’s fear of being

identified when broader

community notification is

conducted for incest

perpetrators.

• Finally, there is concern

about the accuracy of

registry information. One of

our respondents from New

Jersey indicated concern about

the dissemination of

information and keeping only

accurate information in the

database. The respondent also

noted some trouble with

vigilantism and harassment in

cases where notification was

provided on an unofficial level.

I want to reiterate a point made

earlier. There are many issues

surrounding sex offenders and the

laws I discussed today that have not

been fully researched. There is a

limited body of empirical analysis

on the efficacy of sex offender

registration and notification

provisions. The State of

Washington, for example,

conducted some empirical

evaluation.

Other areas that merit study

include cost and compliance issues,

the issue of whether these laws can

simultaneously address an

offender’s rights and community

protection, and questions over the

accessibility of information. There

is a need to better coordinate the

dissemination of information and

best practices so we make

registration and notification laws

workable and implement them in

concert with other policies and

procedures to effectively manage

sex offenders in the community.
Page 50 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Arguments used to challenge notification laws —

and the government’s response

DENA T. SACCO

Counsel, Office of Policy Development

U.S. Department of Justice

As many of you know, sex

offenders have challenged

registration and community

notification laws across the

country. Thus far, the challenges

have been to State laws. The

Federal government has defended

many State laws as a friend of the

court, filing amicus briefs in cases

in New Jersey, Washington,

Connecticut and New York.

In these cases, registration itself

seldom is a problem. Virtually

every court addressing the issue has

found registration to be

constitutional. Community

notification is more problematic.

The courts also have upheld it for

the most part, but some lower

courts and the Kansas Supreme

Court, have struck down

community notification laws as

violations of the U.S. Constitution.

As a result, notification is still very

much an open question. It will

remain open until a Federal appeals

court, or perhaps even the U.S.

Supreme Court, addresses it.1

 

1 The four cases that were pending

before the U.S. Courts of Appeals when

this presentation was given have now

been decided. All have held that

community notification does not

constitute punishment in violation of

the Constitution. In the cases

challenging Connecticut’s

administrative rule and New York’s

statute, the lower Federal courts had

overturned the rule or statute. In both,

the Second Circuit reversed the lower

court, holding that the rule or statute’s

notification provisions did not

constitute ex post facto punishment.

See Roe v. Office of Adult Probation,

1997 WL 546244 (September 8, 1997);

I first am going to discuss the

legal issues raised in cases

regarding registration and

notification laws. I will try to

provide a picture of where the

pending litigation stands and how

soon cases might be resolved. In

doing so, I am going to address the

U.S. Supreme Court’s recent

decision in the Kansas v. Hendricks

case,2 which applied some

 

Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3rd 1263 (2nd Cir.

1997), reh. denied, September 25,

1997. Note that, although the

Connecticut case dealt only with the

administrative law and not

Connecticut’s statute, the court did

mention the statute and there is some

indication that the decision will end up

precluding challenges to the statute

itself. In the cases challenging the New

Jersey and Washington statutes, the

lower Federal court had upheld the

statute. The Third and Ninth Circuits

affirmed those decisions, holding that

the notification provisions did not

constitute ex post facto punishment.

The Ninth Circuit also held that

Washington’s notification provisions

did not constitute punishment under the

Double Jeopardy Clause, and did not

violate the offenders’ rights to privacy

or due process. See E.B. v. Verneiro,

119 F3rd 1077 (3rd Cir. 1997) reh.

denied, September 17, 1997; Stearns v.

Gregoire, 1997 WL 539074

(September 4, 1997). Rehearing

petitions are pending in Roe and

Stearns.

2 Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S. Ct. 2072

(1997). In a June 23, 1997, decision,

the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a

portion of Kansas’ Sexually Violent

Predator Act that allows the civil

commitment of individuals who have

finished their prison terms for sex

standards we think will be very

helpful in the notification context,

although the decision dealt with a

civil commitment statute rather

than a community notification law.

Litigating sex offenders usually

raise three primary Federal

constitutional claims. State law

claims are also raised, but because

they are particular to the individual

State, I am not going to discuss

them. Constitutional claims center

on three arguments:

• The first claim is punishment.

Sex offenders contend that

community notification laws

impose additional punishment

after the fact, on top of the

punishment already imposed

by their criminal sentences and

that this punishment is

excessively harsh.

• The second claim is privacy.

Sex offenders contend that

community notification

invades their constitutional

right to privacy.

• The third claim is due process.

Offenders claim the laws

violate their right to due

process.

I will take each of them in turn

and try to explain the arguments

made for and against the laws.

The issue of punishment

Punishment is the most frequent

claim brought in these cases. In

order to prove many constitutional

claims, including ex post facto

(retroactivity) and double jeopardy,

an offender has to prove that the

 

offenses but who are determined to still

constitute a threat to the public.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 51

law actually imposes punishment.

A sex offender typically contends

that, if the public is informed about

his crimes and convictions, he is

going to be subject to public

ridicule, shaming, ostracism, job

discrimination and housing

discrimination. Typically he will

point to a few prominently reported

incidents of harassment or

vigilantism. He will say he cannot

protect himself or his family

against these threats. Offenders

also claim notification is going to

prevent them getting a fresh start in

the community. They argue that all

these factors put together constitute

punishment that the State is

imposing upon them for their

crime.

State and Federal governments

make several different arguments in

response. First, they point out that

notification acts actually are

intended and designed for public

protection, not for punishment. In

fact, community notification does

no more than provide the

information necessary to make the

public and vulnerable individuals

aware of the potential danger posed

by sex offenders and let them know

how to protect themselves and their

families.

Second, the government points

out that sex offender information,

such as an offender’s name, address

and convictions, is already a matter

of public record, or at least is

publicly observable information.

The government argues that any

shame, ridicule or ostracism the

offender may experience is the

result of the offender’s own act in

committing the crime and being

convicted in the first place, not the

result of State notification and

dissemination of public information

about the crime and the conviction.

Third, the States and the Federal

government argue that the laws are

not intended to operate against or to

punish, ridicule or instigate illegal

acts against the offender. Illegal

acts actually are quite rare and

cannot be attributed to the type of

community notification laws that

exist in many States. In fact, most

State programs are tied to a

determination of public safety

necessity based on the likely

danger that the offender poses to

the public. Information usually is

given out with caution as to its

proper use.

The State makes clear that the

information is not to be used for

illegal purposes. The State might

even warn the public that illegal

acts will be prosecuted and that

they could undermine the

effectiveness of the notification

laws. New Jersey, for example,

issues these types of warnings

along with notification.

Washington holds community

meetings to address some of these

issues. I would be very interested to

know what other States are doing to

deal with the threat of vigilantism

or harassment in notification.

Finally, the likelihood of

vigilantism will decrease as

notification becomes more

common and as we begin to

understand how this process works.

The issue of privacy

The second issue sex offenders

raise is privacy. They often claim

that, when the community becomes

aware of the offender’s crime, the

offender is going to lose his ability

to recede into anonymity and to get

a fresh start. State and Federal

governments respond that this is

not a constitutionally protected

privacy interest. In fact, the

Constitution points the other way,

they argue.

Criminal convictions are the

result of a public trial. There are

certain constitutional guarantees

associated with the public trial for

both the accused and for the public.

But there is no constitutional

provision that guarantees a

convicted offender the right to

conceal or erase the fact of his

conviction or the facts of the crime,

or to prevent the State from using

the information for public safety

purposes.

Aside from the Federal

Constitution, not even common law

recognizes a privacy interest in the

type of information States

disseminate under notification

laws, because it is public record

information already exposed to

public view. Furthermore, even if

there were a constitutional privacy

right in this type of information, it

would be limited because privacy

rights involve a balancing test. One

would balance the public interest in

protecting victims or potential

victims and in having the public

information available against the

offender’s right to anonymity in

these circumstances.

The issue of due process

The third claim that is raised is

due process. The Constitution

guarantees individuals the right to

due process of law when the State

threatens to take away an interest in

life, liberty or property. Sex

offenders often contend that

community notification infringes

on their liberty interest and,

therefore, it cannot be imposed

without extensive, trial-like

procedures.

The State and Federal

government respond that there is no

liberty interest involved in

community notification. The laws

provide information only. They do

not impose any restraint on the

offender. True, an offender has to

register under the registration laws,

but uniform registration has not

been found to be a restraint or to

affect liberty interests. It is like

registering to vote or registering a

car. Offenders contend that, as a

result of community notification,

they will be shunned and avoided

and denied jobs and places to live.

That is not a State-imposed

restraint on liberty because these

things are not requirements of or

the intent of notification laws. To
Page 52 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

the extent that such things even

occur, they are the normal societal

consequences of committing a

heinous crime.

In fact, numerous cases, starting

with a 1976 Supreme Court case,3

have held that simply labeling a

person a “criminal” or making

statements that a person committed

a particular crime does not infringe

on a constitutional right, even if the

information is not true and even if

third parties rely on the information

to refuse to employ or rent a

residence to that person.

Finally, as with the privacy

claim, even if there were a

constitutional liberty interest

involved, there would be a

balancing test. One would balance

public interest against the

offender’s interest. Meeting the due

process requirements of the

Constitution can be very minimal.

It could constitute a notice to the

offender informing him that

notification is going to take place

and giving him the right to present

objections.

These offenders have been

convicted of violent sex offenses.

There is a proven statistical

correlation between sex offense

convictions and future likelihood to

commit sex crimes. The State has a

very strong interest in protecting

children and other potential victims

from these crimes. On the other

hand, the offender’s right to

conceal his public record

information is minimal, assuming it

even exists. Minimal due process

procedures may very well be

enough, even if there is a due

process claim in the first place.

Pending litigation

Now that we better understand

the issues raised by litigation, we

should examine the current status

of pending litigation. Right now,

decisions are expected any day in

four cases pending in Federal

 

3 Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976).

appeal courts. Two cases involve

the Washington and New Jersey

community notification laws, both

of which were upheld by State

supreme courts and lower Federal

courts. The other two involve a

New York community notification

law and a Connecticut probation

office community notification

policy, both of which were struck

down by lower Federal courts.4

Hopefully, decisions in these

four cases will clarify the standards

to be applied in these cases and the

constitutionality of community

notification laws in general. Until

now, there have been many cases in

State courts and in lower Federal

courts dealing with Federal

constitutional questions, but

decisions have been a mixed bag.

Cases on appeal resulted in split

decisions for notification laws. The

Supreme Courts of Washington

State and New Jersey upheld sex

offender notification laws;

Massachusetts’ highest court

approved that State’s community

notification law in an advisory

opinion. The Kansas Supreme

Court struck down the Kansas

notification law last year. There are

cases pending in a variety of other

States. The cases become

especially confusing when you

consider that we are dealing with

very different, specific laws in each

State.

The offenders who challenge the

laws also come from different

positions. Some were convicted or

committed their crimes before the

notification law was passed. Others

committed their crimes after the

law passed. They are placed in

different situations and make

slightly different claims, although

they use the same basic arguments

we talked about earlier.

The Federal appeal courts’

decisions on the Federal

 

4 The Second Circuit reversed the

lower court in both instances. See

Footnote 1.

Constitution questions will be the

most influential. Depending on

what decisions are reached, this

issue may well end up before the

U.S. Supreme Court.

Hendricks case issues

Earlier, I mentioned the

Supreme Court’s recent decision in

the Hendricks case. The Supreme

Court just last month upheld a

portion of Kansas’ Sexually

Violent Predator Act which

provided for the involuntary civil

commitment of sexually violent

predators who finished serving

their criminal sentence but were

determined to be likely to strike

again. This is not a community

notification case, obviously, but it

does have some import to the cases

we are interested in today. The

court held that the civil

commitment law was a valid

remedial law and was not criminal

punishment, even though it meant

that these people could be confined

to a secure psychiatric facility

indefinitely or for the rest of their

lives.

There are several issues in this

case that are helpful for our

purposes. First, if the Supreme

Court can uphold as valid and nonpunitive the potential lifetime

incarceration of sex offenders

based on a prediction of future

dangerousness, it is hard to imagine

that the Court would have a

problem with laws that simply

provide public record information

on sex offenders who are at large in

the community. We believe that,

after Hendricks, courts should have

no trouble finding community

notification laws to be nonpunitive.

Second, the court in the

Hendricks decision rejected

virtually every argument raised by

offenders who attack community

notification laws. They found that

the civil commitment law had a

public safety purpose, that it was

not intended to exact retribution,
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 53

and that the Court specifically

approved the use of past criminal

conduct to predict future danger.

The Supreme Court also rejected

the argument that disagreement

among experts about whether sex

offenders can be rehabilitated

should keep legislators from acting

on this matter.

Finally, on a more legalistic

note, the court clarified the

standard to be used for determining

whether something is criminal

punishment. The court ruled that

you must first look at a law’s

intent. Is the intent of the law

punitive or is it for public safety? If

the legislature’s intent is not

punitive, the law would be

presumed valid unless the sex

offender can show by clearest proof

that its purpose or effect is, in fact,

so punitive as to negate the intent.

That is a very hard standard to

meet.

I mentioned that the four

currently pending cases should

probably apply that standard. We

believe it is the appropriate

standard to determining whether

community notification laws are

valid. One Federal district court in

New Jersey already applied the

Hendricks standard to uphold New

Jersey’s community notification

law against a challenge from

offenders who actually committed

crimes after the law’s effective

date. That is an unpublished

opinion, but we still think it is quite

informative.

That brings me to my last point.

If you take anything from what I

have talked about today, you

should take this: The most

important thread running through

the litigation is the issue of public

safety. It shows up time and time

again in how the courts view

community notification laws. In

fact, the Federal law dealing with

notification mandates the States to

provide notification when there is a

public safety need.

Courts in general seem much

more likely to uphold community

notification statutes that show a

clear reliance on a finding of public

safety necessity and an attempt to

tie notification to the public benefit.

When that is apparent in statutes

and methods used to determine

when to notify, how much to notify

and whom to notify, the courts

seem more deferential to States and

less likely to impose restrictions.

Conversely, where public safety

concerns do not appear to be the

guiding factor, courts are more

likely to be open to considering the

harm to the offender and are less

inclined to uphold the laws. For

example, the Kansas Supreme

Court struck down the Kansas

notification statute last year

because it provided open access to

sex offender registries, listed all

persons convicted of “sexually

motivated crimes,” and made the

information available to anyone

with no warning, no finding of

public safety necessity, and no

limits on its use.

Kansas seems to be at one end

of the spectrum in terms of what

they do with notification. Other

States like New Jersey, Washington

and New York have tiers of

offenders, formalized assessments

of likelihood to re-offend, and

procedures for determining when

and how to notify. New Jersey also

provides extensive procedures for

judicial review prior to notification.

That is a matter of New Jersey

State law and would not necessarily

carry over to other States. It was

not found to be a Federal

constitutional requirement; it was a

New Jersey State law requirement.

At this point, it is impossible to

tell whether one type of notification

law is more likely to survive

constitutional challenge than any

other. Hopefully this notification

issue will become a bit clearer in

the near future.
Page 54 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Status of Federal legislation on sex offenders

and changes to current laws

ROBERT R. BELAIR

General Counsel

SEARCH

I am going to be very brief

today, because I am going to talk

about new Federal legislation to

amend the Jacob Wetterling Act,

legislation which is fairly

straightforward.

House Resolution 1683 was

recently introduced by Rep. Bill

McCollum. The bill has already

been reported out of his Crime

Subcommittee, and a hearing on the

bill is expected soon by the full

House Judiciary Committee.1

A companion bill, Senate Bill

767, was introduced by Sen. Judd

Gregg, chairman of the

Appropriations Subcommittee on

Commerce, Justice and State. The

bill was attached last week to Sen.

Gregg’s appropriations bill, which

surprised a great many of us. I am

told by Sen. Gregg’s staff that they

intend to take the legislation

through to the full Senate

Appropriations Committee, and on

through to the Senate floor.2

 

1 H.R. 1683, titled the Jacob Wetterling

Crimes Against Children and Sexually

Violent Offenders Registration

Improvement Act of 1997, was

introduced May 20, 1997, by U.S. Rep.

Bill McCollum (R-Florida). The

resolution amends the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 to clarify certain portions relating

to sex offender registration

requirements. The House passed H.R.

1683 on Sept. 23, 1997, and sent it to

the Senate.

2 S.B. 767 carries the same title as H.R.

1683, and was introduced by U.S. Sen.

Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) on the

same day. It was referred to the Senate

Judiciary Committee. It amends the

Violent Crime Control and Law

On the other side, Rep.

McCollum is chairman of the

House Subcommittee on Crime. He

is a very powerful and influential

member of the Judiciary

Committee. Sen. Gregg and Rep.

McCollum are the right sponsors

for this legislation. New Hampshire

had problems with its registration

and notification laws, so the State

went to Sen. Gregg. Florida had

problems, so it went to Rep.

McCollum. Texas has had

problems, as have a number of

other States.

I have noticed during my 20-

plus years as a legislative lawyer

that it is always very important for

a bill’s prospects when there is no

opposition. That is an inside tip.

There is, to my knowledge, no

opposition at this point to these

bills. I think the bills are going to

become law. The Senate passed

similar legislation during the 104th

Congress. I think the means by

which that legislation becomes law

are still up in the air. I do believe

the current bills will become law.

Four major purposes

There are four major purposes to

these bills.

First, they enhance flexibility for

State registration systems, allowing

registration reporting to be done

concurrently. They provide

flexibility in address verification,

relaxing slightly some of the

deadlines for offenders to report

when they leave prison, although

they still use the word “prompt.”

 

Enforcement Act of 1994 in the same

manner as H.R. 1683.

Second, they follow procedures

outlined in the proposed U.S.

Department of Justice guidelines

relating to military and Federal sex

offenders. If they do become law,

they will assure that State

registration systems identify and

track Federal and military sex

offenders. That is probably the

biggest, most important change

these laws would bring.

(The guidelines encourage the

States to keep track of military and

Federal sex offenders. These bills

require that those offenders report

through the military or through the

Federal correctional prison

agencies. They do not require the

State registration systems to keep

track of them, but the momentum

seems to be pointing in that

direction.)

Third, the bills improve

registration and tracking of sex

offenders who live in one State but

who work or go to school in

another State. That is part of the

law now. It is addressed in the

guidelines as well for clarity, but

the bills provide further

clarification. The bills define

“employment” and “going to

school.” To some extent, I think

you can say they improve the

congruence between State and

Federal registration or database

programs. They certainly give the

States a little bit more flexibility in

the reporting. They do not

otherwise amend the Lychner Act

or provide some of the remedies

that the FBI indicated eventually

may be necessary, maybe sooner

than later.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 55

Another important purpose of

the legislation is to help States do a

better job keeping track of

probationers and parolees who are

sex offenders. The bills hope to do

this — and this is very important

— without requiring yet another

round of State law. Obviously,

through the Wetterling Act,

Megan’s Law and the Lychner Act,

there has been a fair amount of

pressure on the State legislatures.

Specific changes

The bills will initiate specific

changes. One has to do with the

controversial issue of sexually

violent predator determinations.

These bills would allow the

Attorney General to waive the State

board requirement, provided that

there is an adequate process in

place. They do provide a bit more

flexibility in this area.

The bills also give States more

flexibility in advising offenders of

their registration duties and

obtaining initial registration

information to report. At present,

these tasks must be performed by a

court or by a State prison official.

This legislation would allow

designated State agencies, the court

or other responsible officials to

carry out those duties. Again, some

of these concerns and issues were

addressed by the guidelines.

As I mentioned, Federal and

military offender reporting is the

biggest issue. The bills bring them

under the law. That has always

been the spirit of the original law,

but there has been a gap. These

bills would require the Secretary of

Defense to establish a registration

and notification system similar to

the one used by the States. For

those of us who have long watched

and worked on information system

issues, it is going to be fascinating

to see whether the military can

respond to this requirement in an

effective way.

I do not believe the military has

commented on this legislation. I

cannot imagine that it would be

opposed to this requirement. On the

other hand, those of us who have

looked at the three military systems

— one used by the Navy and

Marines, another by the Army and

the third by the Air Force — know

that those systems do compare to

the kinds of systems in terms of

capability, accuracy and

completeness that are now

available on the adult civilian side.

I should add that even though these

bills are fairly far along in the

legislative process, they are still

very much works in progress.

Concurrent registration is

addressed in the pending

legislation, which also provides

more flexibility in how registration

can occur. Address verification,

which has been a big issue, is

addressed very effectively in the

guidelines and is further addressed

in the bills. An individual required

to register as a sex offender could

use a walk-in system to return an

address verification form rather

than mailing it in.

The bills use the term

“promptly,” as opposed to the

existing laws, which prescribe set

periods of time for offenders to

register once released from prison.

They extend law enforcement

immunity provisions to good-faith

conduct if a particular agency

assigns related work to an

independent contractor. In an era

of increased outsourcing and

privatization, that is obviously very

important.

There are a couple of other

provisions I did not mention. The

bill would prohibit the sale or

exchange of sex offender

information for profit. I think we

are all aware of the various kinds of

services on the Internet and others

that harvest public record

information, court records and

other types of public record

information, and make those

records available for profit. These

bills would prohibit that.

They also have provisions for

dealing with the registration of

State probationers and parolees,

and they amend penalty provisions

to permit extradition in cases

involving parolees or probationers

who move to different States and

then fail to register.
Panel of the States: Systems for the registration of sex offenders

Review of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act

Floyd Epps

The method of risk assessment used for the

New York State Sex Offender Registration Act

Kathy J. Canestrini

California’s history of sex offender registration requirements

and response to new Federal mandates

Doug Smith

The Florida sex offender registration and notification system

Donna M. Uzzell

The Illinois registration and notification system for sex offenders

Kirk Lonbom

Development of the Illinois sex offender registration

and community notification program

Mike Welter
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 59

Review of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act

FLOYD EPPS

Member, Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders

State of New York

Ms. Kathy Canestrini and I are

going to discuss certain aspects of

the New York State Sex Offender

Registration Act.1 Specifically, we

are going to discuss our risk

assessment process and the role of

the State’s Board of Examiners of

Sex Offenders.

