F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R

The Federal Judicial Center provides this publication to further its statutory mission to develop and conduct education programs for judicial branch employees. While encouraging

court staff to share ideas, views, and resources by contributing information from their courts, the Center does not control or verify the accuracy or completeness of the information.

Nor does inclusion herein of the information constitute the Center’s approval or endorsement of it. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and contributors.

NOVEMBER 2002

Sex Offenders Update

NEW

what’s

Closeup

Special Needs Offenders pecial Needs Offenders

by Mark Sherman

About Special Needs Offenders Close-up

Close-up brings the field up to date on recent developments and districtbased initiatives related to defendant and offender populations covered by

the original Special Needs Offenders series. It includes population-specific

news, information on the latest investigation and supervision approaches,

job aids, information about training, and descriptions of practices and innovations developed by individual offices. This Close-up will be accompanied

by a live FJTN broadcast and an audioconference for probation and pretrial

services officers. For broadcast information, consult the FJTN Bulletin,

which can be accessed through the Center’s DCN site at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

According to the Statistics Division of the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

(AO), the number of convicted sexual offenders under federal supervision (probation, supervised release, parole, or military

parole) remains a small fraction of the total federal defendant/offender population. (In 2001, 1,546 sex offenders were

under federal supervision out of a total of 105,751 offenders,

or about 1.5%.) Because of the unique risk they present to the

community, however, sex offenders require a disproportionate degree of attention from officers.

Legal issues and recent case law

Sex offender treatment, polygraph examination,

and the right against self-incrimination

Sex offender treatment. Recent federal cases have dealt

with the relationship between the privilege against self-incrimination and sex offender treatment programs offered to

prison inmates. According to AO Associate General Counsel

David Adair Jr., even though these cases involve the prison

context rather than supervision in the community, they provide insight into how the courts are handling situations in

which sex offenders invoke the privilege when they are given

the option to participate in treatment programs. Treatment is

often imposed as a special condition of post-conviction sex

offender supervision, and offenders under supervision maintain the right against self-incrimination. Thus, officers should

know how to respond if an offender invokes the privilege.

The U.S. Supreme Court case of McKune v. Lile, __ U.S.

__, 122 S.Ct. 2017 (2002), stemmed from a state prisoner’s action against state prison officials alleging that the prison’s

sex offender treatment program violated the prisoner’s Fifth

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As part of

treatment, the program required the prisoner to confront his

past sexual offenses. Refusal to participate resulted in a reduction of the prisoner’s privileges and transfer to a maximum-security unit. The Court held that adverse consequences imposed by the program were not so severe as to

constitute compelled self-incrimination because, among

other things, the prison environment necessarily involved

certain loss of rights.

However, in Ainsworth v. Risley, 244 F.3d 209 (1st Cir.

2001), vacated and remanded sub nom., Ainsworth v. Stanley,

__ U.S. __, 122 S.Ct. 2652 (2002), which involved facts and a

holding similar to those in McKune, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the First Circuit suggested that the analysis might be different in a case where the offender invoking the privilege is

involved in the same type of sex offender treatment program

while on probation or supervised release. The Ainsworth

court cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136 (1984), for the proposition

that “if the state, either expressly or by implication, asserts
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 2

Heads-up on the Fifth

Amendment Privilege

Q: What do I do if an offender I’m supervising asserts his right against selfincrimination as a response to questions

asked in the course of supervision?

A: “Consider referring the matter to the

court for resolution, particularly if there

is any doubt about the supervisee’s assertion that the question calls for incriminating information. While it is possible in this

situation that the assertion of the right

will be upheld, the issue should be determined by the court after argument by

counsel, not determined by the officer.”

—David Adair Jr., “Looking at the Law,”

Federal Probation (June 1999).

that invocation of the privilege would lead to revocation of

probation, it would have created the classic penalty situation

. . . and the probationer’s answers would be deemed compelled and inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.” On the

other hand, a recent unreported decision by the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, United States v. Morgan, 44 Fed.

Appx. 881 (10th Cir. 2002), cites McKune to uphold the condition requiring a supervised releasee to report any violation of

supervised release and a condition providing for physiological testing in connection with sex offender treatment.

Polygraph examination. In a 1999 Federal Probation article, Adair noted that the one federal case in which the use of

the polygraph in the context of probation supervision is discussed, Owens v. Kelly, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982), “indicates that polygraph results should not be used for revocation

purposes, but . . . that its use in supervision was not violative

of an offender’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” Owens involved a state probation condition requiring a defendant convicted of drug-related offenses to

submit to a lie detector examination. Adair pointed out that,

although the state case law on this issue is inconsistent,

much of it supports the view of the Owens court. Still, polygraph testing used in sex offender treatment could, in some

cases, lead to Fifth Amendment claims because results that

suggest or identify criminal activity “can be further investigated by the probation officer or, particularly in the case of serious offenses, can be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency.”

Pretrial assessment: the right against

self-incrimination and the right to counsel

According to Adair, the fact that most actuarial assessment

instruments and clinical risk assessments require some admission of sexual history, including conduct that may be

criminal, raises concerns in the pretrial context because of

the importance of maintaining the presumption of innocence

and the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and right

to counsel.

Right against self-incrimination. The right against selfincrimination is at issue if a defendant is compelled during

the evaluation to provide testimonial evidence against himself on the crime alleged. The defendant also has a Fifth

Amendment privilege regarding information that, upon conviction, could be used to enhance his sentence. (Presentence

officers should note the latter concern, which can arise in situations where the officer requests an assessment of an offender as part of the presentence investigation.)

Right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel

could be implicated if a court-ordered examination were established to be a critical stage of the proceedings at which the

presence of counsel must be permitted. Though the primary

purpose for the pretrial assessment may be for pretrial release, the possibility that the assessment could include offense information makes it extremely attractive for all parties

to use for other purposes. Assessments might not only become the target of prosecution attempts to force disclosure of

the information but could prompt arguments by defense

counsel that the assessment was a critical stage requiring the

assistance of counsel. Assessing risk without questions regarding offenses, if possible, might avoid some of the problems identified.