The following is some

background information about the

New York State Sex Offender

Registration Act. In July 1995, the

New York State Legislature passed,

and Gov. George Pataki signed into

law, the New York State Sex

Offender Registration Act, more

commonly known in the New York

area as “Megan’s Law.”

The law, which became

effective January 21, 1996, is

consistent with the Jacob

Wetterling Act, including the

requirement for sex offenders to

register and to provide information

about themselves to the State. It

also provides that a Board of

Examiners of Sex Offenders be

established. The board’s primary

function is to provide the

sentencing court with a

recommended level of risk that an

offender poses to the public.

On January 21, 1996, Gov.

Pataki officially appointed a fivemember Board of Examiners of

Sex Offenders. Board members are

experienced in the fields of

treatment, supervision, research

and the prosecution of sex

offenders. Ms. Canestrini and I are

 

1 S. 11-B, 218th Legislature of the

State of New York (Chapter 192 of

the Laws of 1995). Signed by the

governor July 25, 1995. Effective

January 21, 1996.

members of the board. The board’s

role, as defined by the statute, is to

develop guidelines and procedures

to assess risk levels based on two

factors: the likelihood of reoffense

and the threat the offender poses to

the public if he reoffends. The

Board of Examiners is responsible

for reviewing and making risk-level

recommendations for all offenders

being released from prisons and

local jails.

There are currently more than

5,000 offenders in the New York

State Registry. The board assisted

in assessing the retro-pool of

offenders. Included in the retropool are offenders who were on

parole or probation on January 21,

1996. The board’s main objective

is to review cases of offenders

released from State corrections and

local jails. We assess those cases

on a continuous basis.

There are three levels of risk in

New York. Level 1 is the lowest

and Level 3 is the highest. Ms.

Canestrini will discuss how we

determine risk levels. I am going to

give you the floor plan of what we

do, and she is going to build the

house, so you will see and

understand the process very clearly.

Risk level is used in New York

to determine the frequency and

duration of registration and the

amount of community notification

that can be provided to the public.

The levels are as follows:

• A Level 1 offender is required

to register annually for a

period of 10 years. The only

information we dispense on a

Level 1 offender is affirmation

that he is listed in the registry;

no other information can be

given out on the offender.

• Level 2 offenders are required

to register for a period of 10

years, and we can release more

information about the offender

to the public — such as the

crime of conviction, his modus

operandi and the targeted

victims. The only information

we cannot release on a Level 2

offender is his exact address.

• Level 3, or high-risk, offenders

are required to register

annually for a minimum of 10

years and, possibly, for life.

These offenders are required to

register with local police every

90 days. All information on

Level 3 offenders, including

exact address, can be

distributed to the public.

The Sex Offender Registration

Act created three procedures for

informing the public of the

presence of sex offenders in the

community. One, it authorized

local law enforcement to dispense

information. Two, it established a

900-prefix number the public can

telephone to inquire whether a sex

offender is listed in the registry.

Three, it called for the distribution

of a high-risk offender subdirectory

to law enforcement agencies.

The Board of Examiners’ review

process begins approximately 120

days prior to the offender’s release

from incarceration. The offender’s

case record is forwarded to the

board at that time. The case record

includes all relevant information

concerning the presentence

investigation, the offender’s

criminal history or rap sheet, an

institution summary and a
Page 60 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

statement from the offender’s

victim(s).

There are times the board

solicits additional information from

the court, probation departments,

parole officers, district attorney’s

offices, State police, local police,

and any other division or

department that will enable us to

provide the most thorough risk

assessment possible to the

sentencing court. According to the

statute, each case must be reviewed

by three board members, and each

review is conducted independently

of the other reviewers.

When we come to a risk-level

consensus, the primary or first

reviewer is responsible for

preparing a case summary

supporting the assessment we

provide to the court.

Within 60 days of the offender’s

release, the assessment

recommendation is forwarded to

the sentencing court with the

summary that sustains the number

of points we assess to this sex

offender, including all information

we obtained in order to do our risk

assessment. To date, the courts

have sustained the board’s

recommendation in more than 85

percent of our cases.

Thirty days prior to the

offender’s release, the court

notifies and provides the offender

the opportunity to be heard. The

court also notifies and advises the

offender of his right to counsel and

all of his other rights. Finally, after

completion of this entire process,

the offender is informed of his

registration responsibilities and

obligations just prior to being

released.

This has been a brief synopsis of

everything we do. It is our floor

plan and blueprint. Ms. Canestrini

will discuss the specifics of the

statistics we have concerning our

risk assessment process.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 61

The method of risk assessment used for the

New York State Sex Offender Registration Act

KATHY CANESTRINI

Member, Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders

State of New York

With the passage of the New

York State Sex Offender

Registration Act in 1995, the State

of New York adopted an individual

review process for determining sex

offender risk levels, as opposed to

using a “per se” rule in which the

conviction crime determines a

person’s risk level. The Act

specified that a number items

should be considered in the risk

assessment process.

The Board of Examiners of Sex

Offenders elected to develop an

objective instrument and associated

guidelines to measure risk using

these specified factors. The risk

assessment instrument and

guidelines were developed under

the direction of Mr. Paul

Shechtman, former director of

criminal justice services in New

York State, and with the assistance

of Ms. Kim English, Director of

Research, Division of Criminal

Justice, Colorado Department of

Public Safety.

The New York State Board of

Examiners of Sex Offenders,

created by our State’s sex offender

registration act, is primarily

responsible for reviewing the cases

of persons released from State

incarceration or from definite local

terms after serving time for sex

offenses.1 From the time the act

was implemented on January 21,

 

1 S. 11-B, 218th Legislature of the

State of New York (Chapter 192 of

the Laws of 1995). Signed by the

governor July 25, 1995. Effective

January 21, 1996.

1996, through June 13, 1997, the

board has reviewed 1,540 cases.

We typically review approximately

100 cases per month.

Slightly more than half of the

1,540 offenders, or 52 percent of

the cases reviewed by the board,

resulted in a Level 3 risk

assessment, the highest level of risk

for committing another sex offense.

Thirty-nine percent of the

assessments resulted in a Level 2

recommendation, or that of

moderate risk. The remaining 9

percent of the cases resulted in a

Level 1 recommendation, or the

lowest level of risk. The board

arrives at the risk-level

recommendations by applying the

risk assessment instrument and

associated guidelines.

The risk assessment instrument

covers four basic categories:

current offense, criminal history,

post-offense behavior and release

environment. The board utilizes a

numeric scoring system that takes a

number of factors into account.

There is also an “override”

category that allows the board to

abandon the numeric system in

certain instances, and a “departure”

section that takes mitigating factors

into consideration. I would like to

discuss the override category first.

Override factors

The assessment instrument

considers four factors that override

the numeric system and result in an

automatic Level 3 risk designation.

Prior Felony Convictions. The

first override factor is if the

offender had a prior felony

conviction for a sex crime prior to

the offense we are currently

reviewing.

Injury or Death. The second

override factor is if the offender

inflicted serious physical injury or

caused the victim’s death. (I

consistently refer to offenders as

men because women constitute less

than 1 percent of our offenders.)

Threats. The third override

factor is if the offender made recent

threats that he will commit another

sexual or violent crime.

Offender Abnormality. The

fourth override factor is if a clinical

assessment determined that the

offender has a psychological,

physical or organic abnormality

that interferes with his ability to

control impulsive sexual behavior.

To date, the board has only used

the first two override categories.

Of the 1,540 cases we have

reviewed to date, 9 percent resulted

in a Level 3 risk assessment based

on override factors. In the

remaining 90 percent of the cases,

we used a risk assessment scoring

system in which we considered a

number of individual items

reported in academic literature as

predictive of sexual reoffending or

dangerousness.

Each individual item in the

numeric scoring system is added

together to produce an aggregate

total score ranging from 0 to 300

points. A score of 0 to 70 points

results in a presumptive

recommendation for the offender of

Risk-level 1. A score of 75 to 105

points results in a Risk-level 2

recommendation. A score of 110 to

300 points results in a Risk-level 3

recommendation.
Page 62 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Scoring system categories

The scoring system covers four

general categories. The first looks

at the current offense and considers

various factors which describe the

nature of the current crime. The

second category looks at the

offender’s criminal history. The

third category looks at his postoffense behavior. The final general

category looks at the release

environment.

— Current offense

Under the first general category

of current offense, we consider

seven specific items.

Violence. The first is the use of

violence during the commission of

the crime. Ten points are assessed

if the offender used forcible

compulsion during offense, and 15

points are assigned if the offender

inflicted physical injury. Thirty

points are assigned if the offender

was armed with a weapon during

the crime. To date, approximately

20 percent of the offenses involve

the use of a weapon. When a

weapon was used, the victim was

almost always an adult.

Intrusiveness of Contact. The

second item we consider is the

intrusiveness of the sexual contact.

Five points are assessed if the

contact occurred over clothing. Ten

points are assessed if the contact

was under clothing. Twenty-five

points are assessed if the sexual

contact involved intercourse,

sodomy or aggravated sexual

abuse. Eight out of every 10 cases

the board has reviewed involved

vaginal intercourse, oral sodomy,

anal sodomy, or aggravated sexual

abuse which requires a standard of

physical injury.

Multiple Victims. The third

item we consider is evidence of

multiple victims in the crime. Zero

points are assessed if there is one

victim. Twenty points are assessed

if there were 2 victims, and 30

points are assessed if there were 3

or more victims involved in the

offense. Approximately 20 percent

of the reviewed cases involved

multiple victims in the current

crime being reviewed by the board.

When there are multiple victims,

the victims are almost always

children.

Frequency. The fourth item we

consider is the frequency of the

sexual misconduct. Did it happen

on more than one occasion?

Twenty points are assessed if there

is evidence of a continuing course

of sexual assault against the victim.

Approximately one-third of the

cases involved more than one

sexual assault, and some of the

crimes involved abuses that

occurred over a period of several

years. Again, when this item is

scored, the victims are almost

always children.

Victim Age. The fifth category

looks at the age of the victim or

victims. Twenty points are assessed

if the victim is between the ages of

11 and 16. Thirty points are

assessed if the victim is age 10 or

younger or older than age 62.

Victims’ ages have ranged from a

low of just a few days old to a high

of 85 years old. Sixty-five percent

of the victims were under age 17,

and 35 percent were age 10 or

younger. This is consistent with

most of the information we have

been presented with at this

conference.

Victim Helplessness. In item

six, 20 points are assessed if the

victim was either physically or

mentally helpless. This would

include unconsciousness due to

alcohol consumption or sleep or if

the victim was physically helpless,

for example, by confinement to a

wheelchair. Only 5 percent of the

offenders have been scored under

this category.

Relationship. The seventh

specific item we consider is the

relationship between the offender

and the victim. Twenty points are

assessed if the offender was a

stranger to the victim or if the

relationship was promoted for the

primary purpose of victimization.

In this category, we also consider

whether a professional relationship

was used to gain access and to

abuse the victim, for example by a

teacher, a priest or a doctor.

Thirty-five percent of the

offenders were scored under this

category primarily as strangers to

the victim. I should emphasize that

65 percent of the offenders were

not scored under this category,

which obviously indicates that most

victims knew their offenders.

— Criminal history

The second general category of

the risk assessment instrument is

criminal history, which examines

the age at which the offender

committed his first sex crime, his

prior criminal history, his most

recent commission of a felony

offense prior to his current

conviction, and his substance abuse

history.

Age at First Offense. Ten

points are assessed if the offender

was convicted or adjudicated of his

first sexual crime before he reached

age 21. Approximately one-quarter

of our population falls into this

category.

Prior Criminal History. The

next focus area is prior criminal

convictions or adjudications. Thirty

points are assessed if there was a

prior misdemeanor sex crime

conviction, a prior charge of

endangering the welfare of a child,

or a prior violent felony offense.

Fifteen points are assessed for a

nonviolent felony, and five points

are assessed for a nonsexual

misdemeanor conviction. Using

this category and the information

gained from the override category,

a striking 31 percent of offenders

had prior convictions for sex

crimes or violent felony offenses.

We score 10 points if the

previous sexual crime or felony

conviction occurred within 3 years

of the current conviction. If the
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 63

offender was incarcerated for a

portion of the previous 3 years, we

do not consider that period during

our examination of his history.

Approximately one-quarter of the

offenders had a prior felony or sex

crime conviction within 3 years of

perpetrating the current offense.

Substance Abuse History.

Drug and alcohol use is highly

associated with sexual offending.

We score 15 points if an offender

has either a substance abuse history

or if he was using drugs or alcohol

at the time of the current offense.

Six out of every 10 of our offenders

fell within this category.

— Post-offense behavior

The next general item on the

risk assessment instrument looks at

post-offense behavior. We consider

two different factors under this

category. First, we examine the

offender’s acceptance of

responsibility. Second, we look at

the offender’s conduct while

confined or supervised.

Offenders who deny, minimize

or mitigate their behavior are poor

prospects for rehabilitation. Ten

points are assigned if they fall into

this category. Fifteen points are

assigned if the offender refuses

treatment or if he has been expelled

from treatment. To date,

approximately one-third of our

offenders were either removed

from a treatment program or

refused to participate in a sex

offender program.

The second specific issue in this

general category is conduct while

confined. Ten points are assessed if

an incarcerated offender has

incurred a serious disciplinary

infraction while incarcerated. This

would include such offenses as

assaulting a guard or another

inmate or possessing drugs or a

weapon. Twenty points are

assessed if there was a sexual

misconduct offense, such as

sexually assaulting another inmate

or writing sexually suggestive

materials to a staff person. To date,

20 percent of the offenders were

assessed as having a serious

disciplinary infraction, and another

5 percent committed sexual

misbehavior.

— Release environment

The final general category we

consider is release environment.

Two factors are taken into account

in this category. We examine the

supervision the offender is going to

receive and the living and

employment situations that await

him. The board focuses on the

supervision category because, when

we are conducting our review, the

living and employment situations

are typically not established.

Zero points are assessed if the

offender is released to a specialized

parole caseload. Five points are

assessed if he is released to parole

supervision without the benefit of a

specialized caseload. Fifteen points

are assessed if the offender reached

the maximum expiration date of his

sentence and he was being released

into the community without

supervision. Approximately 65

percent of our offenders are

released to a specialized parole

caseload. It is noteworthy that 11

percent of our offenders are

released at their maximum sentence

expiration date into the community

with no supervision.

Departure section

I spoke previously about a

departure section in our risk

assessment instrument. This section

is premised on the recognition that

an objective instrument, no matter

how well designed, will not fully

capture the nuances of every case.

After the presumptive risk level

is determined based on the scoring

system, the case is reviewed to

determine if a departure is

warranted. A departure can send

the risk-level assessment either to a

higher or lower level.

To date, the board has only

departed in about 11 percent of the

cases. These departures have been

distributed equally between raising

or lowering the assessment level.

We provide justification to the

court when we do depart.

Typically, an item not already

considered by the assessment

instrument justifies the departure. It

can be a mitigating factor, such as a

victim’s lack of consent based

solely on inability to consent

because of the victim’s age, or it

can be a recognition that the

offender has made exceptional

progress and has participated in a

treatment program. Aggravating

factors include multiple convictions

for prior misdemeanor sex crimes

or the use of pornography or sexual

devices that were not captured by

the assessment instrument.

I would like to end with a quote

that I came across recently. I

thought it was very striking,

primarily because it was written 50

years ago. “The most rapidly

increasing type of crime is that

perpetrated by degenerate sex

offenders. Latest figures show that

while the number of crimes is

diminishing, the number of sex

crimes continues to increase.” That

was a quote from the FBI director

cited in American Magazine in

1947.
Page 64 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

California’s history of sex offender registration requirements

and response to new Federal mandates

DOUG SMITH

Chief, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis

California Department of Justice

I would like to review the

history of California’s sex offender

registration requirements and our

State’s response to recent Federal

mandates requiring States to

strengthen their laws dealing with

sex offenders.

History

California enacted a registration

requirement for convicted sex

offenders in 1947.1 The number of

sex offenses that resulted in a

registration requirement generally

expanded over the years, but the

actual registration and recordkeeping processes remained about

the same.

A notable change occurred in

1986 when juveniles were included

in the registration requirements,

although their registration process

is somewhat different than that

used for adults. Generally speaking,

convicted adult sex offenders must

register for life.

Offenses requiring registration

are consistent with Federal

requirements. The number of

individuals required to register

grew steadily for the first 40 years

to about 70,000. More than 10,000

subjects were then purged when

two misdemeanors — lewd conduct

and indecent exposure — were

reclassified as nonregisterable

offenses. The renewed focus on sex

offenders in the 1990s has pushed

the number of individuals required

to register above 75,000.

 

1 Statutes of 1947, c. 1124

Registration improvements

The Attorney General

established an enforcement arm of

the Sexual Habitual Offender

Program under the ThompsonPresley Violent Crime Information,

Investigation and Technology Act

of 1994.2 The Attorney General

also established a computer system

to enable law enforcement officers

throughout the State — from street

patrol to detectives — to share

critical information about known

offenders and unsolved crimes.

Funding and policy direction

provided by the Technology Act

resulted in the following

accomplishments:

• The Nation’s first automated

system for DNA and RFLP

analysis was created.

California took the lead in

developing the next generation

of genetic markers for law

enforcement. To date, more

than 34,000 convicted offender

samples have been analyzed

and entered into the data bank.

• The records of 65,000 sex

offender records were

reviewed and updated.

• Sex offender and arsonist

registration information was

made accessible to local law

enforcement authorities

through the Violent Crime

Information Network (VCIN)3

 

2 Statutes of 1993-94, 1st Ex. Sess., C.6

(S.B. 12).

3 The VCIN provides a communication

doorway for State and local law

enforcement. VCIN contains

via the California Law

Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (CLETS).

• Sexual Predator Apprehension

Teams were established in San

Francisco, Fresno and Los

Angeles. The teams augmented

the Behavioral Profiler Section

of the California Department

of Justice.

• Supervised Release Files were

activated on-line with CLETS,

making it possible for a patrol

officer to determine an

individual’s release status

when checking for “wants and

warrants.”

 

information on career criminals,

parolees, probationers, people missing

under suspicious circumstances,

registered and habitual sex offenders,

registered arsonists and violent

offenders. A specialized crime analysis

unit provides VCIN information from

the investigation of unsolved, violent

crimes. With one call, an investigator

can reach specialists who access the

network. VCIN will eventually be

available to investigators at their own

workstations. In Phase I of VCIN,

missing-person case files are provided;

the California Department of Justice

has the ability to scan, store and

retrieve photographs; sex and arson

offender and supervised release

information are available via CLETS;

and sex and arson offender registration

and supervised release information is

available through the network.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 65

• The driver license and vehicle

registration files of sex

offender registrants were

flagged to keep authorities

informed of address changes,

vehicle information and

personal data.

Registration updates,

inquiries

Historically, sex offender

registration has been a fingerprintbased manual record process

initiated by the local law

enforcement agency with

jurisdiction over the registrant’s

place of residence. Address

changes and other updates were

submitted to the California

Department of Justice (DOJ) for

central record maintenance. VCIN

implementation made the process

much faster and less redundant.

VCIN provides more useful and

current information. Local law

enforcement agencies can enter

information directly into VCIN.

The DOJ still conducts fingerprint

comparisons and continues to

centralize verification of

registration requirements, but initial

entry and updates can be done

remotely.

VCIN can provide information

about registrants when routine

inquiries are made. More

importantly, an inquiry into the

Wanted Persons System (WPS)

automatically connects to the

Supervised Release File (SRF)

where the sex registrations are

filed. The individual making the

inquiry is provided with

information on the registration

requirement along with any

warrants, probation, parole or

violent criminal notification.

Contact information can be noted

in the file, which also works to

track notification in response to

Megan’s Law.

Current data

Today, more than 77,000

Californians are required to register

as sex offenders. The volume of

new registrants is approximately

3,000 per year. Ninety-nine percent

of those required to register are

male. This equates to about 1 in

every 150 adult males in California.

Juveniles comprise only about 1

percent of the sex offender file.

To meet the requirements of our

State’s Megan’s Law, we have

designated 1,617 of these offenders

as “high-risk” and 62,303 as

“serious offenders.” The names of

these individuals and other

pertinent data about them are

included in the CD-ROM and fall

into the proactive notification

categories for law enforcement

agencies.

The 13,000 registrants not

subject to Megan’s Law

requirements are included in our

“other” category, which includes

those convicted of indecent

exposure, spousal rape and

possession of illegal pornography.

Approximately 7,000 of the 77,000

offenders who are required to

register have never registered. In

addition, we estimate that the

address information on currently

registered sex offenders is about 75

percent accurate. We presume

some of the subjects are deceased.

Exposure provided by the Megan’s

Law CD-ROM will improve the

information we currently have

available.

California DOJ activated the

Child Molester Identification Line

in July 1995. Through a 900-prefix

telephone number at a cost of $10

or by mail-in request at a cost of

$4, the public can check whether

suspected individuals are a threat to

their safety or their children’s

safety. In addition, a hard copy

binder of 892 high-risk offenders

was distributed in 1996 to law

enforcement agencies across the

state. In 1997, the identification

line was expanded to cover all the

subjects who fall within the

Megan’s Law notification

parameters.

Inquiries have been made on

13,100 subjects during the

identification line’s 2 years of

operation. About 1,000 of these

have been identified as registered

sex offenders. Based on

information provided by callers,

these thousand registrants had

access to more than 100,000

children and adults. While the

estimate of the number of

individuals at risk is not carefully

defined, controlled or verified, the

magnitude cannot be ignored. The

public exposure is staggering at

half or even a quarter of the

number of people believed

exposed.

‘Megan’s Law’ activity

The California version of

Megan’s Law took effect in

September 1996.4 All components

of the law are now in place

throughout the State. The most

visible feature —and in some ways

the easiest to implement — is the

availability of the CD-ROM

containing information on serious

and high-risk offenders. Since July

1, 1997, members of the public can

visit their local sheriff’s office and

many police departments

throughout the State to view a CDROM computer disk that lists

approximately 64,000 registered

sex offenders in California.