Immunity. In an April 2002 letter to Chief U.S. Pretrial

Services Officer Robert Duncan (California Eastern) discussing self-incrimination in detail, Adair and U.S. Probation Officer/Counsel Joseph Hendrickson noted that “use of conditional immunity agreements to encourage offenders to be

forthright in their treatment could be effective in the pretrial

context. However, the decision to grant immunity is not within the discretion of the pretrial services officer or the court

under the statute, as only the United States Attorney’s Office

may provide immunity in criminal proceedings.”
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 3

Quick Reference: Sex Offender

Legal Issues, Case Law, and

Analysis from the AO Office of

General Counsel

The right against self-incrimination—sex offender treatment

and the polygraph examination:

✔ McKune v. Lile, __ U.S. __, 122 S.Ct. 2017 (2002)

✔ Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136

(1984)

✔ Ainsworth v. Risley, 244 F.3d 209 (1st Cir. 2001)

✔ Owens v. Kelly, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982)

✔ Adair, “Looking at the Law,” Federal Probation

(June 1999)

✔ Adair, Opinion Letter to Senior U.S. Probation

Officer Jim Mitzel (May 2, 2001)

✔ Adair, Opinion Letter to Deputy Chief U.S. Probation Officer Robert Ryan (January 25, 1999)

Pretrial sex offender assessment—the right against selfincrimination and the right to counsel:

✔ Adair and Hendrickson, Opinion Letter to Chief

U.S. Pretrial Services Officer Robert Duncan (April

16, 2002)

Special conditions—standards, sex offender treatment, “no

pornography” and “no Internet” conditions, and condition

packages:

✔ United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 2001)

(standards for conditions/condition package)

✔ United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2nd Cir.

2001) (treatment/no Internet)

✔ United States v. White, 244 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir.

2001) (treatment/no Internet)

✔ United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3rd Cir. 2001)

(no pornography)

✔ United States v. Guagliardo, 278 F.3d 868 (9th Cir.

2002) (no pornography)

✔ United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir.

1999) (no Internet)

✔ United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2001)

(no Internet)

✔ United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981 (10th Cir.

2001) (no Internet)

✔ United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2002)

(no Internet)

✔ United States v. Andis, 277 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2002)

(condition package vacated and reargued Sept. 11,

2002; decision pending)

Third-party risk:

Adair, Opinion Letter to Senior U.S. Probation Officer

Nancy Kirk (January 11, 1999)

Special conditions: standards, sex offender

treatment, “no pornography” and “no Internet

conditions, and condition packages

Standards for imposing conditions. In United States v.

Scott, 270 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 2001), the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated that “conditions must be

especially fine-tuned if they restrict the freedom of persons

on probation or supervised release.” In Scott, the court remanded the case for resentencing upon determining that the

offender’s sex offender-related special conditions of supervised release bore no reasonable relationship to the nature of

the offense of conviction (armed bank robbery). Rather, the

conditions had been imposed as a result of an earlier, unrelated state conviction for forcible rape and sodomy. Because

the record contained no information indicating that the offender was likely to repeat the sex offense or that additional

restrictions on his freedom were necessary to deter him from

doing so, the sex offender-related special conditions ran

afoul of 18 U.S.C. §3553. (See pp. 13–15 for information on

steps that officers conducting presentence investigations can

take to ensure that pertinent information about offenders’

sexual behavior is included in presentence reports where sex

offender-specific special conditions are recommended.)

Treatment conditions. As for special conditions requiring sex offender treatment, in United States v. Peterson, 248

F.3d 79 (2nd Cir. 2001), the defendant was convicted of passing

bad checks but had a three-year-old state incest conviction.

The conditions of his probation included sex offender treat-
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 4

Highlights of Recent Sex OffenderRelated Amendments to the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has amended the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in recent years to address congressional

directives on sex offenses and new issues presented by sex

offenders. The commission amended several guidelines in

response to the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998.

A multipart amendment effective November 1, 2001,

creates a new Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal

Livelihood) guideline, §4B1.5 (Repeat and Dangerous Sex

Offenses Against Minors). Similar to §4B1.1 (Career Offender), the guideline represents a tiered approach to punishing

repeat child sex offenders. Conforming amendments were

made to the criminal sexual abuse guidelines in Chapter Two,

part A, subpart 3 to delete the upward departure provisions

for prior sentences for similar conduct.

The amendment also codifies §5D1.2 (Term of Supervised Release) to provide that the recommended term of

supervised release for a defendant convicted of a sex crime

is the statutory maximum. Changes to §5B1.3 (Conditions

of Probation) and §5D1.3 (Conditions of Supervised Release)

effect the commission’s intent that sex offenders receive appropriate treatment and monitoring.

In addition, the 2001 amendment provides for grouping

of multiple counts of child pornography distribution, receipt,

and possession by listing §§2G2.2 and 2G2.4 at §3D1.2(d).

It also increases the offense levels for offenses under chapter 117 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code in §2A3.2 and §2A3.4

(Abusive Sexual Contact or Attempt to Commit Abusive

Sexual Contact) and makes conforming changes to §2A3.2

to ensure that some chapter 117 offenses that do not include aggravating conduct receive the offense level applicable to statutory rape in its basic form.

A multipart amendment effective November 1, 2000, provides separate, cumulative two-level enhancements in the

sexual abuse guidelines, §§2A3.2 (Criminal Sexual Abuse of

a Minor Under the Age of Sixteen Years (Statutory Rape) or

Attempt to Commit Such Acts), 2A3.3 (Criminal Sexual Abuse

of a Ward), and 2A3.4 (Abusive Sexual Contact), and in

§2G1.1 (Promoting Prostitution or Prohibited Sexual Conduct) for (1) the use of a computer or Internet-access device with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or

facilitate the transport of a minor to engage in any prohibited sexual conduct, and (2) misrepresentation of a criminally

responsible person’s identity with such an intent. The amendment treats offenses under §§2A3.1 (Criminal Sexual Abuse;

Attempt to Commit Criminal Sexual Abuse) and 2G2.1 (Sexually Exploiting a Minor by Production of Sexually Explicit

Visual or Printed Material) as alternative triggers for one enhancement.

The 2000 amendment also provides an enhancement

for offenses under chapter 117 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code

(transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity). In addition to the enhancements in §§2A3.2 and 2G1.1 for chapter

117 offenses involving misrepresentation of identity and use

of a computer to facilitate such offenses, the amendment

provides an alternative basis for a sentencing enhancement

if a participant otherwise unduly influenced the victim to

engage in prohibited sexual conduct. A rebuttable presumption was created that the offense involved undue influence

if a participant was at least 10 years older than the victim.

Further, in §2A3.2, an alternative base offense level of 18 is

provided if the offense involves a violation of chapter 117,

as is a three-level decrease if a defendant receives the higher base offense level of 18 and none of certain listed aggravating specific offense characteristics apply.

The 2000 amendment modifies the enhancements in

§2G2.2 (Trafficking in Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor) and §2G3.1 (Importing, Mailing, or Transporting Obscene Matter; Transferring Obscene Matter to a

Minor) by (1) defining “distribution” to mean any act, including production, transportation, and possession with intent to distribute, related to the transfer of the material, regardless of whether it was for pecuniary gain, and (2) providing for varying levels of enhancement depending on the

purpose and audience of the distribution.

In addition, the 2000 amendment clarifies the meaning

of “item” in subsection (b)(2) of §2G2.4 (Possession of

Materials Depicting a Minor Engaged in Sexually Explicit

Conduct) by including computer files and invites an upward

departure if the offense involves a large number of visual

depictions of child pornography, regardless of the number

of “items” involved.

Finally, the amendment addresses the new offense of

transferring obscene matter to a minor (18 U.S.C. §1470) by

referencing the offense in the Statutory Index to §2G3.1.

For details on these amendments, see Appendix C of

the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2001), pages 1066–1083 and 1146–1155.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 5

ment as determined by his probation officer. The court of appeals struck down the condition because the language did

not make clear whether the probation officer had the authority to decide on treatment or not, which would be impermissible, or simply approve the type and place of treatment,

which would be within the officer’s discretion. Similarly, in

United States v. White, 244 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2001), the offender had been convicted of receiving child pornography.

The conditions of supervised release also included sex offender treatment, which the court of appeals struck down because it gave the probation officer too much discretion. Both

Peterson and White stand for the proposition that the treatment condition must be drafted in a way that makes clear

just what the probation officer is allowed to determine. According to these cases, the officer may not determine whether treatment is required, only the type and intensity of treatment. (For an example of a well-crafted treatment condition

that might help to prevent similar situations, see p. 12.)

“No pornography” conditions. A frequently recommended special condition in cases involving convicted sex

offenders simply prohibits the offender to access pornography, to be defined in more detail by the probation officer.

However, recent case law indicates that the courts are not

permitting this approach.

In United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3rd Cir. 2001), the offender was convicted of receiving child pornography, and the

district court imposed a condition that prohibited the offender from possessing “all forms of pornography, including legal

adult pornography.” The court of appeals struck down the

condition as too vague and indicated it gave too much discretion to the probation officer to determine what constituted

pornography. Similarly, in United States v. Guagliardo, 278

F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002), the court of appeals relied upon Loy to

invalidate a similar condition as violating the offender’s due

process right to know what behavior will result in a violation

of supervision. The court of appeals did not accept the argument that the probation officer could assist the offender in

defining what was prohibited by the condition. The term

“pornography” was simply too subjective and would allow

too much discretion and personal judgment to be exercised

by the probation officer.

Adair notes that a condition prohibiting possession of

material that depicts sexually explicit conduct involving children or adults might be deemed sufficiently comprehensible

to survive a due process challenge. It would be even more

certain to stand if “sexually explicit conduct” were defined,

perhaps as it is in 18 U.S.C. §2256(2), or if the condition referred to the statute. Adair also notes that it may also be possible to impose a condition that relies upon the treatment

provider to define what the offender may and may not view—

in essence, a condition requiring “treatment to include a prohibition on the viewing of sexually provocative material as

determined by the treatment provider to be harmful in the offender’s treatment.” But even this condition might have to be

supported by sufficient scientific justification, which the

court should allude to in imposing the condition.

“No Internet” conditions. The courts have begun to

deal with conditions that limit offenders’ Internet access. In

United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 1999), a case involving an offender who had used the Internet to lure a minor

to his home and then molest her, the district court imposed a

condition in which the offender was not permitted to “possess, procure, purchase, or otherwise obtain access to any

form of computer network, bulletin board, Internet, or exchange format involving computers.” The court of appeals

found that the condition was reasonably related to the goal of

deterring the offender from engaging in further criminal conduct and in protecting the public.

Some courts have decided that searches are more protective of offenders’ rights than Internet restrictions. In United

States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2nd Cir. 2001), the offender was

convicted of passing bad checks but had a three-year-old

state incest conviction. The conditions of his probation included barring access to the Internet except for employment

purposes as approved by the probation officer, sex offender

treatment, third-party notification of the offender’s employers, and a prohibition on being in various places where children congregate. The court of appeals struck down the ban

on Internet access since it was not reasonably related to the

offense of conviction or the incest conviction and was not

necessary to protect the public. In United States v. Sofsky, 287

F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2002), a case involving an offender convicted

of receiving child pornography, the same court of appeals relied on Peterson to hold that a special condition that banned

Internet access, even with a provision that the probation officer could grant permission, was too restrictive. It said that

unannounced inspections or government sting operations

could be used.

In United States v. White, 244 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2001), the

offender had been convicted of receiving child pornography

and was barred from Internet access by a special condition.

The court struck down this condition because of the impor-
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 6

tance of Internet access in daily communication. Instead, the

court suggested the use of filtering software. Notably, the

court upheld a search condition that had also been imposed

by the district court. In a subsequent case, United States v.

Walser, 275 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 2001), the same court of appeals

permitted a “no Internet” condition where the offender had

been convicted of possessing child pornography. The court

distinguished White because offender Walser was not completely banned from accessing the Internet. Rather, access

was banned unless the offender received permission from his

probation officer to do so.

In United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2001), the

Fifth Circuit court of appeals relied on Crandon and disagreed with White in upholding a ban on Internet access for a

person convicted of possessing child pornography.

Condition packages. There has been something of a

trend toward subjecting sex offenders to condition “packages” or groups of special conditions, but some courts have

looked askance at this approach. In United States v. Andis, 277

F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2002), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, No.