This information is available at

approximately 400 locations. The

CD-ROMs are updated four times

annually. Searches can be

conducted by name, county or ZIP

code. Approximately one-half of

the entries include a photo of the

sex offender. More photos will be

included in future editions.

Megan’s Law requires

California to maintain a list of its

1,600-plus high-risk, “worst-of-theworst” offenders. More than 80

percent of these high-risk offenders

have their photos included on the

CD-ROM. (This CD-ROM replaces

 

4 Statutes of 1996, c. 908 (AB 1562).
Page 66 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

the Child Molester Identification

Line Subdirectory distributed to

law enforcement agencies in

January 1996.)

In addition to giving lawabiding citizens the resources to

inquire about registered sex

offenders, Megan’s Law also

equips law enforcement with three

different methods to notify the

public if it is under potential threat

by a registered serious sex

offender. Law enforcement lacked

these options prior to Megan’s

Law. The options are:

1. While on patrol, an officer

may notify individuals whom

the officer deems at risk that

they are in proximity to a

registered serious sex offender.

For example, if an officer

contacts an individual near a

playground and determines

that he is a registered serious

offender, the officer can then

tell parents in that park that

their children are playing near

a registered serious sex

offender.

2. Local police may also warn

residents, schools, churches or

any other community members

at risk that a registered serious

sex offender resides nearby.

Officers distributing fliers

door-to-door with information

about the individual typically

accomplish this type of

notification.

3. The final notification method

applies to the high-risk

offenders. When an offender’s

name is on the “worst-of-theworst” list, local police

officials may advertise his

identity and whereabouts in

any manner they see fit to

warn the community they

protect and serve.

Media interest in the sex

offenders’ CD-ROM has been high

since its release. Public interest,

while not overwhelming, appears to

be increasing. Information provided

to the public includes a registrant’s

name, physical description, county

of residence, ZIP code, the offense

or offenses that lead to the

registration requirement and a

photo, if available.

We expect to improve the photo

availability and quality because

initial registration and annual

updates submitted to VCIN now

require that photos be included.

This same CD-ROM has a law

enforcement access feature that

allows agencies to obtain

information on all registrants,

including those listed in the “other”

category. Additional information is

included, such as specific street

address, along with the ability to

search by additional elements and

to create lineup cards and posters.

A task force representing police

chiefs, sheriffs, peace officers and

the DOJ developed model

guidelines for consideration by

each agency. Numerous training

seminars were held throughout the

State. In addition, the State

Commission on Peace Officer

Standards and Training produced

and distributed a law enforcement

training video that was telecast via

satellite. Since local police are best

positioned to determine what level

and method of notification is

appropriate for their community,

the specifics of implementation are

local policy matters. However,

most agencies in regional areas

realize that their approaches should

be consistent with one another.

Pending issues

We feel we are very close to

complete compliance with the

Jacob Wetterling Act as amended

by Megan’s Law. Legislation is

pending before the California

Legislature to provide minor

clarifications.

Schools have taken a great

interest in how Megan’s Law

affects their operations, both in

terms of responsibilities and

benefits. We are working directly

with the schools and the State

Department of Education to explore

the best methods of protecting the

school-age population and staff

through a combination of criminal

history checks, Megan’s Law

notifications, and proactive law

enforcement and community

involvement. The schools also play

a major role in public notification.

As mentioned earlier, we have

an ongoing problem locating some

registrants. A national registration

file will help as individuals move

across State lines and are required

to continue to meet basic

registration requirements. A

proposal currently before the

California Legislature would

require regular, biometric

identification-based location

verification for high-risk offenders

on a daily, weekly or monthly

basis. Individuals could also be

required to confirm their location

by telephone using a system

currently used in some parole and

probation supervision efforts. The

telephone number would be preestablished for location and a voice

print match would provide the

biometric identification.

Public reaction to new sex

offender information provided by

notification via direct access or by

proactive law enforcement is not

clear at this time. The level of

public interest and concern and

how this interest is expressed will

dictate the impact of the new laws.

California’s laws and programs

are intended for public protection

and awareness. In announcing the

availability of the Megan’s Law

CD-ROM, California Attorney

General Dan Lungren stated,

“Critics of Megan’s Law argue that

public awareness of these convicted

sex offenders constitutes cruel and

unusual punishment. The purpose

of Megan’s Law is not to further

punish convicted sex offenders, but

rather to empower law-abiding

members of the public with

information they can use to protect
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 67

themselves, their families and their

neighbors.”

Cooperative efforts

It was not easy for California to

take the steps it did to respond to

new sex offender mandates. As you

can see, our system is not perfect.

However, our response has been a

good example of cooperation

between many levels of

government and how the

cooperation can result in major

achievements. We brought together

the considerable resources of law

enforcement agencies, local and

State legal staff, the State

legislature, the private business

sector and the general public to

mold an effective program for

using information and resources to

protect the public.
Page 68 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The Florida sex offender registration and notification system

DONNA M. UZZELL

Director, Criminal Justice Information Systems

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

I have listened to representatives

of the Federal government describe

their frustration in trying to

incorporate the changes in

registration and notification laws

mandated by recent legislation. I

am reminded of a story about a

gentleman stopped on a Florida

highway by a law enforcement

officer. The officer steps up to the

gentleman’s vehicle and asks, “Can

I please see your driver’s license?”

The gentleman glares at the

officer, grits his teeth and responds,

“Can’t you people please get

organized?” The officer is taken

aback. The gentleman then says to

the officer, “You stopped me

yesterday and took my license

away. You stop me today and ask

me for it. Can’t you people please

get organized?”

I sometimes wonder if that is

what some folks say about us and

our Federal partners in our State.

Will you people please get

organized and get these programs

going? It has been a difficult task.

Sexual predator notification

Florida initiated a program in

1993 to register sexual predators.

The program was changed in 1995

to add limited community

notification of a sexual predator’s

presence via newspaper ads. The

program was changed again in

1996 to allow for more broad-based

community notification. During the

1997 legislative session in Florida,

the Legislature passed the Public

Safety Information Act,1 which

 

1 H.B. 1029 (The Public Safety

Information Act), approved by the 1997

Session of the Florida Legislature,

effective October 1, 1997.

greatly expands our sexual predator

program to include other categories

of sex offenders. The Act becomes

effective on October 1, 1997.

Florida courts designate

individuals as sexual predators

based on statutory criteria. Those

designated have, generally, been

convicted of first-degree felonies or

capital felony offenses. Individuals

convicted of second-degree

felonies may also be designated as

sexual predators if they were

convicted of other sex offenses

within the past 10 years.

Florida’s sexual predator

statutes require the chief of police

and the sheriff to notify a

community of a sexual predator’s

presence. Changes made to the

registration and notification law by

the State Legislature in 1997 allow

notification to be conducted in a

manner deemed appropriate. The

law also requires the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement

(FDLE) to develop a protocol on

tips for community notification.

We produced that protocol in 1996.

We are expanding the protocol in

1997 to reflect the changes made

by the Legislature.

Other provisions of our law

require the FDLE to maintain a

toll-free telephone number to make

information available on sexual

predators and sexual offenders.2

Florida does not require callers to

provide specific names. No one has

to ask, “Is John Doe a sexual

offender or sexual predator?” The

majority of callers ask if there are

sexual offenders in their counties.

 

2 The toll-free number is 1-888-357-

7332, or 1-888-FL-PREDATOR.

Under our old law, when we had

a stricter interpretation of the term

“sex predator” based on the

commission of the offense, we only

had 300 to 400 people in our

registry. As of October 1, 1997,

with the expansion of the law to

include sex offenders who have

committed a broader range of

offenses, there will be 10,000

offenders in the community under

supervision and 7,000 who will be

incarcerated as of that date. We are

authorized by law to charge a

reasonable fee to provide written

information to persons who request

photos of offenders via the toll-free

line. One helpful aspect of the

Public Safety Information Act is

that it requires the FDLE to place

sexual predators’ photos and

information on the Internet, so not

everyone will have to obtain sex

offender information over the

telephone.3

Florida is a “sunshine State.”

Florida’s records are “in the

sunshine,” or open for public view.

I hated that during my years in law

enforcement. I am beginning to

love the “sunshine” laws now

because they help provide answers

to questions about sex offenders.

We just put the information out

there. Florida’s courts have ruled

we have the authority to do that.

The Internet: A new

information tool

Florida’s Internet site is entered

through a World Wide Web page.

The Web page offers other

information about FDLE and

includes a page on missing

 

3 The FDLE’s Web site address is:

www.fdle.state.fl.us/.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 69

children. We think that is a very

important feature. Users can also

“click on” or select the sexual

predators’ section of the Web site

and obtain information that lets

them know about some important

qualifiers.

Positive identification is based

on a fingerprint comparison, and it

is illegal to use this information in

the commission of a crime. You

can search for offenders on our

Web site by county, by city or by

the offender’s last name.4

We are planning to create

separate categories for offenders

who are at large, for those who are

incarcerated, and for those who are

out-of-State. Offenders are

currently categorized by county.

Some counties with large

correctional facilities in their

jurisdictions have an inordinate

amount of offenders listed on the

Internet, so we decided to create a

separate category for these.

We have 67 counties in Florida.

If you wanted information on

offenders in Dade County, you

would enter “Dade County” into

the appropriate area of the Web site

and find out that there are 63

registered sexual predators in the

county. You can click on any one

of those predators to view a

thumbnail sketch. For more

information on the individual, you

select another option that provides

the offender’s photograph in a flyer

format. Law enforcement agencies

interested in conducting a

notification procedure can print

 

4 As of October 1, 1997, the FDLE

Internet site allows sex offender

searches by ZIP code. The Web site has

been the method most used by the

public to obtain sex offender

information. In the first 3 weeks that

sex offender information was available,

FDLE staff responded to more than 900

requests from the public for

information. The toll-free line receives

from 20 to 200 calls per hour,

depending on media-generated

publicity.

flyers directly from the Internet to

post for notification. The flyers list

the date the record was last

updated, the offender’s address and

his modus operandi.

We asked our State Legislature

to change the law because the

previous notification procedure

identified victims in some custodial

incest cases. We now report that a

victim was a minor, but we do not

give the victim’s age.

There has been tremendous

interest in our Web site. Since

January 1, 1997, there have been

more than 107,000 sex offender

inquiries on the site. (More than

40,000 occurred during in the first

3 weeks following implementation

of the new sex offender laws.)

Other provisions of the Florida

law require predators or offenders

to update their addresses with the

Department of Highway Safety and

Motor Vehicles. This will be

extremely important as the number

of registered offenders increases. It

is just too labor-intensive and costprohibitive to conduct separate

manual data entry of sex offender

information. Florida’s process uses

an existing telecommunications

link with the Department of

Highway Safety and Motor

Vehicles information through

which we electronically download

sex offender information. This

information updates our databases.

Each Florida county has an

office of the Department of

Highway Safety and Motor

Vehicles which has the capability

to take digitized photographs.

Those photos will be transmitted to

us as well. By midsummer 1998,

the Florida Crime Information

Center (FCIC) II — our version of

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) 2000 — will be up and

running. A local law enforcement

officer conducting a criminal

history check from either a

communications center or a patrol

car could obtain a criminal history

that includes a photograph. The

photograph would be transmitted

over our network and to the police

officer’s desk or patrol car. An

offender who fails to register or

report an address change could be

arrested and charged with a thirddegree felony.

Registration processes

A court must make the sexual

predator determination. When the

determination is made, the court

clerk submits a fingerprint card, a

photograph and the court finding to

the FDLE. The FDLE enters that

information into a sexual predator

database, which we are now

developing. This database will have

historical information on address

changes, photographs and the

offender’s modus operandi. This

information is automatically

uploaded into two very important

sites — the Internet and the FCIC

telecommunications system. In the

latter, the information is placed in a

“hot file” available to local law

enforcement.

As part of the registration

process, the State notifies any

criminal justice or law enforcement

agencies when predators move into

their jurisdictions. The offenders’

drivers’ licenses and vehicle tags

are “flagged” in the Department of

Highway Safety and Motor

Vehicles’ database. Thus, when an

officer makes a vehicle stop and

checks an offender’s driver’s

license or license plate, the officer

is informed that a sexual offender is

in his or her presence. This is how

our sexual predator registration

process works.

Because of changes made to

Florida’s law, there are some

differences in the way registration

is conducted for sex offenders. The

Department of Corrections, which

includes probation and parole

officers, is required to

electronically download all the

information on a released sexual

offender into the sexual predator

database. Again, the Internet and
Page 70 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

the FCIC telecommunication

system are automatically updated,

and all local law enforcement

agencies are notified of the release.

At the time this process takes place,

it actually constitutes preregistration because the individual

is either still incarcerated or under

some other form of supervision.

When offenders change their

addresses while on supervision,

they must notify probation and

parole officials, who are required to

send the information to the State.

The State then forwards the new

address to local law enforcement.

When offenders are released

from the Department of Corrections

back into the community, they can

register either with local law

enforcement or directly with the

FDLE. Offenders are fingerprinted

during registration so officials can

access the Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (AFIS) to

double check that the right person

was released from prison and is

registering. The offender’s

fingerprint and photograph are sent

to the FDLE for entry into our

sexual predator database.

Hopefully, the offender will

have served some time in the care,

custody and control of corrections

so we will already have his

photograph and basic information.

When the State receives the new

registration information, we again

check the fingerprint with the AFIS

just to make sure the person is who

we believe he is and that all other

information currently in our

database is correct.

Keeping track of

offender addresses

We update and amend the

records as needed. The Internet and

the FCIC telecommunications

system are automatically updated

and our agencies are notified by fax

service. We tell the service what

county the offender will be living

in, and the service faxes the

information to every appropriate

law enforcement agency. Again, we

flag the offender’s driver’s license

and vehicle registration.

This is very important, because

it alerts the proper authorities when

the offender goes to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor

Vehicles office to change his

address. Any offender who does

not have a driver’s license or who

has his driver’s license taken away

is required to obtain a Florida

identification card, which is

administered through the same

department. Any change of address

will be electronically transferred to

the appropriate databases and local

authorities.

I do not know how many of you

have experience with sex

offenders’ address changes, but

these people do not buy houses and

live in them for 30 years. When our

sexual predator registry contained

only 300 to 400 people, we had

some registrants with 3 to 5 address

changes.

The FDLE also provides press

releases for community

notification. Every time we are

notified of address changes, our

public information officers around

the State send press releases to

community newspapers reporting

that sex offenders are living in

certain communities or have been

placed in certain communities. The

newspapers use their own

discretion to determine whether

they are going to print the

information.

Some newspapers avoid using

the information totally. Others take

advantage of the information and

print some form of notification.

The press is the most effective

method to ensure that offender

information is current and correct.

The minute information is

transmitted on the Internet and

included in a press release,

reporters are out knocking on

doors. If the information is

incorrect, the press is the first to tell

you.

Florida has conducted two

sexual predator sweeps with task

forces comprised of probation and

parole officers, local law

enforcement and FDLE agents.

One concern when posting sex

offender information on the

Internet is that offenders will avoid

registering or reporting address

changes. Surprisingly, of the 250 to

300 predators contacted during

sweeps, only seven were not where

we thought they were. We issued

seven warrants. The system is

relatively new, so I am keeping my

fingers crossed that this pattern

continues.

One other benefit of listing sex

offenders on the Internet and doing

these kinds of sweeps is the type of

information uncovered. Authorities

learned of a situation where one

predator was attending Boy Scout

meetings. Someone saw his name

on the Internet and called police.

Police also learned of a predator

who was volunteering as a soccer

coach. Another predator lived with

his wife, who provided daycare in

their home. These cases show that

the system is beneficial.

New initiatives

Florida also has a service called

automated warrant notification.

This system notifies authorities any

time a warrant is issued for a sexual

predator or a sexual offender. The

warrant is turned over to law

enforcement agents, who conduct a

fugitive apprehension of the sexual

predator. We do not care whether

the warrant was issued because of a

violent offense, a violation of

probation or a misdemeanor. We

know the warrant provides the

opportunity to get the offender off

the street.

We are very proactive on DNA

collection. We have a flag in our

criminal history database that

informs users whether DNA was

collected for an offender’s file. We

are trying to collect DNA samples

from anyone who is on our list of
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 71

sexual predators and offenders

who, for some reason, did not have

it collected when they were

incarcerated.

States can access our

information via the National Law

Enforcement Telecommunications

System (NLETS). Inquiries to our

State go directly to our sex offender

“hot file.”

5

There are a few other points I

would like to make. The Public

Safety Information Act requires a

law enforcement officer

investigating or arresting a person

for a sex offense to check with the

Department of Corrections and

with probation and parole

authorities to determine whether

the person being arrested is on

probation. If he is, the officer must

notify probation and parole

authorities that he or she is either

investigating or planning to arrest

the subject.

The other point I would like to

make concerns a tragic missingchild case involving a boy named

Jimmy Ryce. Jimmy’s parents,

Claudine and Don Ryce, fought

tremendously for our State’s first

broad-based, community

notification legislation, which was

called the Jimmy Ryce Act. That is

the law that was amended by the

Florida Legislature in 1997.

The Ryces, who live in the

Miami-Dade County area,

convinced the Dade County School

Board to adopt a policy that

requires the school district to obtain

sex offender information from the

Metro-Dade Police Department and

from the Internet and then mail it to

the parents of schoolchildren.

 

5 Florida now contributes data to the

National Sexual Offender Registry.
Page 72 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The Illinois registration and notification system for sex offenders

KIRK LONBOM

Assistant Bureau Chief, Intelligence Bureau

Illinois State Police

Illinois has encountered many of

the same problems other States

faced when trying to implement

their registration and notification

programs — data integrity, data

quality, data consistency and

reaction to legislation. We fought

hard in Illinois to get realistic

legislation and to make sure we

could deliver what the legislation

required.

We have had many concerns

about data problems and the

reporting of convictions, especially

since we deal with 102 counties

statewide. We had to develop a

program that would work in cities

as large as Chicago and in rural

counties throughout the State. We

developed a comprehensive sex

offender registration program. Our

goal is to remember the aspirations

of the Wetterling family and others.

Our registration program goes

beyond data, it goes beyond forms,

and it goes beyond computers. It

comes down to preventing crimes,

solving crimes and providing law

enforcement with the tools it needs

to do its job. Ultimately it comes

down to compiling baseline data

we can use for further studies,

further research and further

analysis. We are confident our

program will have a significant

impact on sex offenses in Illinois.

I am happy to report that Illinois

House Bill 1219 is currently on our

governor’s desk. This bill will

bring us into total compliance with

the whole trilogy of Federal

direction.1 We have been waiting

 

1 The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent

Offender Registration Program,

for word that the governor signed

this bill.2

The success of our program is

the result of hard work by some

extremely talented people. They

worked very hard to bridge the gap

between obtaining registration

information from sex offenders and

using it to solve and prevent

crimes. We must not forget that our

real goal is not only to register sex

offenders but also to use their

registration information to stop

further offenses.

We have heard speakers at this

conference use the term “zero

tolerance” for sex offenders. I think

we have accomplished that in

Illinois. We have some great

stories. We registered an 86-yearold man in a nursing home, a

quadriplegic and an individual in

the Federal Witness Protection

program. We even registered a man

currently in a coma, so I think our

program has been pretty

aggressive.

We have used our Law

Enforcement Agencies Data

System (LEADS) as the baseline

for the reporting and the extraction

of sex offender registration

information in Illinois. The

advantage of this system is that it is

available to officers and

investigators when they need it,

even for on-site investigative

queries. LEADS is available on

 

Megan’s Law and the Pam Lychner

Sexual Offender Tracking and

Identification Act of 1996.

2 H.B. 1219, 90th Session of the State

of Illinois Legislature, signed by the

governor July 24, 1997.

computer terminals throughout the

State so local law enforcement can

help us carry the ball by entering

information such as address

changes, for example. We have had

experiences similar to other States

with offenders making significant

numbers of address changes. We

really need to stay on top of that.

All sex offender information is

contained in the offender’s LEADS

file. An officer seeking information

on an individual is notified

immediately that the individual is a

sex offender who had been notified

of his duty to register. If the

individual has not registered, he is

in violation of the law.

The inquiring officer has the

ability to add information from a

remote location to the offender’s

file. We frequently review sex

offender records and intelligence

personnel in Springfield examine

the movements of these individuals

to conduct proactive risk

assessments in addition to crime

solving. Directed messages are

available through the Illinois’

LEADS system similar to the way

messages are sent from State to

State over the National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) system.

We are trying to use electronic

media to exchange information,

and we are also using more

advanced electronic systems within

Illinois State Police headquarters.

Let me provide a quick

overview of how information enters

the LEADS system from our

probation department when a court

releases a sex offender on

probation. Each county is required

to set up a location where it can

access a LEADS terminal or the
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 73

county must designate an agency to

establish the contact. Information is

entered into the LEADS system

informing the county that the

released offender is required to

register and that he has been

notified of his registration

requirements.

State officials know that an

individual has been notified of his

registration requirements and

where the individual is supposed to

live and register so they will know

if the individual fails to show up in

a community and register as

required. Police and sheriffs

deputies can extract and provide

information to the LEADS system.

We use the LEADS system to

formulate and print out reports that

are accessible to the local officer. If

a resident of a certain community

wants to know who is registered as

a sex offender in his or her town or

county, law enforcement can

extract that information from

LEADS.

We use LEADS to populate

other databases so we can run

special reports or use LEADS

information for community

notification. We send quarterly

mailings to schools and child-care

facilities. LEADS is available 24

hours a day. We have some

gratifying success stories about

local officers who have made

traffic stops, obtained LEADS

“hits” on sex offenders and found

children in their cars. In some

cases, officers found paraphernalia

in the car indicating that the subject

was planning a sex offense. Police

were able to intervene and prevent

the offense from taking place.

We are trying to build a bridge

between having a registration

program and using the registration

information proactively for

intelligence and crime solving

purposes. An example is using this

information to create maps of areas

where crimes occur. The map

shown in Figure 1 was prepared

following a series of sex offenses

that occurred in suburban areas of

Chicago. A similar modus operandi

was used in each attack, and they

all took place in parking lots.

Using this map, we were able to

conduct some spatial analysis to

determine which offenders lived

near the crime sites so we could

provide suspect information to the

officers investigating the crimes.

Investigating officers often lack

any real suspect information.

When notification of an

offender’s presence is warranted,

we cannot spend all day knocking

on everyone’s door to get the word

out, so we are trying to find a way

to prioritize assignments to agents

and officers in the field who

conduct address verification.

Certain risk factors are taken into

account, such as the offender’s

proximity to schools and other

facilities where children can

usually be found. We now

concentrate analysis on specific

tactical case issues and we are

trying to get into more strategic

products, such as maps detailing

the location of schools, victims’

and offenders’ residences and all of

the other factors we have to

consider.

Let me talk briefly about

VITAL, the Violent Crime

Information Tracking and Linking

system. VITAL is Illinois’ first real

move toward a totally electronic

police-reporting environment. We

use the system for intelligence

reporting. VITAL gives an officer

the ability to prepare an on-line

intelligence report, transmit it

electronically to a supervisor for

approval, and then use

technological tools to make the

report available to other officers

more quickly.

VITAL has the capability to

include graphic presentations. We

are making significant progress in

our goal to enter all information

about sex offenders into the VITAL

system so it is available to our

officers in the field. If an officer

has only a nickname to work with

at 2 o’clock in the morning, the

officer can access the VITAL

system to seek a connection and,

hopefully, solve a crime more

quickly.

Law enforcement throughout

Illinois can add information to

LEADS records. This improves law

enforcement’s ability to track

offenders’ movements. If we find

an individual outside of his area of

parole or probation or if he is just

traveling the State, it may indicate

an increased threat. We also have

the ability to develop a suspect list.

Some of us were talking

yesterday about the relocation of

offenders outside Illinois. We were

thinking that States bordering each

other should explore the creation of

some type of system to share

information. I know there are

information systems being

developed to facilitate that goal

nationally, but focusing our efforts

in specific geographic areas would

also be a great help.
FOUR COUNTY AREA

COOK, DUPAGE, KANE & LAKE

ADULT SEX OFFENDERS - FOUR INCIDENTS

BERGLOFF

DICKHAUT

VICTIM 03/16/97

ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS

KREBS

TODD

SCHLUETER

ALLEN

DAVIS

MURPHY

BARNES

ZEMKE

WOOD

GROVE

BLEVINS

STETZER

WEBBER

CONWAY

PAPANIKOLAOU

POLLOCK

VICTIM 12/22/96

ROLLING MEADOWS, ILLINOIS

VICTIM 02/20/97

WHEELING, ILLINOIS

VICTIM 03/23/97

WHEELING, ILLINOIS
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 75

Development of the Illinois sex offender registration

and community notification program

MIKE WELTER

Chief, Violent Crimes Section

Illinois State Police

The Illinois program for sex

offender registration and

community notification parallels

the Federal guidelines except for a

few exceptions.1

In terms of our registration

process, we register people

convicted in other States and in

Federal courts. Those of you with

this responsibility know how

difficult it is to identify these

people and to bring them into

compliance. Our registration

program also includes people who

are not necessarily found guilty,

such as people found unfit for trial

or not guilty by reason of insanity.

We do not register juveniles who

have been adjudicated, but we do

register juveniles convicted in

criminal court.

The duration of our registration

parallels Federal guidelines.

Sexually dangerous persons must

register every 90 days for the

remainder of their natural lives.

Other convicted sex offenders must

register annually for 10 years. That

period starts either from the

offender’s date of conviction if he

 

1 In Illinois, sex offender registration is

required in these instances: 1) felony

sex crime conviction (including

attempts); 2) misdemeanor sex crime

conviction if victim is under age 18; 3)

convictions in other State or Federal

courts; 4) offender not guilty by reason

of insanity; 5) subject of a finding not

resulting in an acquittal; 6) first-degree

murder of a child; 7) kidnapping or

unlawful restraint; 8) sexually

dangerous persons; and 9) juveniles

convicted in criminal court.

is sentenced to probation or from

the date of release if he has been

confined. Our laws established

retroactive registration

requirements going back 10 years.

Trying to identify offenders now

required to register because of the

retroactive provisions and trying to

bring them into compliance with

the law is a fairly significant task.

Offender registration

We have a process in Illinois

whereby sex offenders are notified

of their responsibility to register

and are provided the various

admonitions as required by law.

The court informs the offender of

this responsibility at the time of

conviction if sentenced to

probation. Corrections agencies

inform the offender at the time of

release from confinement. (It is

important to note that even though

the offender is not considered

formally registered at this point,

information on that person’s status

as a sex offender is available to the

public. As soon as we become

aware of this individual’s

responsibility to register, we start

providing this information to the

public.)

If the sex offender has been

confined through our Department

of Corrections, registration

information is electronically

transferred into our statewide Law

Enforcement Agencies Data

System (LEADS) on a daily basis.

This eliminates manual input as

much as possible, and it provides

very precise information on these

sex offenders and on each

offender’s intended county of

residence and address (which

change many times along the way).

Sex offender data from courts enter

LEADS through normal sources.

When this information is entered

into LEADS, it alerts law

enforcement that a sex offender is

coming to town. It also establishes

a “tickler” to ensure first-time and

renewal registrations. The sex

offender must register in person

within 10 days with the law

enforcement agency having

jurisdiction. If the offender fails to

show up in 10 days, LEADS alerts

us that the offender’s status is

reclassified to “non-compliance.”

Because of the tickler system, we

can take immediate enforcement

action.

As mentioned, sex offenders

must register with their local law

enforcement agencies. There are

several reasons why Illinois

legislators took that approach. They

think it builds accountability with

the offender and with the local

agency. Legislators assumed that

the agency would get more

involved in sex offender

registration when the offender

actually reported to them.

Involvement by local agencies and

the community is essential to the

success of the program.
Page 76 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

When the sex offender comes to

register at the agency, the agency

runs a criminal history check that

will, hopefully, determine that the

person is required to register. A

registration form is completed that

again admonishes the offender of

his responsibility under the system.

The agency must ensure that the

offender reads and signs this form.

The agency must enter the

registration information into

LEADS within 3 days. The agency

also takes a photo of the offender

that is scanned into our Violent

Crime Information Tracking and

Linking (VITAL) system. This

process establishes another tickler.

The system knows the offender is

registered, and that he must come

back and register again in 1 year

(or in 90 days if he is a sexually

dangerous person). If an offender

fails to register, we are notified and

can start taking action.

Community notification

Our community notification law

differs a bit from those of other

States. Ours is similar to the

Kansas law: we consider all sex

offenders to be high-risk so we

inform the communities of all sex

offenders who are required to

register regardless of their

registration status. We use a threephase process, with mandatory,

discretionary and public access

phases.

First, each school and child-care

facility in Illinois is given a list of

sex offenders residing in their

county; if they serve multiple

counties, they receive multiple lists.

This list is provided a minimum of

four times a year, or more often if

necessary. We had numerous

instances involving schoolteachers,

vendors, part-time lunchroom

assistants and so forth who were

identified as sex offenders. We

were able to eliminate their

relationship with the school or

child-care facility.

The second phase of community

notification is discretionary. Every

law enforcement agency has the

discretion to provide sex offender

information to any group or person

who is likely to encounter the

offender, such as youth groups,

victims, neighborhoods and other

communities. Just recently, we

shared our registry information

with a variety of groups that serve

Illinois, and we provided our list to

the national Boy Scouts.

On the first run, they had 148

hits off our sex offender registry

list. That does not mean all 148 hits

were sex offenders, but the Boy

Scout organization did go through

the list carefully. There were a

significant number of offenders

coming into contact with Scouts.

The first two times we gave the list

to the Greater Cook County

Council, a Scout leader was

discovered on each list. They were

removed from their posts, and an

investigation is continuing as to

whether any crimes were

committed during their association

with Scout troops.

Most of our success with the

registration and notification

program occurred in these two

areas, because we are able to deny

sex offenders access to potential

victims. The police chief in one

community compiled a list of the

people involved in 72 youth

groups. He checked first to make

sure the groups’ directors were not

on our list. He then let the directors

know the sex offender registry

information was available to them,

and he added the directors’ names

to a mailing list so they would

receive regularly updated registry

information on the same schedule

as schools and child-care facilities.

The first time around, he found

four sex offenders involved with

community youth groups. We also

found sex offenders who owned

youth camps and every other

situation you can imagine. This is

where we really experienced the

benefits of our registration and

notification program.

The third phase of community

involvement is public access. Any

person authorized to access the

registry list can go to his or her

local police department or sheriff’s

office to see the information

currently on-line.

Illinois successes

We achieved some noteworthy

success with the process we used to

develop our sex offender

registration and community

notification program.

The method we used to develop

and publicize our program deserves

mention. We established a

statewide working group comprised

of judges, prosecutors, probation

and corrections officials, school

superintendents, Department of

Children and Family Services

officials, police chiefs and sheriffs.

This was a fairly large group, but it

was incredibly focused.

Group members provided input

in the development of an operating

procedure guide, which was

provided to every Illinois criminal

justice agency. The guide was

designed to be fairly simple and

straightforward. It gives the

agencies a glimpse as to how the

system should work.

Working group input was also

beneficial in establishing

administrative rules and tailoring

those rules to deal with the

problematic portions of the

legislation. We have seen reactive

legislation that gets passed

sometimes. We have to comply

with the bad legislation in addition

to the well-founded legislation.

Providing input on administrative

rules is something you can do along

the way to reduce the impact.

Another accomplishment worth

noting is the effective partnership

we developed with State

lawmakers. It is critical to establish

a good relationship with your

legislature, and not just when you
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 77

need something or when you are

asking for money. We developed

an ever-increasing core of

legislators willing to sponsor bills.

Our most recent bill was written

completely by the State Police in

conjunction with the State Criminal

Justice Authority. We actually had

legislation completely drafted

within the criminal justice

community and sponsored by State

legislators. It passed both of our

houses unanimously and without

comment.

It is also important to share

information with legislators. We

send a brief report to members of

our General Assembly every 2

months to update them on the status

of our registration and notification

program, including all our

successes and problems. A

partnership with the State

legislature is very important.

Another success has been the

development of a statewide

comprehensive training program.

We had 3 significant changes in our

legislation in the last 2 years, so we

provided three training phases to all

102 Illinois counties. The training

is provided to the entire criminal

justice community, to schools and

to the State Department of Children

and Family Services. This training

effort costs only a few thousand

dollars a year, but the benefits are

incredible. We recommend you

consider including a training

component in your program.

State initiatives and benefits

Collecting information on the

location of sex offenders allows us

to pursue State-level initiatives that

provide a number of benefits. We

can produce maps that illustrate the

locations of recent sex offenses and

registered sex offenders living near

those locations, for example. We

actually had a school route

designated as a dangerous route

because children were walking by a

sex offender’s residence. The

school provided busing to children

who would have had to walk by the

offender’s house. This is another

benefit of our registry program

Using the VITAL system, we

were able to develop a composite

of an individual suspected of

committing a number of sex crimes

in the Chicago area. The system

allowed us to examine certain

factors, especially physical

descriptors, to develop a suspect

list. Developing suspect lists is very

beneficial from both the State and

local law enforcement perspective.

Like several other States, we

collect blood from our convicted

sex offenders for genetic marker

indexing. We compare that data to

all the crimes committed in the past

where we collected DNA samples.

We will use that information for

comparison in all future crimes.

Genetic marker indexing is a

tremendous law enforcement tool.

We are already getting what we call

“cold hits,” whereby individuals

are implicated in crimes for which

we had no other evidence other

than their DNA to indicate their

involvement.

With the current information we

have, we know a large number of

registered sex offenders relocate in

other States and countries outside

Illinois, particularly in the States of

Missouri (134 offenders),

Wisconsin (101 offenders) and

Indiana (106 offenders). These

offenders can establish artificial

havens using jurisdictional

boundaries; they move around not

only within our State but also

outside of our State. Because of

this, it is important to share out-ofState information. We provide lists

to other jurisdictions of the sex

offenders we believe may be

relocating to those jurisdictions.

These offenders may not

necessarily be required to register

in their new States of residence, but

we provide registry information on

a continuing basis so if they do

move to new States, law

enforcement in those States can

take action to register them if

necessary.

The Illinois State Police is a

full-service agency. We combine

troopers, investigators and crime

laboratories in one agency. The

State has taken a multi-faceted

approach to sex offender

registration which goes far beyond

the registration process. We have

21 district headquarters statewide.

A State Police officer is designated

as a district coordinator in each of

these district offices. The officer is

responsible for ensuring that sex

offenders register and comply with

the law. The coordinating officers

also act as a liaison to the local law

enforcement agencies and he or she

assists in the investigation of local

rape cases and other sex offenses.

We established a team approach

to handle sex offender registration

compliance throughout the

southern third of Illinois. This

strategy has been very successful.

When the team began, as I recall,

we had approximately 600

individuals in that area who were

not complying with their

registration requirements. That

number has been reduced to about

22 or 23 people who are out of

compliance right now. I would

certainly recommend you contact

us if you are contemplating a

program like this because we have

a wealth of experience. In addition

to State Police investigators, this

team also includes people from the

State Attorney General’s Office to

assist with prosecutions and so

forth. We are considering

expanding this concept to all of

Illinois.
The local responsibility

The local responsibility for control and prosecution of sex offenders:

Behind Washington State’s history of landmark sex offender laws

Norm Maleng
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 81

The local responsibility for control and prosecution of sex offenders:

Behind Washington State’s history of landmark sex offender laws

NORM MALENG

Prosecuting Attorney

King County, Washington

I am pleased to have the

opportunity to speak on the subject

of this conference, sex offender

registration, and to welcome panels

of experts to our community. This

is a learning opportunity for us all.

We can learn so much from you,

and we have an opportunity to

share our information as well. It is

gratifying to deal with a subject

like sex offender registration — a

subject that so dominates the

agenda for local and State

governments, a subject that has

spread like a prairie fire across the

United States and that has grabbed

the attention of Congress —

because we are dealing with a

hurtful subject that was ignored for

too long.

The State of Washington has

been a leader in criminal justice

system reform for the past several

decades. We enacted new

sentencing guidelines in 1981, the

omnibus drug act in 1988,

comprehensive sex offender

legislation in 1990,1 and in recent

 

1 Sex offenses, and the need for more

information on sex offenders, were

addressed in the Washington

Legislature in 1990, in laws dealing

with civil commitment of sexually

violent predators, mandatory

registration, release of information and

victim/witness notification. One part

required persons, including juveniles,

convicted of a sex offense, to register

with the county sheriff for the county

of the person’s residence (RCW

9A.44.130). Two laws are enacted

authorizing public agency (including

Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration)

release of “necessary and relevant”

information regarding sex offenders

years, domestic violence

legislation. We took a lot of these

concepts and modeled them. We

have the first office in the Nation to

establish a special unit to prosecute

crimes of physical and sexual abuse

of children, for example, and we

established a model domestic

violence program.

Research, information,

statistics

No State can put together a

perfect system, but when I consider

what Washington State has done

over the last few decades, it is clear

those efforts were based to a large

degree on research, information

and statistics. At the very center of

this intersection between policy and

research is Roxanne Lieb, Director

of the Washington State Institute of

Public Policy, who will be on a

panel this afternoon.

Roxanne is one of the most

talented individuals I know. She

was at the center of every major

project I was involved in over the

last couple of decades. Any time

the Governor asked me to

undertake a new and innovative

task, one of the agreements I

 

when the information is necessary for

public protection (RCW 4.24.550 and

RCW 13.40.217). A law is enacted

providing for law enforcement, victim

and witness notification when a

juvenile offender, found to have

committed a violent or sex offense, is

to be discharged, paroled or placed on

any authorized leave or release or

transfer (RCW 13.40.215). The law is

amended in 1993 to include juveniles

found to have committed a crime of

stalking.

always struck was that I could have

the services of that remarkably

talented woman. When I look

around the room, I imagine that if I

went to your State, you would hear

similar comments about yourselves

or others you work with. It really is

important to base these public

policy issues on research,

information and statistics, and not

just on the latest fad or somebody’s

idea.

One of our local newspapers

profiled my career several years

ago. A reporter interviewed me for

more than an hour on some of the

issues I was involved with since I

was elected prosecutor in 1978.

Then the reporter asked me a

question that was simple in one

sense, but difficult in another sense.

The question was this: “What

would you name as the single most

important accomplishment during

your career?” Now, that sounds

simple, but turn that question

around and ask it to yourself

because you may have been

involved in many important things

during your career.

Yet, it took me no more than a

second to respond. I responded that

my efforts to try and reform the

criminal justice system in terms of

how we deal with sex offenders

and, particularly, how we deal with

violent sex offenders is my single

most important accomplishment. I

am proud of this accomplishment,

not only because it is a very

important topic, but also because it

is a subject that touches people’s

lives. Every crime touches people’s

lives, but there is no crime that is

so associated with pain, hurt and
Page 82 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

loss than sex crimes, particularly

sex crimes against children.

Victims are common

denominator in sex offender

registration laws

I want to take a moment to tell

you why this was such an important

experience for me as a prosecutor

and a person, and why each one of

your jobs is so very vital to public

and community safety in

communities across the United

States.

As you know, all 50 States today

require sex offender registration.

Have you ever wondered what the

common denominator is for these

different laws? Generally, they all

have a name like Megan’s Law or

the Jacob Wetterling Act. If you

look at each one of these laws in all

50 States, many times the name

associated with the law is the name

of a child.

Our experience in Washington

State is no different. Our sex

offender laws were passed in the

wake of several outrageous sexual

assaults that occurred in our State

in 1988 and 1989, the types of

cases that galvanized the

community. Both offenders, whom

I will discuss in brief, were

recidivists. Everyone associated

with these particular cases knew

the individuals involved were time

bombs. The question was not if, but

when they would repeat their

outrageous behavior. But the

system required their release, and

this is what happened.

In the first case, Gene Kane was

finishing a 13-year prison sentence

for attacking two women. He

received no treatment while

incarcerated in the State prison

system. The prison psychologist

said he was not a good candidate

for release. Everyone knew what he

would do. Nevertheless, Mr. Kane

had just about completed his

sentence in the fall of 1988 when

he was placed in a work-release

facility in downtown Seattle. He

was there for about 2 months when

he hid in a parking garage. A short

time later, he abducted and

murdered Diane Ballasiotes. He

was convicted of sexual assault and

murder and sentenced to life in

prison. Diane’s mother, Ida

Ballasiotes, who is now a State

legislator who devotes her life to

strengthening our criminal justice

system, demanded answers from

State officials. They had no

answers as to why this type of

person was free in our community.

In the second case, Earl Schriner

had a 24-year history of assaults on

children dating back to the period

when he murdered a 15-year-old

classmate when he was 16 years

old. After his incarceration and

subsequent release, he committed

more crimes and was sent to State

prison for 10 years. While in

prison, he told prison officials

exactly what he would do when he

got out. Mr. Schriner was

considered too dangerous to be

placed in a work-release facility for

the last couple of months of his

prison term. He was released, of

course, and in early 1989, he

sexually mutilated a young boy in

Tacoma. He will also spend the rest

of his life in State prison.

The response to these tragedies

from criminal justice professionals

was predictable. They said,

“There’s nothing we could do

because their sentences were

completed.” This response is not

acceptable to average citizens.

They demanded that the State

respond. Then-Governor Booth

Gardner appointed the Governor’s

Task Force on Community

Protection in response to the public

outcry over these tragedies. The

Task Force was comprised of a

whole series of people with

experience in the criminal justice

system. Regular citizens, including

Ida Ballasiotes, were also members.

The task force held hearings in

six communities around the State

of Washington. Hundreds of people

came forward to offer their stories

— stories of hurt, loss and

suffering. They did not particularly

have suggestions as to what should

be done about the sex offender

problem, but it was almost

therapeutic for these people to

come forward and tell their stories

before a panel of people who cared

about their pain.

Washington State enacts

landmark sex offender laws

What came out of these hearings

was simply this: We have

underestimated the hurt associated

with this type of crime for too long,

and we have undervalued the

seriousness of the crime as well.

The task force forwarded draft

recommendations to the governor

and the legislature. The legislative

package was passed without a

single dissenting vote. It was a

five-part program that we believed

would be comprehensive, balanced

and effective. It had these

components:

1. We addressed tougher criminal

sentences by literally doubling

the length of our prison

sentences.

2. We provided treatment

programs, not only within the

State prison system but outside

as well, including what is

probably the first treatment

program for juvenile sex

offenders.

3. We originated the first civil

commitment law in the Nation;

one that was later adopted by

Kansas and recently upheld by

the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. We provided for a community

notification program that

allows law enforcement to

decide how the community

should be notified in particular

cases.

5. We provided a sex offender

registration program, which I

believed would be a good

investigative tool for law

enforcement.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 83

With other legislation we have

in Washington, such as “three

strikes and you’re out” — and,

quite frankly, with sex offenders

today, it is “two strikes and you’re

out” — we most likely have the

Nation’s toughest sex offender

laws. The linchpin to the

prevention of these types of crimes

is sex offender registration.

The importance of

registration

Sex offender registration is an

important tool in its own right, but

it is also a dramatic example of that

old cliché, “The whole is greater

than the sum of its parts.” Sex

offender registration programs are

even more effective when they are

combined with longer prison

sentences, community notification

and treatment programs.

Registration becomes a vital

component of a comprehensive

program.

Why do we require sex

offenders to register, and not

robbers or burglars? You do not

have to be a rocket scientist to

figure that out. Sex offenders are

different. They are different in so

many different ways, and our laws

have treated them in a different

fashion. That is why law

enforcement must know who the

offenders are, where they are and

what they have done in the past.