01-1272, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5944 (8th Cir. April 2, 2002) (reargued September 2002, decision pending), where the offender was convicted of transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2423(a), the court of appeals struck down a condition package because “the district

court did not carefully consider whether the conditions of release were ‘fine tuned’ to the crime or the defendant’s individual situation.” Some of the conditions in the package appeared to the court of appeals “to have little or no relationship to the defendant.” In United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 632

(8th Cir. 2001), the offender had been convicted of armed

bank robbery but also had a 15-year-old sex offense conviction. The sentencing court imposed a number of sex offenserelated special conditions, including treatment and a prohibition on association with minors. The court of appeals struck

down these conditions as being too remote with no demonstration that the offender’s old sex offense indicated a continuing propensity to commit these kinds of crimes. (For

guidance on how to develop and apply sex offender-specific

special conditions, see pp. 12–13 and p. 15.)

New Resources on Sex Offender

Management

General sex offender management

Managing Sex Offenders in the Community: A Handbook

to Guide Policy Makers and Practitioners Through a

Planning and Implementation Process. Silver Spring, Md.:

Center for Sex Offender Management, 2002. Available online at http://www.csom.org.

This handbook describes how to establish a policy-level

team to examine and improve the jurisdiction’s approach to sex offender management. Beginning with

sex offender management basics, the text walks readers through creation of the policy making team, writing

vision and mission statements, gathering data comparing national and local corrections policies, assessing

the offender population, developing and implementing

new policies, and tracking policy performance. The

handbook is appropriate for community corrections

agencies that (1) are just beginning to distinguish between management of sex offenders and other types

of offenders or (2) intend to overhaul an outdated management model entirely. The handbook assumes that

users are relatively inexperienced with specialized sex

offender management.

Sex offender employment

Time to Work: Managing the Employment of Sex

Offenders Under Community Supervision. Silver Spring,

Md.: Center for Sex Offender Management, 2002.

Available online at http://www.csom.org.

This monograph discusses the importance of steady

employment in the management of sex offenders in the

community. It covers the types of employment that are

inappropriate for sex offenders and the issues officers

should consider when supervising an offender who is

seeking employment or a job change. The monograph

also discusses the role of the supervision officer in developing a relationship with the offender’s employer to

facilitate supervision.

Sex offender registration and

community notification

Title 18, §4042(c) of the United States Code requires the

probation officer to notify state or local agencies responsible for the receipt of sex offender registration information
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 7

of any change of residence by the offender and to notify the

offender of his or her obligation to register in any state in

which the individual resides, is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student. In addition to the job aid included in this

Close-up on p. 19, officers may find the following resources

useful in carrying out these duties.

Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: A

“Megan’s Law” Sourcebook, by Elizabeth Rahmberg

Walsh and Fred Cohen. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research

Institute, 2000 (loose-leaf).

This volume offers a comprehensive view of federal and

state sex offender registration and community notification laws. It analyzes the most common legal arguments used to attack sex offender legislation. Besides

including the text of each state’s notification and registration statute, the volume usefully summarizes relevant material in tablular format. It also includes comments on the topic’s legislative history, with a short

section devoted to the federal guidelines published by

the Attorney General’s office.

Summary of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001 Fact Sheet.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2001. Available at http://www.ncjrs.org.

An update of a 1999 publication, this guide surveys

federal legislative changes; tracks states’ registration

systems, procedures, and statistics; and gives instructions on accessing registration information in each

state. The guide mainly discusses notification.

Sex offender management training

Training Curriculum. Center for Sex Offender

Management, 2002. Available at http://www.csom.org.

CSOM’s training curriculum is available at no cost in

long, medium, and short versions. The long version

(three days) is designed for line staff and their supervisors who have significant direct responsibility for the

community supervision of sex offenders, and for other

members of supervision teams (e.g., treatment providers, polygraph examiners, and law enforcement officers) who would benefit from a fuller understanding of

supervision activities. The medium version (eight hours)

is suitable for line staff in probation and parole agencies that may not be directly involved in sex offender

management but should be acquainted with its various aspects. The short version (two hours) is designed

for policy makers, judges, prosecutors, managers, and

line staff who are not directly involved in sex offender

Initiatives of the AO Office of Probation

and Pretrial Services

The AO’s Probation and Pretrial Services (AO/OPPS) has several initiatives underway that involve sex offender management. In 2000, AO/OPPS formed the Ad Hoc Sex Offender

Management Working Group. The group’s goals include developing national standards and procedures for managing

sex offenders under federal supervision.

The group also has been identifying state-of-the art information and research on theories, practices, and effective

supervision and monitoring interventions with sex offenders

and has been evaluating policies and practices in federal districts as well as state probation and parole systems to identify

contemporary ways of identifying, assessing, and treating sex

offenders in the community. This information has been used

in the revision of Monograph 109, Supervision of Federal Offenders, and Monograph 111, Supervision of Federal Defendants, and in development of a resource manual on sex offender management.

AO/OPPS also maintains sex offender-related information on its Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs

Web site at http://jnet.ao.dcn/courtoperations/fcsd/html/

mentalhealth/mhsaindex.htm.

Since February 2002, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

and AO/OPPS have been developing a framework for managing cases involving offenders who present mental healthrelated concerns that will guide the transition of these offenders from BOP custody to federal probation supervision.

With regard to sex offenders, these efforts have included

providing pre-release information to probation and pretrial

services offices about persons who have an instant sex offense, a history of sexual deviance, or institutional sexual

misconduct. The BOP has begun providing to AO/OPPS a roster, by district, of sex offenders to be released within 150 days.

The roster contains the inmate’s name, register number, sex,

projected release date, type of sex offense, release facility, unit

housed, and participation in the Sex Offender Treatment Program at FCI Butner. Rosters can be downloaded by officers

from the AO/OPPS Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs Web site.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 8

Cutting-Edge Sex Offender

Management Practices of U.S.

Probation and Pretrial Services

In recent years, U.S. probation and pretrial services offices

have developed and implemented sex offender management

initiatives. These initiatives vary in sophistication, ranging

from creation of sex offender specialist positions or designation of specific officers to

handle presentence investigation or supervision of sex offenders, to development and implementation of detailed policies and procedures for managing sex offenders and creation of sex offender management teams. This section of Close-up summarizes some of

these initiatives based on material and information provided

by the districts. Each district’s approach is a measured response to its sex offender caseload. Clearly, districts with fewer sex offenders tend to devote fewer resources to their management, while districts with more sex offenders tend to devote more resources.