We know sex offender

registration laws can help solve

crimes. A good example of this is a

recent case in our community. A

14-year-old girl was walking

through a park in Lake Forest Park

— a very small community just

north of Seattle — in the middle of

the afternoon in November 1996

when she was grabbed by a man

and dragged into the bushes. She

fought very, very hard, and she

fought very, very bravely. Her

assailant decided to discontinue the

assault. He released the young

woman and fled the scene.

The young victim had a good look

at her assailant, and another citizen

in the park saw the man depart in a

tan Volkswagen automobile. There

were no other leads.

What was the first course of

action the Lake Forest Police

Department took in its investigation

into the assault? Investigators

examined the list of registered sex

offenders who lived in the area.

They were able to reduce the

number of potential suspects

because the girl provided a general

description of her attacker. During

a subsequent records check, they

discovered that a convicted rapist

named Evan Best lived just two

blocks from the park. His mother

owned a tan Volkswagen registered

to her.

The victim identified Best from

a photo montage and, later, from a

line-up. The case is presently

before our office for prosecution.

The is a prime example of a sex

offender registry being used as an

effective investigative tool. Best is

also the first “two-strike” candidate

in King County. If he is convicted

of this assault, he will spend the

rest of his life in prison without the

possibility of parole. This is a good

example of how this registration

statute gave a kick-start to an

investigation.

Setting public safety priorities

While the public and the State

legislatures treat sex offenders as a

high priority, the criminal justice

system frequently sets different

priorities. I want to ask you this

question: What priority does the

justice system give to sex offender

registration statutes? I would say,

“Not much,” because of the way

institutions set priorities.

Let me talk for a moment about

how institutions, such as police

departments, go about setting

priorities. You begin with the street

cop and the detective. Police

officers would say their most

important responsibilities or

priorities are serious crimes like

murder. If you asked detectives in a

sex crime unit, they would

probably say the most serious

crimes are murder accompanied by

sexual assault or aggravated rape.

They would never respond, “Our

number one priority is to go around

and find people who are violating

our sex offender registration laws.”

For that detective, his or her

response is appropriate and correct

for a person focused on crime. But

what should we expect from the

institution, the police department,

the chiefs of police or the

prosecutors in our community? We

should expect a different response.

That does not mean murder and

violent aggravated rape will not

continue to be priorities. They will,

but we also have to elevate the

priority of sex offender registration,

because we are not only interested

in the nature of the crime, but the

nature of the criminal.

Someone once asked me,

“Norm, what is your most

important responsibility as a

prosecutor?” I always respond,

“My responsibility is to kick the

system in the butt to make it realize

what the important priorities really

are.” Sex offender registration is

equally as important as those

serious crimes because we are

trying to prevent those outrageous

and heinous crimes from occurring

in the first place.

An estimated 3,200 sex

offenders live in King County, and

each is obligated to register. About

600 more come out of the State

prison system each year, so we are

dealing with significant numbers of

offenders. Despite this, until

recently, a grand total of two

detectives in King County were

assigned to investigate failure-toregister cases. Two detectives!

King County contains one-third of

our State’s population; slightly

more than 1.5 million people. More

than 3,200 offenders are required to

register, 600 more offenders are
Page 84 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

exiting prison each year, and we

have two detectives assigned to that

task.

There are a number of reasons

for this low priority. One reason is

the problem institutions have in

setting priorities correctly. Another

reason is that, until recently,

violation of our sex offender

registration statute was a

misdemeanor in most cases. If you

work in a police agency, are you

going to start investigating the

misdemeanors or the felonies?

Thankfully, the laws were changed

in the last session of the legislature

to make nonregistration a felony

offense. Felony means priority

within the criminal justice system.

Tackling backlog of cases

I am very proud of our ongoing

efforts to establish an

interjurisdictional task force. This

task force has the personal support

of the Seattle Chief of Police,

myself as prosecutor, the King

County Sheriff, and other law

enforcement leaders. It will be

comprised of police, prosecutors

and Department of Corrections

personnel, who will tackle the

backlog of cases that were not

adequately investigated. We are

going to give these cases priority

treatment. We expect this to be an

ongoing effort to give priority

treatment not only to the crime, but

also to the criminals.

There are challenges ahead.

One, of course, is to make sure sex

offender information is available in

the statewide computer database so

police officers will have access to

an individual’s sex offender status

during a traffic stop. Another

challenge is to develop

communication between local

police agencies. King County has

35 cities and 24 police agencies.

The sheriff’s office performs

contract work for some of the

smaller police agencies. That

requires a lot of coordination to

eliminate duplication and to assure

that we can work across

jurisdictional lines. I am very proud

of the efforts we made in the State

of Washington to address the whole

issue of sex offenses.

I am grateful for this opportunity

to speak to you today. Maybe now

you can appreciate the answer I

gave to the questions posed by the

newspaper reporter who wanted to

know the most important

accomplishment in my career. I

honestly answered that it was the

work I did reforming our laws

controlling sex offenders,

particularly violent sex offenders.

This topic involves a lot of hurt and

pain and loss on the part of victims

that can never be adequately

measured. We in the criminal

justice system can never say we

feel your loss, but we can have

some appreciation and

understanding for it and to try to do

something about it.
Panel of the States: Enacting legislation

Creating effective sex offender legislation requires

collaboration between lawmakers and justice agencies

Rep. Mike Lawlor

The big picture of sex offenders and public policy

Sen. Florence Shapiro
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 87

 Creating effective sex offender legislation requires collaboration

between lawmakers and justice agencies

MIKE LAWLOR

Representative

Connecticut General Assembly

I have been asked to shed some

light on the process of making sure

enacted legislation does what it is

supposed to do. Also, I would like

to share some insights I learned

about the legislative process, both

in the Connecticut Legislature and

in talking to my colleagues from

around the country.

I missed the first part of this

conference, but I understand you

gave some of the Federal

Government representatives a hard

time when they were complaining

about spending money to

implement these registration and

notification programs. It is about

time the tables were turned. Each

of us in our own States understands

how our own system works. The

Federal Government often steps in

and tells us how to retool our

specific justice systems to meet its

goals. While the government’s

intentions are good, it is sometimes

disruptive because the rules the

government wants to implement

have more to do with the needs of

the home States of the various

congressional committee chairs

than they do with our States.

I think this has been a source of

great frustration for many State

legislators around the country. I

want you to know we share your

frustration that, perhaps, things are

becoming overly complicated. My

message to the Federal Government

is this: “Just send us the money!”

We will figure out how to spend it

on these registration and

notification programs. Every State

is different, but we have the same

goal.

One size does not fit all

I have been surprised at the

variety of the criminal justice

systems around the country. In

Connecticut, for example, we do

not have any county jails. Our

prosecutors are not elected. Our

attorney general has no criminal

jurisdiction, These three factors

seem to be unique to our State.

“One-size-fits-all” Federal

requirements really do not apply to

Connecticut.

I think when we talk about

registration and notification

requirements, we must understand

that every State is very different.

We should determine our general

goals and try to retool our specific

State systems to meet these general

goals rather than try to implement a

“one-size-fits-all” Federal system

that helps States in theory but not

in application.

We need to understand that,

even though every State legislature

has taken a stab at sex offender

registration, notification, Megan’s

Law and civil commitment, there is

no one model we should emulate.

Each State is testing its specific

practical problems related to these

issues. At forums like this, we can

share our experiences and learn

from one another’s failures and

successes. I think that is very

important, and that is why I am

pleased the Federal Government

has decided to invest in

conferences like this, hiring

experienced organizations like

SEARCH and others to bring us

together so we can talk these issues

through.

Debate centers on how to

reach common goal

Whether you are talking to

liberal or conservative legislators,

Democrats or Republicans, or

elected officials from urban or rural

areas, I think it is fair to say that

everyone agrees that controls on

sex offenders must be made more

stringent. I am also sure that

everyone in this room agrees that

violent, predatory, pedophilic sex

offenders ought to be incapacitated

for as long as possible. That is a

central goal that no one disagrees

with.

There is a lot of disagreement,

however, about the types of laws

necessary to accomplish that goal.

That is important to keep in mind,

because many of the debates taking

place around the States are between

this faction and that faction. People

get the impression that some think

it is okay for sex offenders to be

wandering around our communities

with minimal restrictions. That is

really not the case. Most of the

debate centers on how to write the

rules, not the central goal. It is very

important to keep that in mind.

From a political perspective,

there are two ways to look at this

problem. (Most people do not look

at problems from a political

perspective, but then they do not

have to run for office every 2

years.) The first issue we have to

look at is policy. What is good

policy? The other issue is politics.

What are good politics? Both issues

are very important to almost every

legislator.
Page 88 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The sex offender issue, as much

as any other issue in the political

universe, is good politics. Each and

every one of us likes to talk about

this issue on the campaign trail

because people pay attention. It

grabs the public’s attention and that

means votes. So it is very important

for us to be able to talk about sex

offender issues, but it has to be just

as important to write policies that

respond to the problem. If it works

on the campaign trail, then we have

to make sure it works in the police

stations, in the courthouses, in the

probation offices, in the prisons and

in the community. That is my goal

as a policy maker.

In order to accomplish this, we

need to understand that the real

problem is public frustration.

Citizens are frustrated by the

perception that the criminal justice

system cannot deliver public safety.

That is what people are upset

about, and they focus on this issue

because they read in the

newspapers that multipleconviction sex offenders are living

in their communities. These

offenders are not on parole or

probation any more. They are

roaming around and preying on

new victims and that gets into the

newspapers. “How come the

criminal justice system let these

people slip through the cracks?” the

public asks. That is what people are

upset about.

Connecticut’s experience

drafting sex offender laws

We started to address some of

these problems in Connecticut 4 or

5 years ago and, naturally, we made

some mistakes. I am sure that

similar mistakes were made in

other States. We also had some

great achievements, but we should

keep the public’s frustration in

mind. The public does not seem

upset about the handling of every

sex offender, such as people

convicted of statutory rape. Rather,

the public is upset about predatory

pedophiles.

The rules we write in the State

legislatures can do a lot of good,

but they can also do a lot of

damage. The most damaging

problem is directing financial

resources to areas that, ultimately,

do not contribute to public safety.

My greatest fear is that many States

may end up creating systems that

generate a lot of paperwork and a

lot of forms for police and

probation officers to fill out, but

that do not contribute to public

safety.

Here is an example of a problem

we had in Connecticut. We

originally passed a sex offender

registration law that required

persons convicted of felony sex

offenses to register. That made

perfect sense to the politicians. We

were debating on the floor of the

chambers about what offenses

should carry a registration

requirement. Persons convicted of a

sex offense seemed a logical

choice. After all, people who prey

on children should have to register.

We ought to know where they are.

Unfortunately, my colleagues

and I never talked to prosecutors,

public defenders and other

professionals who knew how the

system works. If we had, we would

have found out that most

pedophiles convicted in our

criminal justice system are not

convicted of sexual assault. The

offense is called “risk of injury to a

minor” in our State. You may have

similar terminology in your States.

It took 3 years before that

offense was added to the list of

those requiring registration. Please

keep in mind that registering

pedophiles was always our goal,

and they were not even on the list

of those required to register. Here

we were generating all these forms

that probably did not relate to the

predators who were the risk to

children.

We were also very nervous over

the last few years in Connecticut

about enacting legislation that

would later be found

unconstitutional. A good example

is the civil commitment statute. I

am sure that every State legislature

will soon pass civil commitment

statues now that the U.S. Supreme

Court has established the

guidelines. Unfortunately, a lot of

elected officials went full steam

into sex offender statutes that did

not stand up to appellate review. In

so doing, they created a lot of extra

work for police and probation

departments that was ultimately

torpedoed because the Supreme

Court overturned certain

legislation. That is a problem we do

not have any more.

Connecticut lawmakers

learn from justice agencies

This is my plea to all of you

here today. As politicians, we are

interested in responding to

problems — fear about public

safety, for instance — but we rely

upon justice agencies to educate us

about the day-to-day realities of the

problems the agencies want to

address. We need your input on

problems we can address by statute

or by providing you with the

resources you need to make our

legislation work.

Let me give you an example.

We reached out to our justice

agencies a few years ago to find out

what help they needed. These were

some of the responses.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 89

— Juvenile offenders

First, we learned that, in many

cases, Connecticut juveniles getting

their first sex-offense arrest at age

13, 14, or 15 often received no

punishment until their fourth or

fifth arrest. In Connecticut’s justice

system, individuals under age 16

are considered juveniles and not

much happens when they get

arrested for crimes. They may be

sentenced to some sort of minimal

supervision but not much else.

Then the offenders hit age 16 and

commit other sex offenses. They

are arrested and prosecuted as

adults, but they can avoid serious

punishment by applying for

Youthful-Offender status.

After still more arrests for sex

offenses, they can apply for

Accelerated-Rehabilitation status.

Young sex offenders with multiple

convictions took advantage of all

these entitlements. It was not until

their fourth or fifth arrest that they

actually got convicted.

The prosecutors suggested that

young sex offenders should not be

allowed to take advantage of

Youthful-Offender or AcceleratedRehabilitation entitlements

because, as we all know, people do

not grow out of this type of

conduct. If we target them right off

the bat, we could provide treatment

or incapacitate these types of

offenders before they victimize

other people. In the end, they will

be registered with all the

restrictions that go along with

registration requirements.

As politicians, we would not

have thought of that ourselves.

Those suggestions came from

juvenile and adult prosecutors who

asked to change the law in a way

that helped them considerably.

— Terminology

Another example is the actual

definition of the term “sex

offender.” When we defined that

term and included it on the list of

offenses that carried a registration

requirement, defense attorneys

responded accordingly. Once they

knew the offenses on the list, they

began advising their clients to

plead guilty to crimes that were not

on the list. In the most serious cases

that hinged on the testimony of a

child-age victim, prosecutors felt it

was safer to allow a plea bargain to

a lesser offense and a guaranteed

prison sentence rather than risk the

child not testifying.

We were asked to remedy that

situation by creating a list with the

most frequent sex offenses, but

giving justice agencies the

discretion to seek registration and

notification requirements for

crimes that were not on the list but

that may involve sex offenses

against children, such as

kidnapping or reckless

endangerment. We gave the

agencies that discretion. If they

determine an individual is a sex

offender even though he has not

been convicted of specific crimes

on the sex offense list, we still

allow them to require that person to

register upon release from

incarceration or supervision.

— Lifetime probation

Another strong suggestion we

received was for lifetime probation

for sex offenders. What good is it if

someone is in jail for 10 years and

then on parole or probation for a

couple more years, after which they

walk away without any supervision

whatsoever? We lack the leverage

to control them after that. They

may have to register, but where do

we get the justification to keep tabs

on them on a daily basis?

The Connecticut Legislature

adopted lifetime probation for sex

offenders, although the prosecutors

do not apply it that often. They

were concerned that probation

officers already had too many cases

to monitor. The average caseload

for probation officers in

Connecticut is more than 200.

Therefore, we decided to create a

special unit in the probation and

parole office to monitor only highrisk sex offenders. We established

and funded that office and it will

soon be up and running throughout

the State.

We have a very small State with

only 6 counties and 3.3 million

people. Two of our counties now

have these specialized sex offender

probation and parole units. They

have been very successful and, as I

said, the program will soon be

implemented statewide. We want

the people monitoring the sex

offenders to be specially trained so

they know what to look for.

In my opinion, the registration

and community notification process

is the last resort. The first resort is

incapacitation. Registration and

notification are fallbacks. If all else

fails and there is no other option,

then by all means, we should know

where these sex offenders live.

I would rather increase the

penalties for predatory-type sex

offenses so we can put people in

jail forever. If the offender is

released from jail, then let us make

sure he is under tight supervision.

That is why we implemented a

minimum 10-year probation period

following any sentence of

imprisonment in Connecticut. If

someone goes to jail for 10 years,

then he or she will be on probation

for 10 years when incarceration

ends.
Page 90 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

— Intervention

We gave parole and probation

officers special authority to

intervene if they determine that a

convicted sex offender is

improperly interacting with

children. One convicted offender in

Connecticut was dressing up like

Santa Claus. Parole and probation

officers can put someone like that

right back in jail. We developed an

expedited process to accomplish

that. It makes sense. People do not

grow out of this type of behavior.

The suggestion to implement that

program came from our parole and

probation people. We would have

never thought of it on our own.

— Alford Doctrine

A recent problem becoming

more and more common in

Connecticut is that people are

pleading guilty to sex offenses

under the Alford Doctrine,1 which

allows a defendant to plead guilty

to a crime while not admitting that

he or she committed it. “I do not

admit that I committed this crime,”

a sex offender will say. “I agree to

plead guilty because I think you

could convict me. I am not going to

admit to the crime at sentencing. I

am just going to take my 10 years.”

The offender is sentenced to

prison for 10 years along with a

registration requirement upon

release. The offender does not

register and his probation officer

tries to put him back in jail. In

court, the offender says, “How can

I violate my probation? I said at

sentencing that I did not admit

committing the crime.” We asked

prosecutors not to allow guilty

pleas under the Alford Doctrine if

 

1 In North Carolina v. Alford 91 Sup.

Ct. 160 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court

held that an individual accused of a

crime may voluntarily and knowingly

consent to the imposition of a prison

sentence even if he is unwilling or

unable to admit his participation in the

acts constituting the crime.

they are going to seek treatment or

registration as conditions of

probation, because it defeats the

whole purpose.

Registration as a ‘last resort’

Finally, I want to address the

issue of registration and

notification as last a resort. Three

convicted sex offenders in New

Jersey get out of jail at virtually the

same time. All three have served

their maximum sentences and there

are no probation requirements or

supervision. They have finished

their sentences. They rent an

apartment together. A few weeks

later, Megan Kanka, who lived

right across the street, is raped and

murdered by one of them. As we all

know, this resulted in Megan’s

Law.

This type of crime could be

prevented in Connecticut because

we require some form of

supervision for all sex offenders

when they finish a prison sentence.

In the future, persons sentenced

under our new laws will have

lengthy supervision. Our argument

is that sex offenders should not be

living near potential victims. If

someone finishes a jail sentence,

and his probation and parole

supervisors feel he constitutes a

risk to a potential victim, then he

should not be allowed to live in

proximity to that potential victim.

Forget about notifying the

neighbors. He should not be living

near the potential victim in the first

place. That suggestion came

directly from our parole people. We

make it clear in our statute that

parole officials can determine

where a sex offender can and

cannot live.

I read the results of a

Massachusetts public opinion poll

the other day that surveyed the

public’s attitudes about the criminal

justice system. Polltakers asked

respondents to rate the credibility

of the different parts of the criminal

justice system: the courts, the

police, probation and parole, and

corrections. Which agency do you

think received the lowest rating?

Respondents ranked the courts

lowest in credibility. The police

received the highest rating. Courts,

probation and parole and

corrections were all rated very

close to each other but courts

received the lowest rating.

One problem we all have is that

we tend to blame other parts of the

criminal justice system when

something goes wrong. The police

blame the courts. The courts blame

the prisons. The prisons blame

parole. Everybody blames the

politicians, the laws and the

liberals. Politicians blame the

media and the courts. It is a big,

vicious circle and a self-defeating

process.

Those of us who care about the

integrity of the criminal justice

system have to learn to work

together. It has been our experience

in Connecticut when reforming our

juvenile justice system, our sex

offender laws or our truth-insentencing system that we learn a

lot when we talk to the

professionals. After we talk to the

professionals, the laws we pass

tend to work. Our reward is holding

a press conference and a ceremony

with the governor signing an

effective crime bill. That is how we

look good. We put that in our

political mailers and we are done

with it. That is rewarding to me. I

am not a unique politician in that

respect.

When you get back to your

States, I advise you to call your

elected officials who are interested

in criminal justice and invite them

to where you work. Ask them to

come and listen to your day-to-day

frustrations about too much

paperwork or lack of effective

resources. I think you will find that

politicians love to come and listen

to you because it makes them

sound like they know what they are

talking about. You may also find
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 91

that your suggestions make it into

the final legislative packages.

I get credit card solicitations like

everyone else. These solicitations

have fine print and footnotes, but

like everyone else, the first thing I

look at is the interest rate. That is

all we care about. We sometimes

do not want to read the fine print.

That is kind of how it is with

legislation. We may want to vote

for a piece of legislation like

Megan’s Law without taking time

to write the fine print that will

make the law more effective for our

justice agencies.

We have the opportunity to

write the fine print in many of these

bills, and you will find legislators

and their staffs want to know what

justice agencies think. What do you

think will work? By working

together, we can create legislation

that meets the broad demands of

the public and that also contains the

fine print that will allow justice

agencies to use the legislation

effectively.
Page 92 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

The big picture of sex offenders and public policy

FLORENCE SHAPIRO

Senator

Texas State Senate

It is a beautiful day here in the

State of Washington. In fact,

today’s weather reminds me of a

similar day in Plano, Texas, which

is a suburb of Dallas. It was Labor

Day 1993. Diana and Dick Estelle

were watching their son play in a

soccer tournament. Like many 7-

year-olds, their young daughter,

Ashley, quickly became bored, so

she asked her parents if she could

play at a playground just a few

hundred yards away. Lots of other

children were playing there. The

Estelles decided to let her go to the

playground. The decision will

haunt them for the rest of their

lives.

In a single, treacherous, lifetorturing moment, Dick felt an

instant rush of horror when he

turned his head and saw that

Ashley was gone. It is a horror that

startles the strongest parents from

their sleep. In the next several

hours, Ashley was abused and

strangled. Her happiness, her

innocence and her life were taken

from her. The abduction, rape and

murder of 7-year-old Ashley

Estelle became my passion for the

next 4 years in the Texas Senate.

It was the end of my innocence

as a lawmaker, and it was my

introduction to the very complex

and very difficult world of sex

offenders and criminal justice. As

vice chair of the Texas Senate’s

Criminal Justice Committee, I

quickly learned that there were

many intertwining facets involved

in sex offense issues. I have also

come to know that there are a

number of qualified people

knowledgeable in a variety of

aspects of this issue in areas such

as adjudication, punishment,

treatment, assessment, tracking,

registration, public notification and

commitment.