Specialists and Resource Officers

Some probation offices have created sex offender specialist

positions. Specialists coordinate the management of sex offenders, often working with pretrial services, presentence and

supervision officers, the district’s contracting specialist, sex

offender treatment providers, community law enforcement

and social service agencies, and AO/OPPS mental health and

substance abuse programs. Specialists also attend sex offender management training, conduct internal training,

and, often, belong to sex offender management-related

professional organizations. Probation offices that have created specialist positions include those in Arizona, Washington Western, New Mexico, and Missouri Eastern.

Some probation and pretrial services offices without sex

offender specialist positions have emphasized sex offender

management by the district’s specialist in aftercare, mental

health, intensive supervision, drug and alcohol treatment,

special offenders, or contracting. Districts with this arrangement include California Central probation (mental health/

aftercare), South Dakota combined (contracting), Texas

Western probation (mental health), Tennessee Eastern probation (mental health), Illinois Northern probation (mental

health), Minnesota combined (intensive supervision), Montana (special offenders), Florida Middle probation (drug and

alcohol/mental health), Michigan Eastern combined (intensive supervision), Oklahoma Northern combined (treatment), and Idaho combined (drug and alcohol treatment).

Pretrial services offices in Texas Northern, New York

Southern, and Washington Western have officers who

serve as resources on cases involving defendants charged

with or having histories of sex offenses.

Policies and Procedures

Some districts have developed and implemented detailed

procedures for managing sex offenders.

Arizona probation, which supervises the largest number

of federally convicted sex offenders, has developed an extensive sex offender management program. The program consists of a sex offender manual, a chaperone program, a victim

education program, a victim and family reunification group,

and a Native American-specific program.

Sex offender manual. The purpose of the sex offender

manual is to provide probation staff with strategies and techniques necessary to manage sex offenders, with the goal of

preventing further victimization, protecting the community,

and providing effective treatment and management of sex ofHOT

what’s

management. It may also be used as a way to introduce the material to others who are not now

involved in sex offender management but may

work with this population in the future. CSOM also

sponsors conferences and offers a large number

of publications on sex offender management.

Internet resources

Klaaskids Foundation, http://www.klaaskids.org.

KlaasKids Foundation is a private organization that

gathers and makes available information on sex

offender legislation. The Web site offers useful information about sex offender registration and notification laws by state.

American Polygraph Association, http://www.

polygraph.org.

The American Polygraph Association can identify

polygraphists by state who meet APA standards

for post-conviction sex offender testing. It also

offers information on traditional, voice stress, and

other types of testing, as well as on legal challenges and rulings related to the use of polygraph

tests.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 9

Developing a Sex Offender

Management Manual: Things to

Consider

For districts considering development of a sex offender management manual, New Mexico probation recommends the following procedure.

✔ Assess the district’s need for the manual. Examine the caseload and discuss the situation

with officers, articulating specific challenges.

✔ Examine standards for sex offender supervision in similar districts.

✔ Upon approval from management, establish a

team of officers who possess some skill in sex

offender supervision to develop the manual.

Assign an officer to serve as liaison to district

management, and maintain communication

among team members and management during development.

✔ Develop a district sex offender management

philosophy and enlist officers in as much sex

offender training as possible before they begin writing.

Following completion of the manual, reconvene

team members annually to evaluate its appropriateness

and applicability. Consider including new team members as officers become more educated about the offender population.

fenders. As the manual makes clear, the district uses an integrated victim-centered and containment approach to sex offender management. The manual reviews sex offender characteristics and provides guidance on

• presentence investigation

• victim’s rights

• psychosexual evaluation

• pre-release investigation

• supervision

• risk assessment

• sex offender-specific treatment

• state sex offender registration and community notification

• release of confidential information

• the district’s multidiscipline approach to sex offender

management

• the duty to report new or potential child abuse

• special populations (cyber, parole military, developmentally disabled, Native American, female, juvenile)

• the FCI Butner Sex Offender Treatment Program

• case law

• resources (professional organizations, state agencies,

polygraph examiners, sex offender treatment specialists)

The manual also contains a glossary and forms.

Chaperone program. Arizona’s chaperone program

permits sex offenders under supervision to nominate an

adult who is familiar with his or her behavior, thinking patterns, and supervision conditions to serve as a chaperone.

The chaperone, who must be approved by the district’s multidiscipline treatment team (probation officer, treatment provider, polygraph examiner, etc.) must complete an application and undergo training provided by the treatment provider. The offender must complete a chaperone contract request. The chaperone supervises the offender’s contacts with

children listed in the chaperone contract and reports all violations by and suspicions about the offender to the probation

officer.

Victim education and family reunification. The district’s victim education program and its Victim and Family

Reunification Group, conducted by the district’s sex offender

treatment provider, address the needs of family members

who have been victimized by the offender and who may be

reunified with him or her. The education program enables the

victim to grapple with post-trauma issues in a supportive environment. The victim is encouraged to acknowledge the

harm caused by the offender, while the offender (who is not

present during the sessions) must accept full responsibility

for the harm he or she caused and express support for the

victim’s treatment. Individual sessions are conducted until

the therapist transitions the victim into the Victim and Family

Reunification Group, whose goal is to increase family members’ understanding of the offender’s flawed belief system

and thinking and to reestablish connections among immediate and extended family members.

For more information on these programs, contact Sr. USPO

and Sex Offender Specialist Mark Geiger at mark_geiger@

azd.uscourts.gov.

Tribal/Federal Effective Sex Offender Management

task force (ESOM) Designed specifically for Native American sex offenders residing in the district, ESOM is composed
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 10

Traditional Mental Health

Treatment vs. Sex Offender

Treatment

Sex offender assessment and treatment should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or masters-level practitioner who meets the standards of practice established by his or her state’s professional regulatory board and adheres to the standards of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). For

more information, consult the ATSA Web site at http://

www.atsa.com or call (503) 643-1023.

Traditional Mental Health Sex Offender

Treatment Treatment

Trust is granted. Trust is never fully gained.

Individual is primary Community is primary

client. client.

Participation is voluntary. Participation is court ordered.

Client is assumed to be Client is assumed to be

honest. dishonest.

Accountability of client Accountability of client

is low. is high.

Behaviors are recom- Behaviors must adhere to

mended. strict standards.

Confidentiality is assured. Confidentiality is limited.

Client defines problem. Treatment team defines

problem.

There are few collateral There are frequent collatcontacts. eral contacts.