While still in their infancy

stages, each and every one of these

aspects is becoming a welldeveloped area of expertise across

this country. The amount of

information and research continues

to accumulate every day. However,

I am not here to talk to you as an

expert in any one of these fields.

Any input of mine in specific fields

would be rudimentary to our

purposes here.

Instead, I would like to take a

few minutes to share something

that has become very familiar. It is

something that changes

continuously, something for which

there is no ending or absolute

perfection. It is something so

obvious that we often neglect to

view it properly. It is the big

picture of sex offenders and public

policy.

For the next few minutes, I

would like to step out of the micro

and discuss the issue of sex

offenders and the criminal justice

system from a macro perspective,

not only because of its importance,

but also because of the tremendous

impact that sex offender laws have

had on our criminal justice systems

and on each of our States in a few

short years. My premise is that the

criminal justice system must be

transformed or at least modified to

effectively handle the adjudication,

the punishment, the tracking, the

monitoring and the treatment of

today’s sex offender.

I will argue that putting the

modern sex offender into the

traditional criminal justice system

is usually as successful as keeping

a snake in a shoebox. The confines

of the apparatus are simply

inadequate to restrain its contents.

It is often difficult to come to any

solid conclusions about what

course of action to take. For

example, the debate over the origin

and the cause of pedophilia is

difficult. Some research indicates it

is a mental deficiency or

abnormality. Other research

indicates that sexual deviance is a

progression of acts. In some

aspects, this issue is almost as

difficult as the age-old abortion

debate over when life begins.

It is difficult to draw

conclusions, but conclusions are

necessary if we are to draft

effective legislation. As policy

makers, we rarely have the luxury

of having it both ways. This is

especially true when one considers

public safety. For example, am I

supposed to believe that deviant

sexual behavior is caused by

mental abnormality or illness? If it

is, then punishment by

incarceration would provide very

little deterrence. Am I supposed to

believe the argument that sex

offenses are a willful progression

of acts for which imprisonment is

totally appropriate?

Although information and

knowledge are accumulating, there

are very difficult and different

issues for which there is precious

little guidance, but there is one

thing we know to be absolutely

true: Sex offenders are a very

unique type of criminal. I like to

say they have three very unique

characteristics:
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 93

• They are the least likely to be

cured;

• They are the most likely to

reoffend; and

• They prey on the most

innocent members of our

society.

Three broad assumptions

I think we need to take a step

back so we can see the entire

picture; the forest in addition to the

trees. I want to begin with three

broad assumptions.

The first is that traditional

criminal justice systems are ill

equipped to handle sex offenders.

The second is that the public’s

primal fear of these offenders and

their crimes is unparalleled. It

requires our highest sensitivity and

utmost diligence. The third is that

effective policy for the States must

include a comprehensive legislative

and administrative approach to sex

offenders.

As you would expect, my

community of Plano was

completely shell-shocked following

Ashley’s abduction. Residents were

saddened, and they were frustrated,

not only by Ashley’s death, but

also by the manner in which Ashley

died. When the history of Ashley

Estelle’s murderer became known,

the community’s frustration turned

into deep-seated anger.

Michael Blair, Ashley’s

murderer, was a convicted sex

offender who was previously

released from prison after serving

only 17 months of a 10-year prison

sentence. It turned out this

occurrence is more the rule than the

exception. As a State senator, I

began to inquire about the criminal

justice system to find out how such

a predator could have been paroled

so early to prey on yet another

child, this time Ashley Estelle. I

called for an investigation. When I

finally received the report, it was

literally unbelievable.

The Internal Affairs Division

listed 34 specific errors in the

handling of Michael Blair from the

time he was arrested, through his

incarceration and on to the time of

his parole and release. Needless to

say, we drafted a series of bills,

which later became known as

Ashley’s Laws, that addressed

some of the problems we

uncovered. Suffice to say that,

without exception, the entire

criminal justice system had failed

my community and it was destined

to repeat its failure.

I will discuss the Michael Blair

case in more detail, not because of

Michael Blair or the State of Texas,

but because I truly believe it

illustrates what actually occurs

across the entire country on a daily

basis.

During our investigation into the

case, one reporter asked me,

“Senator, don’t you think Michael

Blair is just a quirk in the system?”

My response was, “No. I think this

is the system.”

— Assumption one: Justice

systems are ill-equipped

This leads to my first major

point. The traditional criminal

justice system is ill equipped to

handle sex offenders. Any

examination of the criminal justice

system should include a definition

of its terms. Let me tell you how I

define the word “system.” I use it

to refer to three separately

organized and autonomous parts:

law enforcement, the courts and

corrections.

In Texas, the Blair situation was

a textbook case study of how not to

handle sex offenders. Things went

wrong almost from the time of his

first arrest. He was arrested for the

crime of burglary of a habitation.

The actual intent of his crime was

to snatch a child, not to steal a

television set. This information was

lost when Blair plea-bargained to a

lesser charge. He was convicted

and sent to prison as a common,

everyday burglar.

He was given early parole due to

a Federal court order covering

overcrowding in the Texas prison

system. There was no indication in

any of his files that he was a violent

person or a predator. That led to the

next problem.

Even while on parole, his

supervisor had no indication of

Michael Blair’s motivation.

Because he had only been

convicted of burglary, Blair was

given low-level priority in his

probation officer’s caseload.

Because the probation officer had

such a heavy caseload, Blair was

free to prey on children in public

parks. That is when he happened

upon Ashley.

The Texas experience is

important for two reasons. One, we

now know that the Blair case did

not result from bad personnel in our

criminal justice system. It was the

result of bad policies. Two, the

Texas experience is not unique.

These types of situations happen

nationwide. Criminal justice

systems are, dare I say,

bureaucracies. As such, there are

inherent barriers that make it

extremely difficult for personnel to

carry out their duties.

This lack of accountability,

which occurs when intersystem

relationships are hampered, results

in the subsequent release of other

“Michael Blairs” who are

incarcerated in our prison systems.

This is the first lesson of the

Texas experience. When one

agency’s statutory duty to monitor

a sex offender has concluded, it is

the moral duty of that agency to

adequately pass the baton to the

next agency that is required to

monitor the offender. Clear

communication and effective

interagency policies are critical.

Oftentimes, the problem is not

miscommunication, but rather a

byproduct of the mammoth size of

the bureaucratic entities involved.

Even worse are the legislative and

administrative rules and policies
Page 94 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

that bind the hands of criminal

justice officials and prevent them

from doing their jobs.

Granted, Texas is a very large

State. We have 254 counties and

almost 20 million people. There are

150,000 people incarcerated in our

correctional facilities today. I was

shocked to find that most States,

including Texas, required the

express consent of the offender

before agencies could share

information. It is inexcusable to me

that an offender must give

permission before a probation

officer can share vital information

with a police officer. This leads to

lesson number two of the Texas

experience.

Legislatures and justice agencies

must remove barriers that prevent

the free flow of information

between agencies so criminal

justice professionals are not

reluctant to do their jobs out of fear

of liability. Information is critical

to our systems. Secrecy is the sex

offender’s best friend, so we must

shine a light on everything they do.

Here is lesson number three of the

Texas experience.

Individual agencies are unable

to impose systemwide changes,

even when they are aware of

specific policy problems. The

legislature working hand-in-hand

with justice professionals can make

systemwide changes. This lesson

was clearly written as long ago as

1967, when the President’s

Commission on Law Enforcement,

commenting on the separate parts

of the criminal justice system,

stated, “These parts are by no

means independent of each other.

What each one does and how it

does it has a direct effect on the

work of the others.”

Reforming or reorganizing any

part of a justice system or a

procedure affects the other

components of the justice system.

Therefore, a study of a justice

system must begin by examining

the system as a whole. We must

step back and examine the entire

system and root out anything that

prevents us from efficiently

carrying out sound public policies.

— Assumption two: Sound

public policy is critical

That leads me to the next

question. Why is it so critical that

we have sound public policy in this

area? The answer brings me to the

second broad assumption: the

public’s unparalleled primal fear of

sex offenders and their crimes. It

requires our highest sensitivity and

utmost diligence. I do not believe

you can effectively discuss the sex

offender issue without also

discussing the public and its safety.

This is the primary factor

responsible for much of the

legislation that results in public

policy, both good and sometimes

bad, regarding sex offenders.

For legislators, it is the call that

must be answered, and answered

swiftly. James Baldwin once said,

“If one really wishes to know how

justice is administered in this

country, one does not question the

policemen. One does not question

the lawyers or the judges. One goes

to the unprotected; those precisely

who need the protection the most,

and listen to their testimony.”

Ladies and gentlemen, if you hear

the testimony of those who need

protection most, it will motivate

you.

Nowhere does the duty of our

system manifest itself so greatly as

it does here. There is something

absolutely terrifying and

threatening to our basic freedom

when you talk about a sex offender

whose victims are children. The

nature and deviousness of these

offenders and the innocent and

vulnerable character of their

victims combine to form a highly

toxic and flammable mixture when

it comes to public confidence in the

system. The public does not really

care what we do with sex

offenders. All it cares about is that

these offenders are kept off our

streets. The fear is understandable.

After all, what could be more

devastating and what could be

more evil than stealing the

innocence from one more child?

I mention this area because I

think it is very important for all of

us to understand how the public’s

justifiable fear results in legislation.

It is not the place for legislators to

waffle on public safety matters

simply because they are

controversial. In fact, I believe

public safety is one of the most

important government functions. If

we do not do it well, we might as

well just turn off the lights and go

home.

However, we have a duty to do

what is right. We have a duty to do

what is just, and we have a duty to

do what is constitutional. This is

sometimes easier said than done,

especially when civil libertarians

are saying one thing and victims’

rights groups are saying something

else. Each of these groups has the

luxury of ignoring the other.

Legislators must hear both sides

and try their best to legislate public

policy with both opinions in mind.

All legislators must also realize

that these issues are ripe for the

emotional fervor that leads to illadvised and even unconstitutional

public policy. That is why the

expertise and ideas of justice

professionals are so essential to this

process. You must become our

partners in the public policy arena.

You must know that your

participation is vital to us. The

heightened response to sex

offenders is too new and your input

is too important to do otherwise.

You must be the ones to take your

knowledge and your information to

legislators, and help them forge

sound public policy. Make no

mistake about it, when tragedies

like Ashley’s occur, legislation will

be introduced. The strength and

efficiency of that legislation is

dependent on the input received
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 95

from our nation’s justice

professionals. Trust me. We need

you. That leads me to the third

broad assumption.

Assumption three: A

comprehensive approach is

most effective

Effective State policy must

necessarily result in a

comprehensive legislative and

administrative approach to sex

offenders. I have become

convinced that meaningful reform

in the area of sex offenders must

contain three elements. Number

one, it must be constitutional.

Number two, it must be

comprehensive. Number three, it

must be done from a foundation of

expertise, not simply from a kneejerk reaction.

I am a conservative senator. I

often agree with President

Woodrow Wilson, who said, “The

responsibility of government is to

render justice, not pity.” Let me

briefly outline what we did in

Texas through Ashley’s Laws.

Ashley’s Laws

Immediately after Ashley’s

abduction, it became clear that

something needed to be done

legislatively to bring Texas into the

20th century in relation to sex

offenders. We went to work. With a

watchful eye on the problems other

States were having in this area, I

created a task force of experts from

throughout my county who could

help draft legislation.

We had people from every

possible area. We had prosecutors

and law enforcement. We had the

American Civil Liberties Union.

We had parole and probation

officers, treatment providers and

victims’ advocates. Fortunately, the

Texas Legislature was not

scheduled to convene for another

18 months. It became obvious

during the course of our

discussions that a complete

overhaul of our sex offender

program was necessary. A change

in one or two areas did not remedy

other down-the-line problems we

never anticipated.

When it finished, the task force

had drafted 66 separate pieces of

legislation. I had to tell the task

force members how difficult it was

to get even one piece of legislation

passed. The list was then pared

down to 13 pieces of recommended

legislation. I would like to break

those down for you very briefly

into four specific areas: changes in

punishment standards; changes in

community supervision and parole

policies; changes in interagency

procedures; and the creation of

community safeguards.

— Punishment standards

In the area of punishment, we

passed a two-strike habitual sex

offender statute that requires an

offender to receive an automatic

35-year sentence without the

possibility of parole for a second

felony sex offense against a child.

Rape is also included in the statute.

After the offender serves his 35-

year sentence, the parole board

must receive a favorable

psychiatric report and 12 of 18

parole board members must vote in

the offender’s favor before parole

is granted.

We prohibit offenders from

receiving repeated community

supervision sentences. They are

allowed to be on probation only

once. If avoiding prison is their

main objective and probation is

their punishment of choice, we give

them only one chance.

— Community supervision

We made several changes in the

area of community supervision,

probation or parole. We created

“child safety zones” around areas

where children typically gather.

Offenders are prohibited from

being in these areas. This measure

also prohibits sex offenders from

participating in any activity or

profession involving children, such

as coaching, working at a daycare

center or serving as a church

counselor.

The law now requires longer

periods of community supervision

for offenders. The minimum period

is 5 years, and an offender must

serve at least two-thirds of it before

it can be terminated.

We also notify the victim if the

victim’s assailant is released into

the community on probation, or

what we call “deferred

adjudication.” Before the judge can

grant deferred adjudication or

probation, the judge must find in

open court that the offender’s

release is in the victim’s best

interest, not in the criminal’s best

interest. We also require that an

offender must be enrolled and

attending treatment as a condition

of release.

— Interagency procedures

In terms of the changes we

implemented in interagency

procedures, we were only limited

by our imagination. We removed

barriers so volunteer centers can

access quality information when

providing background checks for

nonprofit organizations. Pedophiles

are often found in nonprofit

organizations. Background checks

are essential for those individuals.

We require continuing legal

education for lawyers and judges.

This is a new field, and they should

understand its unique

characteristics. We provide liability

immunity when agencies share

information with each other or with

treatment providers. We overhauled

the registration system database by

requiring that the offender no

longer register himself. The

releasing entity, the court and the

correction facility must fill out a

registration form for the offender

and forward it to the Department of

Public Safety, where the database is

housed. A copy of the registration

form must then be sent to the police
Page 96 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

chief or the sheriff in the

community where the offender

intends to reside.

This must all be done before the

offender is released. Upon release,

the offender must personally appear

at the local law enforcement

agency within 7 days. We also

require the offender to notify local

law enforcement if he intends to

move at least 7 days prior to the

move. He must also notify law

enforcement of the location of his

new residence.

Local law enforcement may

verify registration as often as it

deems appropriate, and certain

offenders may be required to verify

their addresses every 90 days. We

require sexually violent predators

to register for life. Because a

complete and comprehensive

database is our main goal, we made

registration retroactive.

We began requiring sex

offenders to register in September

1991. In the last legislative session,

we established registration

requirements retroactively back to

1970. If you are still in the Texas

criminal justice system — and that

means paroled, probated or

incarcerated — you must be a

registered sex offender in our

registered sex offender database.

Under our new law, failure to

register or to keep registration

information current is a fourthdegree felony punishable by up to 2

years in jail. Registry information

is public information accessible to

any person upon written request.

— Community safeguards

We had our hardest fight in the area

of community safeguards. Our

public notification system was the

most significant and controversial

measure. With a watchful eye on

the rest of the country, we tried to

avoid the problems other States

experienced in this sensitive area.

We tried to benefit from what

the courts told other States. The

courts seemed to indicate that a

notification statute must carefully

balance the State’s interest, which

is the public’s right to know,

against the offender’s 14th

Amendment liberty interests. Under

Ashley’s Laws, we publish

information about a sex offender in

the newspaper if the victim was age

17 or younger. We do not publish

information if the offender is a

juvenile. If incest is the crime

committed, we do not publish a

notice, regardless of the victim’s

age.

Once a citizen sees a published

notice about a sex offender, he or

she is free to contact local law

enforcement for additional

information. It is very important to

remember there is a specific reason

for notification. It is not to foster a

vigilante atmosphere. It is to warn

parents that they should be aware

of someone who lives nearby.

Remind the public of this.

Providing the offender’s exact

street address may not be

necessary, in my opinion. Listing

the street where he lives is often

good enough, and it is certainly

more likely to survive a court

challenge.

— Victims’ access

The last community safeguard I

want to discuss is the necessary

function of giving victims direct

access to the system. The laws

must respect the victim’s position

and role in this area. Notify the

victim and the victim’s family of

the assailant’s release. Allow

victims to appear at parole hearings

if they choose to. Do not tolerate an

offender’s attempts to contact his

victim.

This is a battle of rights. Whose

rights are more important in this

situation? You must tip the scales

in favor of victims and law-abiding

citizens. You must remove the sex

offender’s best friend — his

secrecy. Your laws must say loud

and clear that children are

important to us. If you chose to

harm one, we now have special

laws to punish you and to keep

track of you. These are the

highlights of Ashley’s Laws. I am

sure we will make many more

changes in the never-ending

process to improve public policy

for our State.

I came into this issue as a

novice. I have learned a lot in the

last 4 years. There is so much to

learn. We can learn from each other

and from every justice professional

who deals with this issue.

Hopefully, if States work together,

we will not have to keep

reinventing the wheel.

I encourage each expert in this

critical field to help States craft

model comprehensive statutes. I

think one of the most important

functions of these conferences is to

come to conclusions, as difficult as

they may be, and to help put some

sound and tested ideas into action.

Someone once said, “An ounce of

action is worth a ton of theory.”

The future

What does the future hold for

States in the area of sex offenders

and public policy? I think there are

three emerging areas on the

horizon. I would like to briefly

mention them.

The first is technology.

Technological advances will

continue to unfold. States will be

more progressive in using existing

technology, telecommunications

and global satellite positioning to

alleviate ever-increasing sex

offender supervision caseloads.

Technology will also benefit

treatment through

plethysmographs,1 polygraphs or

DNA testing.

Second, I believe you will see a

plethora of civil commitment

 

1 An instrument that measures

variations in the size of an organ or

body part on the basis of the amount

of blood passing through or present in

the part.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 97

statutes across the country in light

of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling

on the civil commitment statutes.

The third area is juvenile sex

offenders. I am extremely

concerned about them. I believe we

can make our smartest investment

in reducing certain sex offenses if

we focus attention on this area.

While the literature is becoming

substantial in this field, very few

States have truly focused on

juvenile sex offenders.

As someone at a Washington,

D.C. conference said last fall, “It’s

true that not all juvenile sex

offenders will become adult sex

offenders, but many, many adult

sex offenders began as juveniles.”

If we are fortunate enough to assess

and identify a juvenile sex offender

at an early age, we could do so

much to prevent him from a life of

offending, and we could spare

thousands of needless victims.

In closing, I want to reiterate

three points I discussed:

1. We need to overhaul our entire

criminal justice system to

better control sex offenders;

2. We must never forget we are

doing this to protect the public;

and

3. We must remember that any

changes made to the system

must be comprehensive,

sweeping and constitutional.

The States cannot wait. As each

of you leaves this conference, I

hope you do not forget the big

picture when you return to your

specific fields of expertise.

Nothing stays in my mind more

vividly and helps me to move

forward on this issue than a plaque

that sits in front of Mitchell

Elementary School in Plano. The

plaque reads, “In loving memory of

Ashley Nicole Estelle. Dedicated to

all children and their right to play

in safety.”
Panel of the states: Community notification and verification practices

The State of Washington study of the efficacy of notification laws

Roxanne Lieb

Community notification and verification practices in three States

Scott A. Cooper
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 101

The State of Washington study of the efficacy of notification laws

ROXANNE LIEB

Director

Washington State Institute of Public Policy

I tend to have schizophrenic

feelings when I participate in

events like this. I am horrified by

many of the stories we hear about

terrible crimes. Simultaneously, I

feel a sense of energy and

commitment when I see all the

important progress that has been

made regarding policies for sex

offenses. I began to confront these

issues in the 1970s, when I started

volunteering on a rape crisis line. If

someone told me back then that, by

1997, a talented group of

professionals from all over the

country would be assembled to

discuss improvements in sex

offender registration and

notification programs, I am not sure

I would have believed it. I feel

quite privileged to be in your midst.

The research conducted by the

Washington State Institute of

Public Policy on registration and

community notification statutes

depends entirely on the people we

contact from the States, who

respond to our surveys. We are

very appreciative of these

contributions. We are about to

release an updated version of our

“Megan’s Law” survey with

information on 46 States.1

We are also conducting a public

opinion survey you might find

interesting. We are placing random

telephone calls to adults in the State

of Washington asking questions

 

1 The Study is available from the

Washington State Institute of Public

Policy, Seminar 3162, Mail Stop: TA00, The Evergreen State College,

Olympia, WA 98505. The study can

also be accessed at

www.wa.gov/wsipp.

about their experiences with

notification and soliciting their

opinions about it. The results of

that survey will be available soon.2

I have been asked to discuss the

research that the Institute has

conducted on community

notification issues. I was asked to

cover this topic because our

research is the only notification

research currently available. I

would encourage other

organizations to conduct similar

research.

I receive telephone calls all the

time from reporters who ask, “Is

community notification a good

law? Is it effective? Is it working?”

They want short answers, of

course, and I keep annoying them

because these questions cannot be

answered with simple responses. In

fact, some reporters start asking

questions about registration and it

turns out they really want to know

about notification. “Do you want to

know about registration or

notification?” I ask them. “You

bureaucrats are all alike,” one

responded. “You always try to

complicate things.” There are

significant differences between

registration and notification, of

course, and there are also keen

differences in their intended

effects.

Our research covers the first 3

years of notification in our State.

The most ideal research on the

effects of notification or any other

new social policy would include a

comparison group. Drug companies

use comparison groups when

 

2 Ibid.

testing new medications — one

group gets the test medicine and the

other takes a placebo. If you have

enough people in your sample, you

iron out the differences that might

occur by chance. It is difficult to

use that process when determining

the effects of a new law. We had to

search for an adequate comparison

group; in this case, a similar group

of sex offenders who were released

without notification.

Study results

Our study covered

approximately 125 offenders

identified by law enforcement as

posing high risk to the public.