Family involvement is Family involvement is reoften limited. quired.

Individual treatment is Group treatment is priprimary method. mary method.

Liability of treatment pro- Liability of treatment provider is limited. vider is high.

There are no external Polygraph, plethysmocontrols or verification. graph, or urine or breath

analysis are used.

of tribal members who are judges, prosecutors, probation

officers, law enforcement officials, victim-witness advocates,

tribal council members, and therapists. The task force’s

first major project was sex offender notification on the

Tohono O’odham Nation reservation. The Center for Sex Offender Management recently awarded ESOM a $100,000

grant for, among other things, training of indigenous therapists to treat offenders and victims. (The two senior officers

who developed the program received the 2002 AO Director’s

Award for Excellence in Court Operations.)

For more information on ESOM, contact Sr. USPO Adria

Santa Anna at adria_santa_anna@azd.uscourts.gov

or Sr. USPO Jennifer Sunshine at jennifer_sunshine@azd.

uscourts.gov.

New Mexico probation has embarked on major initiatives in sex offender management: development of a sex offender manual and (in collaboration with Arizona probation),

a polygraph response guide. The process the district used to

develop its manual, which is similar to Arizona’s, is instructive.

Sex offender manual. Prior to 2002, sex offenders in

New Mexico were supervised district-wide just like other

high-risk offenders. But the increasing numbers of sex offenders forced the district to realize that its supervision practices were inadequate for protecting the community and providing treatment: Offenders were not being contained. The

district’s intensive supervision specialist, whose caseload

consisted primarily of sex offenders, began to scrutinize sex

offender supervision standards in the neighboring districts of

Arizona and Colorado.

In March 2001 a team of senior officers and supervisors

began planning the sex offender manual. Team members realized that the district’s officers lacked specialized training in

sex offender supervision and were unfamiliar with current

treatment practices. Consequently, seven officers were sent to

a sex offender management training program offered by the

state of Colorado’s Division of Probation Services. All seven

officers earned certification in sex offender supervision in

September 2001.

The officers determined that their first tasks in writing a

sex offender manual were to establish a district philosophy

on sex offender supervision and treatment and to outline the

district’s specific needs. Each officer volunteered to research

and draft a portion of the manual according to his or her expertise, contacting other districts and experts for advice. As

each section was completed, it was reviewed and edited by

the team. When all sections were complete, the team met for

three days and compiled a draft. The district’s management

team conducted final editing of the manual and released it to

the district court for review.

For more information, contact Sr. USPO and Sex Offender

Specialist Nora Lujan at nora_lujan@nmcourt.fed.us.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 11

Texas Western probation has developed a sex offender

management policy. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4042(c), the policy informs officers of the requirements for sex offender registration with state law enforcement authorities, articulates

district-approved special conditions for sex offenders, spells

out the results of failure to comply with a registration condition, and outlines supervision procedures. Notably, the policy

incorporates use of the Static 99 actuarial assessment tool for

sex offenders by a trained probation officer. Forms to facilitate reporting change of address, notifying state law enforcement, and acknowledging receipt of registration information

accompany the policy.

For more information, contact Sr. USPO and Mental Health

Treatment Specialist Francisco Peralta at francisco_

peralta@txwp.uscourts.gov.

Sex offender management teams

Coordinated by the district’s sex offender specialist, Washington Western probation’s team consists of a supervision

officer from each division office, a presentence officer from

each of the two offices in which the district court is located, a

Washington Western pretrial services officer, a counselor

from the federal halfway house, and an officer from the district’s cyber crime/technology committee.

Minutes of the team’s monthly meetings, which are open

to other staff, are distributed to probation and pretrial services management. In one instance, a special condition recommended to an officer by the team was supported by the court,

which took note of the team consultation.

Team members receive both internal and external continuing professional education. Internally, the team hosts

speakers such as sex offender treatment providers, staff who

have attended training on pertinent new sentencing guidelines, and police detectives with expertise on state registration and notification. Externally, team members have joined

the state chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and have attended relevant training offered

by other professional groups.

The team is currently developing a district policy that

would encompass pretrial supervision, presentence investigation, post-conviction supervision, and halfway house

placement.

For more information, contact Sex Offender Specialist Peggy Kellow at peggy_kellow@wawp.uscourts.gov or USPSO

Todd Skipworth at todd_skipworth@wawpt.uscourts.gov.

As part of its sex offender management policy, Arizona

probation has created a multidiscipline team to implement

containment and oversee each sex offender’s supervision.

The team includes the supervision officer, treatment provider, and polygraph examiner. The probation officer is always

team leader. (Additional team members may include a law

enforcement officer, a victim advocate or therapist, a child

protective services official, a medical specialist in child abuse,

a substance abuse counselor, or an assistant U.S. attorney.)

The team’s goals are to improve communication among the

agencies and individuals involved in sex offender supervision, to promote the exchange of expertise and of information about specific cases, and to foster unified, com-prehensive case management, counteracting the divisive effects of

sex offenders’ secretiveness, manipulativeness, and denial.

For more information, contact Sr. USPO and Sex Offender

Specialist Mark Geiger at mark_geiger@azd.uscourts.gov.

Montana probation’s approach to sex offender management emphasizes collaboration between the supervision officer and the district’s sex offender treatment provider, ensuring congruence between special conditions and treatment

policies. Supervision officers regard the community rather

than the offender as the primary client and are considered to

be part of the treatment team, while the treatment provider is

considered to be engaged in supervision.

This collaboration is perhaps most evident in the weekly

group therapy session conducted jointly by officers and treatment providers, with offenders sharing responsibility for supervision decisions. The joint approach to treatment allows

the officer to assess risk on a weekly basis. Reportedly, offenders quickly begin to see the probation officer as part of the

treatment team rather than someone whose primary purpose

is to catch them making mistakes. Each offender is informed

that the officer will not use statements made in therapy sessions as a means to recommend revocation, unless those

statements indicate new criminal conduct.

The officer participates in the offender’s treatment to the

extent that he will confront the individual and provide instruction and direction just as a therapist would. Conversely,

the officer must be open to confrontation and criticism from

the offender, just as the therapist must. The collaborative approach also facilitates supervision by requiring the offender

to explain his or her behavior to the supervision officer and

the treatment provider at the same time, rather than in separate meetings.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 12

Sample “Package” of Sex Offender

Conditions from the Central District

of California Probation Office

The following conditions must be reasonably necessary for

the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2), which can

be summarized as (1) punishment (in the case of a probation condition only), (2) deterrence, (3) public protection,

and (4) rehabilitation. Furthermore, the conditions must be

related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and

the history and characteristics of the defendant. (18 U.S.C.

§3553(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. §3563; 18 U.S.C. §3583; USSG §5B1.2

(guideline regarding factors to consider in sentencing),

§5D1.1 and §5D1.3 (supervised release), and §5B1.3 (probation))

• The defendant shall register with any local and/or state

sex offender registration agency in any state where the

defendant resides, is being supervised, is employed,

carries on a vocation, or is a student, as directed by the

probation officer. The defendant shall provide proof of

registration to the probation officer within ____ days of

release from imprisonment/placement on probation.

Note: Period for providing proof of registration may vary but is

not to exceed 72 hours. This is a mandatory condition of probation and supervised release for convictions listed in 18 U.S.C.

§4042(c)(4) if the offense was committed on or after November

26, 1998.

• The defendant shall participate in psychological/psychiatric counseling and/or a sex offender treatment program, which may include inpatient treatment as approved and directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall abide by all rules, requirements, and conditions of such program, including submission to risk

assessment evaluation(s) and physiological testing,

such as polygraph, plethysmograph, and Abel testing,

and shall take all prescribed medication. As directed by

the probation officer, the defendant shall pay all or part

of the costs of treating the defendant's drug dependency/alcohol dependency/psychiatric disorder to the aftercare contractor during the period of community supervision, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3672. The defendant

shall provide payment and proof of payment as directed

by the probation officer.

Note: Plethysmograph shall be recommended for male defendants only.

• The defendant shall grant a limited waiver of his/her

right of confidentiality in any records of mental health

treatment imposed as a consequence of this judgment

to allow the treatment provider to provide information

to the probation officer and sign all necessary releases

to enable the probation officer to monitor the defendant’s progress. The probation officer shall disclose the

presentence report and/or any previous sex offender or

mental health evaluations to the treatment provider.

Note: This waiver allows the probation officer to share information with the treatment provider (including, but not limited to the

presentence report) and to review the defendant’s course of treatment and progress with the treatment provider. Further, this communication is necessary for the purpose of treatment and assessment and addressing third-party risk.

• The defendant shall not possess any materials, including

pictures, photographs, books, writings, drawings, videos,

or video games, depicting and/or describing “sexually

explicit conduct” as defined at 18 U.S.C. §2256(2).

Of course, this role places significant additional demands

on the officer. For example, because sex offenders often see

themselves as sexually inadequate, they worry about such

things as the size of their penis or whether they will be able to

satisfy a woman in an appropriate sexual relationship. Many

offenders ask questions about basic sexual facts they never

learned or sexual “truths” learned from friends on the street.

The officer must be comfortable and skillful in discussing

such issues. The collaborative role also places additional demands on the officer’s time, since group therapy often is conducted after the officer’s regular working hours.

For more information, contact USPO and Special Offender

Specialist Carlos Jones at carlos_jones@mtp.uscourts.gov.

Missouri Eastern probation takes yet another approach.

The district’s mental health/sex offender specialist drafts all

presentence reports for sex offenders, while a single officer

supervises them. The officers, both of whom are certified in

the Abel Screening for Sexual Interest, work closely together

and with the district’s contracting specialist in monitoring

services provided to sex offenders and the mentally ill. The

specialist is responsible for networking with community

mental health programs to facilitate referral for offenders.

For more information, contact Sr. USPO and Mental

Health/Sex Offender Specialist Judy Holt (presentence) at

judy_holt@mep.uscourts.gov or Sr. USPO Ken Fitzgerald

(supervision) at ken_fitzgerald@mep.uscourts.gov.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 13

• The defendant shall not possess any materials, including pictures, photographs, books, writings, drawings,

videos, or video games, depicting and/or describing

child pornography as defined at 18 U.S.C. §2256(8).

• The defendant shall not own, use, or have access to the

services of any commercial mail receiving agency, nor

shall he/she open or maintain a post office box without

the prior approval of the probation officer.

Note: Deters offenders from gaining undetected access to pornography and having undetected avenues of contacting victims,

potential victims, and other sex offenders.

• The defendant shall not contact the victim, or _________

by any means, including in person, by mail or electronic

means, or via third parties. Further, the defendant shall

remain at least 100 yards from the victim(s) at all times. If

any contact occurs, the defendant shall immediately leave

the area of contact and report the contact to the probation officer.

Note: Use this condition if there is an identified victim; fill in the

blank to include other identified parties, such as family, school,

or employer.

• The defendant shall not frequent or loiter within 100 feet

of school yards, parks, public swimming pools, playgrounds, youth centers, video arcade facilities, or other

places primarily used by persons under the age of 18.

Note: Add location(s) if necessary.

 • The defendant shall not associate or have verbal, written, telephone, or electronic communication with any

person under the age of 18 except (1) in the presence

of the parent or legal guardian of said minor and (2) on

the condition that the defendant notifies said parent or

legal guardian of his/her conviction in the instant offense. This provision does not encompass persons under

the age of 18, such as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors,

etc., with whom the defendant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual commercial services.

• The defendant shall not affiliate with, own, control, and/

or be employed in any capacity by a business, organization, and/or volunteer activity that causes him/her to regularly contact persons under the age of 18.

• The defendant shall not affiliate with, own, control, and/

or be employed in any capacity by a business whose

principal product is the production and/or selling of materials depicting and/or describing “sexually explicit conduct” as defined at 18 U.S.C. §2256(2).

• The defendant’s employment shall be approved by the

probation officer, and any change in employment must

be preapproved by the probation officer. The defendant

shall submit the name and address of the proposed employer to the probation officer at least 10 days prior to

any scheduled change.

• The defendant shall not reside within direct view of

school yards, parks, public swimming pools, playgrounds, youth centers, video arcade facilities, or other

places primarily used by persons under the age of 18.

The defendant’s residence shall be approved by the probation officer, and any change in residence must be preapproved by the probation officer. The defendant shall

submit the address of the proposed residence to the

probation officer at least 10 days prior to any scheduled

move.