These were not what you might call

“average sex offenders.” They had

extensive offending histories, and

included several juveniles with

histories of serious offenses.

The study compared recidivism

rates of offenders who were

released with and without

notification. Let me stop here and

ask you: What result would

demonstrate the effectiveness of the

law?

At first blush, most people say

that learning that the notification

group committed fewer sex

offenses than the comparison group

shows that the law was working.

Some people, however, believe that

a finding of a low recidivism rate

proves that the police picked the

wrong subjects for notification

because they did not reoffend.
Page 102 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

When we compared the study

group to the comparison group, we

found that they committed about

the same number of new sex

offenses. The only difference was

the timing of rearrest. The

community notification group was

rearrested about twice as quickly as

the comparison group. The average

time in the community before

rearrest was about 2 to 2-1/2 years

for the notification group. It was

closer to 5 years for the comparison

group. Some people interpret the

study results to reveal that the law

failed because there was not much

difference in the rate of new sex

offenses. In my opinion, the fact

that offenders were rearrested twice

as quickly indicates that the law

does have an effect. In ways we do

not yet fully understand, the law is

producing a different response from

the offender, law enforcement and

or the community, either in

combination or alone.

The question that needs to be

addressed in a study like this is

subtler than, “How do recidivism

rates for sex offenses compare?”

We found that, in addition to

looking at recidivism for sex

offenses, it was just as important to

look at recidivism for other

offenses. We have consistently

learned in our research on sex

offenders that many of their new

crimes are not sex offenses. In most

instances, we care so much about

sex crimes and focus only on

sexual recidivism that we forget

about the nonsexual crimes these

offenders commit.

Next stage of research

The next stage of research

should focus on the circumstances

surrounding rearrest.

How many cases involved a tip

from a community member that led

law enforcement to the offender? In

how many instances did rearrest

occur because law enforcement was

paying attention to the behaviors of

identified offenders or using

notification as a tool for

investigation?

The next phase should also

focus on the nature of offending

and the crimes committed. We tend

to think about sex offenses as a

huge category. There are a variety

of sex offenses, and there is variety

in terms of the seriousness of

conduct. When we examined our

two study groups, we found that

people who were in the notification

group may have been arrested for

slightly less serious conduct, if one

assumes the label of the crime

reflects the actual behavior. The

number of individuals on this

question was so small that

conclusions are not possible.

Ideally, the next research

projects will also examine the

circumstances surrounding rearrest,

and the nature of the behavior.

I do not believe that

Washington’s experience and

research on community notification

are necessarily relevant for other

States. Registration and notification

systems are different all over the

country and so is the way people

respond to them. A notification law

in one community is very different

from a notification law in another

community.

Thinking ahead, we must also be

aware that reactions to the law and

its effectiveness may vary over

time. People react differently when

they hear about their 20th offender

than they do when hear about their

first. An ongoing evolution occurs

in a community’s understanding of

how to respond to this information.

An evolution will also occur with

regard to the reaction by sex

offenders to the law, including both

those identified as high risk and

those who are not so identified.

Thus, one should not, in any way,

consider this particular study as

anything other than a beginning

point in terms of our understanding

how notification laws work and the

impact they have on the sex

offender population.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 103

Community notification and verification practices in three States

SCOTT A. COOPER

Staff Attorney

National Criminal Justice Association

The National Criminal Justice

Association recently submitted a

draft report to the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, U.S. Department of

Justice.1 The report describes how

sex offender registration and

notification laws work in four

States: Alaska, Louisiana, New

Jersey and Washington. These four

States were chosen for the report

because of the diversity of their

notification laws.

I will discuss the Alaska,

Louisiana and New Jersey laws to

illustrate some of the issues that

face law- and policymakers as they

draft sex offender registration and

notification laws. The laws in these

three States are not intended to be

models of perfect notification laws,

and I certainly do not suggest that

these laws are necessarily in

compliance with the Wetterling

Act.2 However, I want to share

what these States are doing so you

can get a feel for the diversity of

approaches they have taken. My

discussion focuses primarily on

notification laws, but I may touch

on registration issues as well.

The Alaska law provides for

passive notification; citizens must

seek out registry information.

Louisiana provides for active

notification; sex offenders must

notify the communities in which

they live. New Jersey also provides

 

1 National Criminal Justice

Association, Sex Offender Community

Notification (Washington, D.C.:

NCJA, November 1997).

2 The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent

Offender Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. §

14071.

for active notification; its statute

establishes stringent notification

procedures that local jurisdictions

are required to follow. Washington

allows significant discretion to

local jurisdictions when

implementing their notification

programs.

Alaska’s law

Alaska’s registration and

notification statute became

effective in 1994.3 The offender

must register in person at a State

trooper post or at the municipal

police department in his area of

residence. The registration form is

submitted to the Alaska

Department of Public Safety

(DPS), which maintains the central

sex offender registry.

Notification is passive. The

public must request sex offender

information in writing on a

standardized form provided by the

Alaska State Trooper Permits and

Licensing Unit for a $10

nonrefundable fee.

Sex offender information

requests may be made about a

particular registrant or about all

registrants in a particular

municipality, village, ZIP code or

street. The Alaska statute protects

the victim’s identity from

disclosure unless the information is

contained in court documents or

other documents available to the

public. The offender may submit a

written response to the DPS to

correct or modify information in

the central registry or to add an

explanatory note. If a request to

 

3 ALASKA STAT. § 18.65.087(a)

(Michie 1996).

change, correct, modify or add

information is denied, the offender

may appeal the denial to the DPS

commissioner. If that appeal is

denied, the offender may appeal the

commissioner’s decision to the

court.

Offenders may not challenge the

scope of notification, because

notification is passive and

interested citizens must seek out

registry information. It is not

disseminated to the public.

The law also requires the DPS

commissioner to notify a victim if

his or her assailant escapes from

custody, if he is furloughed into the

community on an early release

program, or if he leaves custody for

any other reason. The

commissioner must notify the

victim of an offender’s status

change only if the victim requests

such notice. As part of this notice,

the commissioner must send the

victim a photograph of the offender

taken within 3 weeks of the

offender’s release if the victim

specifically requests the

photograph in writing.

Louisiana’s law

Louisiana’s notification statute

was enacted in 1992, and revised in

1995.4 The State Bureau of

Criminal Identification and

Information maintains a central

registry of sex offender

information. Louisiana’s

notification law is unique because

it requires offenders to conduct

community notification themselves.

In rural areas, an offender must

 

4 LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 15:540

through 15:549 (West Supp. 1997).
Page 104 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

reveal his residence location to at

least one person in every residence

or business within a one-mile

radius of his residence. In urban or

suburban areas, the offender must

meet the same notification

requirements within a three-block

area. The offender must also notify

the superintendent of the school

district where he will reside. The

superintendent notifies the

principal of every school that he or

she thinks should be notified of the

offender’s name, address and crime

of conviction.

A minimum of 10 days before

the offender’s release from

custody, the Louisiana Department

of Public Safety and Corrections

must send a written notice of

release to the police chief of the

municipality where the offender

will reside and to the sheriff in the

parish where the offender will

reside, if practicable. Upon written

request, a notice of the offender’s

release must be sent to the victim

of the offender’s conviction crime,

to witnesses who testified against

the offender, and to any person the

prosecuting district attorney might

specify in writing.

A registrant must also notify via

mail all people living in the

designated area of his presence.

The designated area is a 1 mile

radius in rural areas and three

square blocks from the address

where the offender will reside in

urban and suburban areas. Within

30 days of establishing residency,

he must also publish — at his own

expense — a notice in an official

journal informing the community

of his presence. This notice must be

published on two separate days.

Meanwhile, Louisiana passed a law

in June 1997 that expanded the

scope of the publication

requirement to go beyond the

particular parish where the

registrant resides.5

 

5 1997 LA. SESS. LAW SERV. Act

134 (H.B. 174)(West).

Louisiana courts may order any

other form of notice they deem

appropriate, including, but not

limited to, signs, handbills, bumper

stickers and clothing labeled to

identify the registrant as a sex

offender. As far as I know, no

judge has ordered any of these, but

the law does allow judges to take

these steps.

An offender may petition the

court for relief from the duty to

register and notify. The court must

consider the nature of the sex

offense and the registrant’s

criminal and noncriminal behavior

before and after his conviction. The

court may also consider other

factors. The registrant must prove

by clear and convincing evidence

that notification will not serve the

law’s purpose to protect the

community.

New Jersey’s law

The New Jersey notification

statute was enacted in 1994.6 The

chief law enforcement officer in the

municipality where the registrant

resides must notify the community

within 45 days after receiving

notice that an offender will be

released from jail or prison. The

county prosecutor determines who

is subject to what kind of

notification, and what tier of

notification is to be imposed upon

the offender.

The New Jersey attorney general

promulgated guidelines and

procedures in 1996 to notify the

community and also created the

Registrant Risk Assessment Scale

(RRAS) to help determine the risk

of reoffense.7 Based upon certain

criteria, the RRAS determines an

offender’s score, which indicates

 

6 N.J. REV. STAT. §§ 2C7-1 through

2C7-11 (West 1995 & Supp. 1996).

7 Guidelines for Law Enforcement for

Notification to Local Officials and/or

the Community of the Entry of a Sex

Offender into the Community (June 1,

1996, on file with author).

the likelihood that he will commit

another sex offense. The criteria

include the following:

• Conditions of release or postrelease supervision;

• Physical conditions that

minimize the risk of reoffense,

such as age or physical

incapacitation;

• Criminal history factors;

• Psychological or psychiatric

profiles;

• Response to treatment; and

• Recent behavior.

In New Jersey, each criterion is

assigned a score from 0 to 3. Zero

indicates a low risk of reoffense.

One indicates a moderate risk of

reoffense. The number 2 is not

assigned. Three indicates a high

risk of reoffense.

Some criteria are given more

weight than others. Individual

criterion scores are added to

achieve a total score. An offender

receiving a total weighted RRAS

score between 0 and 36 is classified

as Tier I. An offender receiving an

RRAS score between 37 and 73 is

classified as Tier II. An offender

receiving a total RRAS score

between 74 and 111 is classified as

Tier III.

Every offender is categorized as

at least a Tier I offender. For

notification purposes, local law

enforcement agencies that are

likely to encounter a Tier I offender

are notified of his presence in the

community. If an offender is

categorized as Tier II, he would

receive the same notification as

Tier I — local law enforcement

agencies likely to encounter the

offender would be notified of his

presence — and certain community

organizations would also be

notified. Those organizations must

register with the State in order to

receive notification. Tier III

offenders have the same

notification requirements as Tier II,

and the public is notified through

means designed to reach each
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 105

person who is likely to encounter

the offender.

The New Jersey guidelines

require prosecutors to train, educate

and notify community

organizations. A State prosecutor

meets with an organization the first

time the organization receives

notification that a sex offender is in

the community. The prosecutor

brings copies of flyers listing

information about the offender. The

prosecutor also explains the law,

stresses the importance of

confidentiality and warns of the

consequences of vigilantism. After

the initial meeting and notification,

the prosecutor simply notifies the

organization of subsequently

released offenders by mail or

telephone.

Legal challenges

In New Jersey

I want to address some of the

New Jersey case law which focuses

on the implementation of the

notification laws. Several New

Jersey court decisions have

clarified the scope of community

notification and the safeguards that

accompany notification. The most

important New Jersey case is Doe

v. Poritz.8 In Doe, a convicted sex

offender whose identity was not

 

8 Doe V. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995). On

July 25, 1995, the New Jersey Supreme

Court upheld the constitutionality of

the registration and notification laws

known as Megan’s Law. The court’s

ruling set certain due process

requirements that would need to be met

to implement the law’s community

notification provisions. Implementation

has taken a three-pronged approach: a

trial-level hearing to consider offender

challenges to notification requirements;

expedited appellate review; and the

formation of a committee to examine

consistency in the treatment of

offenders (Source: The Judiciary

Letter, An Information Sheet on New

Jersey Judiciary Programs produced by

the Administrative Office of the Courts,

October 1996.)

released challenged the notification

law on several grounds:

• He claimed notification

constituted double jeopardy, or

multiple punishments for the

same offense.

• He claimed that subjection to

notification requirements

constituted cruel and unusual

punishment and that it invaded

his privacy.

• He demanded equal protection

under the law, claiming that

the New Jersey notification

law treated persons who were

similarly situated differently.

• He argued for procedural due

process, claiming that the law

failed to provide an

opportunity to be heard and

notice of such hearing. This is

one area that the New Jersey

case law and subsequent

guidelines addressed with

procedural due process issues

and hearings.

The New Jersey Supreme Court,

the State’s highest court, upheld the

notification laws, but it interpreted

the statutes and revised the attorney

general’s guidelines. For Tier II

and Tier III notifications, it ruled

that there would have to be the

likelihood of an encounter to justify

notice to organizations that

requested notification. Notification

determinations had to be made on a

case-by-case basis with

organizations that registered for

notification with the State.

The same standard was applied

to Tier III community notification.

Individual determinations were

required to decide whether

organizations that requested

notification would receive that

notification. To qualify for

notification, these organizations

would have to be in charge of the

care or supervision of women and

children. That distinction was not

made before the Doe ruling.

In addition, pursuant to the

guidelines revised in June 1996,9

all public and private educational

institutions, including licensed

daycare centers and summer

camps, were automatically added to

the notification list without having

to register. The guidelines also

defined “likely to encounter” to

mean close geographic proximity to

a location the offender visits or can

be presumed to visit. It does not

necessarily mean his residence.

Before notification, the

prosecutor’s office or local law

enforcement was required to visit

the offender’s listed address to

verify that the offender lived there.

The Doe ruling also addressed

the offender’s behavior in the

community. It mandated that the

offender’s behavior in the

community following incarceration

be considered in all tier

considerations, and that

psychological or psychiatric

profiles had to be made available,

not only to increase an offender’s

risk assessment but also to decrease

tier classification.

Finally, Tiers II and III

offenders were granted access to

judicial review of their tier

classification. They were given

notice of this right to review before

the notification actually took place.

If an offender was classified as Tier

II or Tier III, the new guidelines

required that the offender be

supplied with a form before

community notification took place.

The offender indicated the basis for

his disagreement with or objection

to his tier classification on the

form. He also indicated his need for

assigned counsel or he was

required to provide the name of

counsel that had already been

obtained.

The offender had the right to

have an attorney present at his

hearing. The offender also received

a copy of his completed RRAS

 

9 See Footnote 7.
Page 106 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

along with a copy of the RRAS

manual that explained how the

score was determined. Before the

actual hearing, a prehearing

conference was held with a judge to

discuss any pertinent issues that

needed attention before the hearing.

The judge was authorized to

conduct the hearing immediately

after the prenotification hearing.

Another New Jersey Supreme

Court case also addressed

notification decisions.10 The court

ruled that risk assessment was a

useful tool to determine an

offender’s tier classification, but

that it should not be solely relied

upon. Risk assessment was found

not to be a scientific device. It was

to be used to guide and assess an

offender’s risk of reoffense. The

court also concluded that

nonconviction evidence and

reliable hearsay evidence may also

be considered in determining an

offender’s tier classification.

General rules of evidence would

not apply at a tier classification

hearing as they would in a regular

trial.

The State Supreme Court also

held that a convicted sex offender

should be permitted to obtain an

expert and to present expert

testimony at a tier designation

 

10 In re Registrant C.A., 679 A.2d

1153 (N.J. 1996). Prior to his release

from jail, C.A., a convicted sex

offender subject to New Jersey’s

registration and notification laws, was

notified that, pursuant to his RRAS

score, he would be classified as a Tier

III offender. He contended that his

RRAS score was incorrect because he

never used a weapon, he was

acquainted with all of his victims, and

he had only had two victims rather than

three because the charge by the third

victim was dismissed. The trial court

affirmed the Tier III classification. The

Supreme Court granted C.A.’s petition

for certification to the appellate

division.

hearing.11 In this case, the court

did not reclassify the offender, but

just remanded the case to the lower

court for a determination consistent

with its decision. In another ruling,

the court addressed the

psychological and psychiatric

factors that must be considered by

the court.

12 In that case, the court

actually reduced an offender’s tier

classification from Tier II to Tier I.

It held that the defendant’s tier

classification would have to be

reduced because psychological and

psychiatric factors were not taken

into account during his risk

assessment, rendering his RRAS

score unreliable.

 

11 In re Registrant G.B., 685 A.2d

1252 (N.J. 1996). G.B. pleaded guilty

to one court of second-degree sexual

assault and was sentenced to 5 years at

an adult treatment center. Upon release

and pursuant to the RRAS, he was

classified as a Tier II offender. He

sought judicial review of the

classification and at an in camera

judicial hearing, he sought to challenge

the predictive value of the RRAS as

applied to his circumstances. To

support his claims, he sought to

introduce evidence from three experts.

The trial court ruled that expert

testimony was unwarranted. G.B.

appealed the trial court’s decision. The

appellate court concluded that G.B.

should be permitted to present expert

testimony to show that the variable

factors in the scale calculations as they

related to him should result in a lesser

tier classification.

12 In re Registrant E.I., No A-3767-

96T1, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 218

(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 7,

1997). The state commenced

proceedings to register E.I., a 21-yearold who pleaded guilty to endangering

the welfare of a child, as a Tier II

sexual offender under New Jersey’s

registration and notification law. The

appellate division held that E.I.’s

classification arising from his

consensual sexual relations with a 15-

year-old victim, involving no force, did

not come within the “heartland” of

cases which required notification.

Finally, in still another court

decision — this one in appellate

court — the court ruled that, to

facilitate judicial view of the

geographic scope of the community

notification, the prosecutor must

prepare a large-scale map of the

county with a color-coded grid to

identify low- to high-population

density areas.13 The map had to be

based upon census data, county

planning board data, or information

provided by local planning boards

and law enforcement officials.

Prosecutors were required to

locate a registrant’s residence or

workplace on the map and to apply

whatever approved distance criteria

was determined. Prosecutors were

also required to provide the

registrant with a list of registered

community organizations that were

notified of his presence and the

basis for that notification, whether

it was because the organizations

cared for women and children or

because they were within

geographic proximity of the

offender.

 

13 In re Registrant E.A., 667 A.2d

1077 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995).

E.A. was an adult convicted of sex

offenses against 12-, 13- and 14-yearold boys. His criminal conduct

subjected him to New Jersey’s

registration and notification laws. He

challenged the geographic scope of

notification on grounds that it was

arbitrarily conceived, void of expert

input, and therefore contrary to the

attorney general’s guidelines. The court

remanded the case to allow the

prosecutor to present to the trial court

proper proof consonant with its

opinion.
Contributors’ biographies
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 109

Contributors’ biographies

Marlene Beckman

Marlene Beckman serves as

Special Counsel to the Assistant

Attorney General for the Office of

Justice Programs (OJP), U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ). Prior

to joining OJP, Ms. Beckman

spent 3 years as a DOJ trial

attorney in the Criminal Division’s

Fraud Section.

Ms. Beckman is a 1985 graduate

of Georgetown University Law

Center. Before and during law

school, Ms. Beckman worked in

corrections and in the Civil Rights

Division for the DOJ’s Law

Enforcement Assistance

Administration. Ms. Beckman has

also performed white-collar criminal

defense work for two Washington,

D.C., law firms.

Robert R. Belair

SEARCH General Counsel

Robert R. Belair is a partner with

the Washington, D.C., law firm of

Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair.

Mr. Belair is also CEO of Privacy

and Legislative Associates, a legal

and policy consulting firm. Privacy

and information law involving

administrative, legislative and

litigation activity are the principal

emphases of Mr. Belair’s practice.

He provides counseling in all

aspects of privacy and information

law, including educational,

criminal, juvenile, medical,

employment, credit and financial

records; telecommunications;

defamation; criminal justice

administration; constitutional law;

and intellectual property, including

software copyrights.

As SEARCH General Counsel,

Mr. Belair contributes to

SEARCH’s privacy and security

programs. He authored many

studies in criminal justice

information law and policy. Mr.

Belair was actively involved in

revising SEARCH’s standards for

criminal history record information,

Technical Report No. 13:

Standards for the Security and

Privacy of Criminal History

Record Information (Third

Edition).

Mr. Belair serves as consultant

to numerous Federal agencies and

commissions on information policy

and law. He is former Deputy

General Counsel and Acting

Counsel for the Domestic Council

Committee on the Right of

Privacy, Office of the President.

Mr. Belair is a graduate of

Kalamazoo College (Michigan) and

Columbia University School of

Law.

Kathy J. Canestrini

Kathy J. Canestrini is a Board

Examiner for the New York State

Board of Examiners of Sex

Offenders. She previously served as

a research specialist for the New

York State Department of

Correctional Services, where she

conducted extensive research on sex

offender profiles and recidivism

patterns.

She also served as a research

assistant at the Hindelang Criminal

Justice Center in Albany, New

York, and as a juvenile probation

officer in Texas.

Ms. Canestrini holds a B.A.

from East Texas State University

and a Master’s degree in Criminal

Justice from the State University of

New York at Albany.

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken has directed

the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS), U.S. Department of Justice,

since September 1994.

Dr. Chaiken was a senior

mathematician at the Rand

Corporation in Santa Monica,

California, from 1972 to 1984. He

served as a principal scientist in law

and justice and directed the Federal

Justice Statistics Program at Abt

Associates, Inc. in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, from 1984 until

nominated for his present post by

President Clinton in 1994. He was

selected as an Abt Fellow.

Dr. Chaiken’s research focuses

on developing and applying

methods to improve criminal

justice operations. He co-authored

the FBI “blueprint” for a new

incident-based crime reporting

system. He also designed a

microcomputer software package

used in police patrol cars in the

United States and abroad. His most

noteworthy accomplishments were

carried out jointly with his wife,

Dr. Marcia Chaiken, Director of

Research at LINC in Alexandria,

Virginia. The Chaikens together

authored numerous book chapters,

reports and articles on crime and

criminals.

Dr. Chaiken provided

recommendations to LINC for

improving the sample of the

National Institute of Justice’s Drug

Use Forecasting (DUF) program

and for expanding uses of DUF

statistics to develop State and local

policy. He worked directly with

such agencies as the California

Department of Corrections, the

Kings County (Brooklyn) District

Attorney’s Office, the Colorado

Division of Criminal Justice, the

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department,

and the Massachusetts Committee

on Criminal Justice. Dr. Chaiken

taught mathematics and public

policy analysis at Cornell, at the

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, and at the University

of California at Los Angeles. He

holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from

the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.
Page 110 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Scott A. Cooper

Scott A. Cooper is a Staff

Attorney with the National

Criminal Justice Association, a

Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit

association that represents State and

local governments on crime control

and public safety issues. Mr.

Cooper previously maintained a

solo practice specializing in family

and criminal law. He served as law

clerk for the District of Columbia

Public Defender Service; for the

Honorable Stephen W. Herrick; for

the Albany County (New York)

Police Court; for the Prisoners

Legal Services of New York; and

for the Albany County (New York)

Public Defender’s Office.

Mr. Cooper holds a J.D. from

Albany Law School and a B.S.

from the State University of New

York at Albany.

Floyd Epps

Floyd Epps is a Board Examiner

for the New York State Board of

Examiners of Sex Offenders. He

previously served as a New York

State parole officer from 1986 to

1996, specializing in sex offender

supervision. He also served as a

New York City probation officer,

as a caseworker for the New York

City Department of Special

Services for Children, and as a New

York elementary school teacher.

Mr. Epps holds a B.A. and a

Master’s degree in Sociology from

Herbert H. Lehman College (New

York).

Donna Feinberg

Donna Feinberg is an Attorney

in the Office of General Counsel,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ). She

previously worked as a legislative

assistant for a member of Congress;

as a law clerk for a U.S. Claims

Court (now Court of Federal

Claims) judge; and as an attorney

for the American Nurses’

Association, for the Legal Services

Corporation, and for the DOJ.

Ms. Feinberg is a University of

Texas graduate. She holds a J.D.

from the University of Missouri

and a Master of Laws degree from

Georgetown University Law

Center.

Ronald P. Hawley

Mr. Ronald P. Hawley has

served as Assistant Director of the

North Carolina State Bureau of

Investigation’s Division of

Criminal Information since 1993.

Mr. Hawley began his career with

the Bureau in 1973. His early

assignments included service as a

Special Agent, as an Assistant

District Supervisor and as a District

Supervisor. Mr. Hawley also served

a tour of duty with the Governor’s

Security.

Mr. Hawley is involved with

several committees and working

groups related to criminal justice

information technology. He sits as

Co-chair of the Criminal Justice

Information Network (CJIN) Study

Committee, and is a member of the

Criminal Justice Information

Services (CJIS) Southern Regional

Working Group and the CJIS Ad

Hoc Task Force on Security,

Privacy and Policy Matters. Mr.

Hawley serves as the governorappointed member of SEARCH

representing North Carolina. He

sits on the SEARCH Board of

Directors and serves as Chair of the

SEARCH Law and Policy Program

Advisory Committee. Mr. Hawley

currently chairs the

SEARCH/Bureau of Justice

Statistics’ National Working Group

on the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System.

Mr. Hawley graduated from

Campbell College (North

Carolina). He also holds a Master’s

degree in Education from the

University of Maine.

Honorable Mike Lawlor

Rep. Mike Lawlor is a six-term

member of the Connecticut House

of Representatives serving the 99th

District, which comprises East

Haven and the Short Beach area of

Branford. Rep. Lawlor has been

recognized in the Legislature for his

work to reform Connecticut’s

criminal justice system, including

alternative forms of punishment,

drug policy, juvenile justice reform,

victims’ rights and sexual offender

registration. He also pushed for the

reform of economic development

and job training programs to

promote high-wage jobs. In 1993

and 1994, Rep. Lawlor led the fight

for gun control in Connecticut.

Rep. Lawlor attended the

University of Connecticut, where

he was President of the Young

Democrats. He graduated in 1979

with honors in Slavic and Eastern

European Studies. He received a

Master’s Degree in Soviet-area

studies from the University of

London in 1981. He graduated in

1983 from the National Law Center

at George Washington University

in Washington, D.C.

Following graduation from law

school, Rep. Lawlor was appointed

a prosecutor with the State’s

Attorney’s Office in New Haven.

He resigned in 1986 to run for the

Legislature. He continues to

practice law and is now the General

Counsel for Giordano Associates, a

consumer advocate public adjustment firm. He teaches criminal law

at the University of New Haven as

a Practitioner in Residence.

Rep. Lawlor chairs the Eastern

Regional Conference Criminal

Justice Board of Directors and also

the Corrections Task Force for the

Council of State Governments. In

the Legislature, Rep. Lawlor chairs

the Judiciary Committee and sits on

the Appropriations Committee. He

served as the Chairman of the Labor

and Public Employees Committee

from 1993 to 1994.
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 111

Roxanne Lieb

Roxanne Lieb directs the

Washington State Institute of

Public Policy, a nonpartisan think

tank funded by the Washington

State Legislature. The Institute

provides policymakers with

information on issues of long-term

significance to the State. It has

conducted research since 1990 on

State programs and policies

regarding sex offenders and victims.

Ms. Lieb’s organization also

summarized the Nation’s laws

regarding sex offender registration

and community notification.

Ms. Lieb’s prior experience

includes service as Director of the

State of Washington’s Sentencing

Guidelines Commission, where she

helped set sentencing policy for

adult felons.

She holds a Master’s degree in

Public Policy from the University

of Washington. Ms. Lieb attended

the Program for Senior Executives

in State and Local Government at

Harvard University’s John F.

Kennedy School of Government.

Kirk Lonbom

Kirk Lonbom has more than 17

years experience in municipal- and

State-level law enforcement. Mr.

Lonbom’s service includes patrol

and investigative assignments,

including 3 years in an undercover

capacity.

He joined the Illinois State

Police in 1990 and was assigned to

a field intelligence unit. In 1993,

Mr. Lonbom was promoted to

Section Chief in the Intelligence

Bureau, where he was responsible

for various intelligence programs.

He was promoted to his current

position as Assistant Bureau Chief

of the Intelligence Bureau in 1995.

He is responsible for the operations

of the Strategic Intelligence Group,

which includes the Illinois Sex

Offender Registration Program, the

Violent Crimes Section and the

Organized Crime and Narcotics

Intelligence Section.

Honorable Norm Maleng

The Honorable Norm Maleng

has served as King County

(Washington) Prosecuting Attorney

since 1979. Mr. Maleng initiated

many criminal justice system

reforms at the local, State and

national levels and he established a

number of innovative programs

within the Prosecuting Attorney’s

Office. They include a nationally

recognized sexual assault

prosecution unit; a victim

assistance unit; Kids’ Court (which

helps child sex abuse victims

understand the courtroom); and

Drug Court, which offers first-time

offenders the opportunity to attend a

strict drug treatment program.

Mr. Maleng has been a

Washington State leader in the

reform of the State’s criminal

justice system. His innovations

include crime victim compensation;

the Sentencing Reform Act; the

Community Protection Act (which

includes the first sexually violent

predator law in the Nation); the

“Becca Bill,” designed to help

parents reach out to their runaway

children; and, most recently,

juvenile justice reform.

The King County Prosecutor’s

Office is one of the Nation’s

largest, with a staff of 465

employees, including more than

215 deputy prosecutors.

Mr. Maleng graduated from the

University of Washington in 1960

with an Economics degree. He

obtained a degree from the

University of Washington School

of Law, where he served as editor in

chief of the law review. After

graduation in 1966, he was selected

to serve as staff attorney for the

U.S. Senate Committee on

Commerce. Mr. Maleng also

served as a Lieutenant in the U.S.

Army.

Mr. Maleng worked in private

practice in Seattle for 3 years before

being appointed Chief Deputy of

the Civil Division.

Elizabeth A. Pearson

Elizabeth A. Pearson is a Staff

Associate at the National Criminal

Justice Association (NCJA), where

she tracks congressional legislation

that impacts States’ criminal justice

policies and appropriations. She

also conducts research for NCJA

grant projects.

Ms. Pearson was the primary

researcher for projects sponsored by

the U.S. Department of Justice’s

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention and by the

Office for Victims of Crime. She

previously worked in the criminal

justice program at the National

Conference of State Legislatures in

Colorado and for the Wisconsin

State Senate.

Ms. Pearson holds a B.A. in

Political Science from the

University of Wisconsin-Madison.

She also holds a Masters of Public

Administration from the University

of Colorado.

Emmet A. Rathbun

Emmet A. Rathbun began his

FBI service in 1978 performing

various supervisory duties for the

Bureau’s National Crime

Information Center. Mr. Rathbun

was assigned to the Criminal

Justice Information Services

Division (formerly Identification

Division) in 1989. He currently

serves as Unit Chief.

Mr. Rathbun began his law

enforcement career in 1964 as a

police officer. He became a special

agent for the Iowa Bureau of

Criminal Investigation in 1965.

Mr. Rathbun rose to become that

organization’s Assistant Director

before accepting a position with the

FBI. He is a graduate of Upper

Iowa University.
Page 112 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

Dena T. Sacco

Dena T. Sacco is Counsel in the

Office of Policy Development,

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Ms. Sacco is responsible for a

variety of criminal justice policy

matters, including implementation

of sex offender registration and

notification laws.

She was an employment law

associate at the firm of Paul,

Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP

prior to joining the DOJ. Ms.

Sacco received a J.D. cum laude

from Harvard Law School in 1993

and a B.A. cum laude from Yale

University in 1990. She also

received an LL.M in European

Community Law from the College

of Europe in 1994.

Honorable Florence Shapiro

Sen. Florence Shapiro is serving

her third term in the Texas State

Senate representing the State’s 8th

Senatorial District. She was elected

Chair of the Senate Republican

Caucus shortly after beginning her

most recent term, becoming the

first woman to hold the position

and the first Republican to preside

over the majority party caucus since

Reconstruction. She also serves as

Vice Chair of the Senate Criminal

Justice and Nominations

Committees, and as a member of

the Intergovernmental Relations,

Economic Development, State

Affairs and the Select Tax Reform

and Public School Finance

committees.

Sen. Shapiro has earned

numerous honors during her Senate

tenure, including the 1993

Distinguished Legislative Service

Award from the Texas Municipal

League and the Legislator of the

Year Award from the National

Republican Legislators

Association. She was chosen by

the Council of State Governments

as a 1993 Toll Fellow, an award

given to only 35 officials

nationwide for their insight,

innovation and commitment to

State government.

Sen. Shapiro is recognized for

her work in tort reform, economic

development and criminal justice.

Her most notable achievement was

a series of bills know as Ashley’s

Laws, which changed the methods

Texas utilized to punish sex

offenders. Sen. Shapiro received the

1995 Child Advocate Award from

the Dallas Children’s Advocacy

Center in recognition of her

legislative efforts. She also

received the 1995 Legislator of the

Year Award from the Texas

Municipal League and the

Outstanding Legislator of the Year

Award from the Texas Police

Chiefs Association.

Sen. Shapiro is the former

Mayor of Plano, Texas. She also

served six terms on the Plano City

Council. Sen. Shapiro has held

numerous local, State and national

leadership positions, including

President of the Texas Municipal

League, President of the Plano

Economic Development Board and

Vice Chair of the National League

of Cities’ Advisory Board.

She is a former English and

speech teacher. She holds a

Bachelor’s degree in Secondary

Education from the University of

Texas at Austin.

Doug Smith

Doug Smith is Chief of the

California Department of Justice’s

(DOJ) Bureau of Criminal

Information and Analysis. Mr.

Smith is responsible for the

development, operation and

maintenance of statewide criminal

justice information system

databases in such diverse areas as

wanted persons, stolen vehicles and

property, restraining orders, and

subjects on supervised release

status.

In addition, all California firearm

sales are cleared through the Bureau,

which also handles gun dealer

licensing and the issuance of special

dangerous weapons licenses. The

Bureau’s criminal justice statistics

center gathers and publishes

statewide data. The Bureau’s

command center provides expedited

information and serves as the

California DOJ’s emergency

operations center.

As the agency responsible for

sex offender registration and for

maintaining the Violent Crime

Information Network, the Bureau of

Criminal Information and Analysis

will direct the implementation of

Megan’s Law, the Jacob Wetterling

Act and the Pam Lychner Act.

Prior to his current assignment,

Mr. Smith managed day-to-day

operations of the statewide crime

laboratory system, which delivered

forensic services throughout the

State. He also managed the

California Records and

Identification Bureau. Mr. Smith

has been extensively involved in

the transformation of Bureau

operations from a manual, paperdependent system to the increasing

use of electronic transport,

processing and storage of data.

Lisa Gursky Sorkin

Lisa Gursky Sorkin is Chief of

Staff of the U.S. Department of

Justice’s Office of Policy

Development, which is responsible

for defining and implementing a

broad range of policy initiatives

regarding crime, welfare reform and

access to justice. Ms. Sorkin’s

responsibilities include a variety of

criminal justice policy matters,

including implementation of the

Violence Against Women Act; sex

offender registration and notification

laws; and victims’ rights.

Ms. Sorkin served from 1989 to

1992 as a telecommunications

policy analyst for the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and

Finance of the U.S. House of

Representatives’ Committee on
National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Page 113

Energy and Commerce. From 1987

to 1989, she was a research analyst

at Strategic Planning Associates, a

Washington, D.C.-based

management consultant firm.

Ms. Sorkin holds a B.A. with

highest distinction from the

University of Michigan and a J.D.

from Yale Law School.

James C. Swain

James C. Swain directs the State

and Local Assistance Division,

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Mr. Swain formerly served as

Director of the BJA’s Discretionary

Grant Division and of the Policy

Development and Management

Division. Prior to his BJA service,

he served on a task force that wrote

draft legislation and program

structure that lead to the agency’s

creation in 1984.

Mr. Swain served as Director of

the Courts Division in the Law

Enforcement Assistance

Administration and as a Center

Chief at the National Institute of

Justice, DOJ.

Mr. Swain is a graduate of the

University of Illinois Law School.

Ralph C. Thomas

Ralph C. Thomas entered the

FBI as a Special Agent in 1986.

Mr. Thomas has served at the

Bureau’s Washington, D.C.,

headquarters since April 1996. He

is currently assigned to the Policy,

Planning and Analysis Unit

(PPAU), Criminal Investigative

Division, as a Supervisory Special

Agent. PPAU is responsible for a

wide variety of administrative and

policy issues that directly impact

FBI criminal investigations. Cochairing the Bureau’s Pam Lychner

Sexual Offender Task Force is one

of Mr. Thomas’ supervisory

responsibilities.

Mr. Thomas previously served

in the FBI’s San Antonio Division,

where he investigated a wide range

of criminal violations. He also

served in the Los Angeles Division,

where he was assigned to the Los

Angeles Joint Drug Intelligence

Group, a multi-agency drug

intelligence task force. As the

squad’s principal relief supervisor,

Mr. Thomas assisted the supervisor

in managing the High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)-

funded task force.

Mr. Thomas holds a B.A. in

Political Science/Public

Administration from Miami

University (Ohio). He received his

J.D. from the Ohio Northern

University College of Law in 1985.

Donna M. Uzzell

Donna M. Uzzell was appointed

Director of the Florida Department

of Law Enforcement’s (FDLE)

Criminal Justice Information

Services in November 1996 after

serving as Special Agent in Charge

of the Department’s Investigative

Support Bureau.

Information Services provides:

• Instant telecommunications

for law enforcement

throughout Florida;

• Information storage and

retrieval in Florida and over

the entire Nation;

• Criminal identification

services;

• The ability to document and

analyze criminal activity for

the entire State;

• Statistical and crime-trend

analysis;

• Criminal record inquiries for

government, private and

public requests;

• Improved system integrity

through biennial terminal

audits; and

• A statewide law enforcement

training program.

Prior to her FDLE appointment,

Ms. Uzzell spent 13 years with the

Tallahassee Police Department,

rising to the rank of sergeant.

She was elected to the Leon

County (Florida) School Board in

1988. She served on the Board for 8

years, including two as Board chair,

and focused on safe-school policies

and procedures. She conducted crisis

intervention, interagency

collaboration and Serious Habitual

Offender Comprehensive Action

Program (SHOCAP) training and

safe-school planning throughout the

State. She currently teaches at

Florida State University as an

adjunct professor in the School of

Criminology. She also serves as a

consultant for Fox Valley Technical

College in Wisconsin.

Ms. Uzzell is a certified crime

prevention practitioner and former

D.A.R.E. officer. Her contributions to child safety were recognized

with a Law Enforcement Officer of

the Year award and other honors.

Ms. Uzzell served on several

statewide task forces that considered

school, child safety and juvenile

justice issues. In 1993, she

completed a 4-month special

assignment with the Commissioner

of Education to explore collaborative relationships between law

enforcement and education. That

same year, she spent 5 months on

special assignment to the Florida

Attorney General’s Office to

develop and implement the Florida

Community Juvenile Justice

Partnership Grant Program.

Ms. Uzzell currently serves as

her State’s representative to the

SEARCH Membership Group.

Mike Welter

Mike Welter has served the

Illinois State Police for 13 years,

the last 3 as Chief of its Violent

Crimes Section. The section

oversees sex offender registration

and community notification in

Illinois. He served on two statewide

task forces that studied domestic

violence and sexually motivated

crimes. Mr. Welter assisted in

federally sponsored training
Page 114 National Conference on Sex Offender Registries

focusing on child abuse

investigations and he published

numerous articles on related topics.

He retired from the U.S. Army

as a Lieutenant Colonel following a

distinguished career that included

combat tours in Vietnam and Iran.

Mr. Welter holds three Masters’

degrees with major fields of study

in law, business administration and

military science.

Patty Wetterling

Patty Wetterling is the mother

of Jacob Wetterling, who was

abducted October 22, 1989, near his

home in St. Joseph, Minnesota.

The former teacher — now a selfdescribed “stay-at-home-mom” with

four children — has become a

respected national spokesperson on

child safety issues.

Following the abduction of

Jacob, Ms. Wetterling and her

husband, Jerry, co-founded a notfor-profit foundation to educate

parents and children to prevent the

abduction, molestation and

exploitation of children and to

continue searching for Jacob and the

thousands of other children reported

missing each year.

As a Jacob Wetterling

Foundation volunteer, Ms.

Wetterling has appeared before

hundreds of groups throughout the

United States. She shares

information about child molesters

and their victims and offers specific

safety information to children and

parents. While she continues to

speak frequently, she trains other

volunteers to spread the

Foundation’s message.

In addition to working as a fulltime volunteer for the Jacob

Wetterling Foundation, Ms.

Wetterling trains law enforcement

on behalf of the U.S. Department

of Justice’s Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

She serves on the Wetterling

Foundation’s Board of Directors and

also on the Boards of Directors of

the National Center for Missing &

Exploited Children (NCMEC); the

Association of Missing and

Exploited Children’s Organizations

(AMECO); and the Tri-County

Crimestoppers Inc. Ms. Wetterling

also serves as co-chair of the

Millstream Arts Festival.

Ms. Wetterling has received

numerous awards for her leadership

in child advocacy. Her legislative

accomplishments include the Jacob

Wetterling Crimes Against

Children Registration Act on the

State level. The Jacob Wetterling

Crimes Against Children and

Sexually Violent Offender

Registration Act was enacted on the

Federal level as part of President

Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill. Ms.

Wetterling’s message of Jacob’s

hope has resounded nationwide as a

call to action and hope for missing

children everywhere.
Appendix
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of the Director Washington, D.C. 20531

June 18, 1997

Dear

In follow up to my January 31, 1997, letter providing information regarding the

compliance review process for State submissions of their sex offender registration and

notification programs under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually

Violent Offender Registration Act ("the Wetterling Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 14071, this letter

provides instructions for States that intend to submit requests for an extension of the

September 13, 1997, compliance deadline, i.e., States that are not now able to submit to us a

sex offender registration and notification program in complete compliance with the

Wetterling Act and Megan's Law.

You will recall that under the Wetterling Act, as amended by Megan's Law, States must

adopt sex offender registration and notification systems meeting specified minimum

standards. This may be accomplished by legislation, regulation, or administrative policy.

States which fail to implement a registration and notification program consistent with the

Wetterling Act by the September 13, 1997, deadline -- three years from the September 13,

1994, enactment date -- will not receive 10 percent of their Byrne formula grant funds that

would otherwise be allocated to the State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3765). However, as you know, the Wetterling Act

contains a provision allowing States that show "good faith efforts" to comply with the

Wetterling Act by the statutory deadline to be granted a two-year extension of time to

continue their efforts to establish a compliant program.

In order to ensure that any State requesting an extension receives its full Byrne

funding allocation, it should submit to BJA for review (1) its most recent proposed or enacted

registration and notification program, and (2) a letter requesting that the State be granted a

two-year extension of the statutory deadline, explaining its "good faith efforts" -- both past

steps taken and future plans -- to implement the Wetterling Act and Megan's Law. The letter

should describe the specific "good faith efforts" the State has made to come into compliance,

including an explanation of the concrete steps taken and the progress made, since the passage

of the Wetterling Act in September 1994, toward the goal of establishing a registration and

notification program in complete compliance with the Wetterling Act and Megan's Law. The

State should also explain the reasons why it has not been able to establish a compliant

program by the statutory deadline. In addition, the State should describe in detail its plan to

establish a compliant program prior to or by the end of the extension period and submit a
timetable, specifying the anticipated time frame within which each step of its overall plan will

be taken.

We request that States make their submissions to BJA by July 13, 1997. State requests

for an extension of time based on their "good faith efforts" will be reviewed and granted on a

case-by-case basis.

Finally, if you have any questions regarding the processing of your State's submission

of its registration and notification program for compliance review under the Wetterling Act

and Megan's Law, or if you would like other assistance, please contact Jim Swain, Director,

State and Local Assistance Division, or Omar Mohammed at (202) 514-6638.

Sincerely,

Nancy E. Gist

Director