Presentence investigation issues and

special condition packages

Presentence investigations, while requiring meticulous preparation generally, demand even greater attention for sex offenders, with whom denial is a central characteristic. The presentence report for a sex offender provides a unique opportunity to set a standard of truth that will make distancing himself or herself from the offense difficult for the offender and

will help the BOP and supervision officer manage the individual.

At sentencing, sex offenders typically call attention to

their status in the community, relying on expert testimony to

show a lack of dangerousness and offering letters of support.

The effort to appear nonthreatening and trustworthy can

be especially effective where there is no prior arrest history

and the offender has an advanced degree and history of

steady employment. The presentence officer’s goal in investigation and report writing is to close the “responsibility gap”

between the offender and his or her crime.

It is common for offenders to deny the pervasiveness

and depth of their deviancy. In line with the model outlined

by Georgia Cumming and Maureen Buell in Supervision

of the Sex Offender (Safer Society Press, 1997), Sr. U.S. Probation Officer and Mental Health Treatment Specialist Francisco Peralta (Texas Western), a member of the AO/OPPS

Ad Hoc Sex Offender Management Working Group, recom-
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 14

Examples of Special Release

Conditions

The Texas Northern pretrial services policy for managing defendants charged with sex-related offenses incorporates the

following sample special conditions. The policy notes that

conditions of release should be tailored on a case-by-case

basis.

• Defendant must participate in mental health counseling that may include specialized sex offender

treatment.

• Defendant may not possess any pornographic, sexually stimulating, or sexually oriented material and

may not enter any location where pornography or

erotica can be accessed, obtained, or viewed.

(Note, however, recent case law in the Third and

Ninth Circuits in which the courts of appeals struck

down “no pornography” conditions that the district

courts had ordered in the post-conviction context.

See p. 5.)

• Defendant may not have contact with any victim or

child under age 18 and may not loiter near school

yards, playgrounds, swimming pools, arcades, or

other places frequented by children.

• Defendant may not have contact with devices that

communicate data via modem or dedicated connection and may not have access to the Internet.

• Defendant may not use or possess a computer.

• Defendant is required to adhere to a curfew as follows:

Defendant shall participate in the Home Confinement Program. During this time, defendant will be

on [Voice Track System, electronic monitoring,

home incarceration, or curfew] and will remain at

defendant’s place of residence except for employment and other activities approved in advance by

defendant’s U.S. pretrial services officer. Defendant will maintain a telephone without call forwarding, a modem, caller ID, and call waiting. Defendant

may not maintain portable cordless telephones. At

the direction of U.S. pretrial services, defendant

shall wear an electronic monitoring device or pager

and follow the home confinement procedures specified by defendant’s U.S. pretrial services officer.

Defendant shall pay the cost of the monitoring services as determined by the U.S. pretrial services office.

• Defendant’s employment and change of address

must be approved by the officer.

• Defendant may not date women/men who have

children.

• Defendant must maintain a driving log with details

about mileage, routes traveled, and destinations.

• Defendant may not use sexually oriented telephone

numbers or services.

If the officer determines that the defendant is subject to

registration as a sex offender, the following condition should

be recommended.

• Defendant shall register as a sex offender with the

proper state and/or local agency or agencies in any

state where defendant resides, is employed, carries

on a vocation, or is a student, as directed by the

pretrial services officer.

mends a three-phase approach to the investigation. In the

preparatory phase prior to the interview, the officer reviews

documentation to learn as much as possible about the offender and the crime. In child pornography cases, the officer

must review the illicit images. In the next phase, the officer

conducts Probation Form 1 and instant offense and sexual

history interviews with the offender, followed by verification

interviews with collateral sources and a home inspection

with the offender and his or her family. If the investigation is

conducted pursuant to a plea agreement and the agreement

calls for a psychosexual evaluation, the officer should initiate

the referral. If the plea agreement does not call for a psychosexual evaluation, the officer can approach the court to request that an evaluation be ordered. The length of the evaluation process may necessitate requests for sentencing continuances. In the report writing and analysis phase, the officer

assembles information uncovered by the investigation, including results from mental health or psychosexual evaluations and computations required by the U.S. sentencing

guidelines, and makes a sentencing recommendation that includes sex offender-specific special conditions of probation

or supervised release.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 15

For more information, contact Sr. USPO and Mental Health

Treatment Specialist Francisco Peralta at francisco_

peralta@txwp.uscourts.gov. For specific information on

characteristics of sex offenders and conducting the presentence investigation, see Special Needs Offenders Bulletin:

Sex Offenders pp. 10–13.

Texas Western probation, California Central probation,

Arizona probation, and Oklahoma Northern (combined)

have developed special condition packages for sex offenders.

“Packaged” conditions must be formulated with an understanding of applicable federal statutes and case law and applied by the presentence officer on a case-by-case basis. Each

condition must bear a reasonable relationship to the nature

and circumstances of the offense or to the history and characteristics of the defendant—information that must be included in the presentence report.

The method by which California Central probation developed its conditions is instructive for districts contemplating a similar initiative. The district formed a special conditions committee to examine supervision challenges presented by sex offenders and determine what conditions might be

appropriate. The committee began by asking officers about

concerns that might merit sex offender-specific conditions.

Among other things, officers cited access to pornography and

to potential victims, treatment, employment, and residence

location. Next, the committee looked at conditions used by

other districts and examined sex offender cases decided by

the Ninth Circuit and the district courts. Importantly, during

the drafting process the committee also consulted relevant

materials prepared by the AO Office of General Counsel.

The final version of the sex offense conditions consisted

of a series of topics for case-by-case consideration. The district anticipated that the conditions addressing treatment,

paying for treatment, and waiving confidentiality would be

used in every case. (Sex offender registration and DNA sampling would be used in every case because they are statutorily

required.) The balance of the conditions would not necessarily be used in each case, however.

For more information, contact USPO David Carter at

david_e_carter@cacp.uscourts.gov.

Pretrial services policies and

procedures

Of course, pretrial services officers must also be aware of the

potential danger to the community—in essence, further victimization—that can be presented by defendants charged

with sex offenses. In this regard, officers must be prepared to

gather information and recommend a course of action to the

court that will help reduce the risk of danger. Because defendants accused of sex-related offenses, like all defendants, are

entitled to the presumption of innocence, confidentiality, and

the least restrictive conditions of release, however, the role of

the pretrial services officer is more circumscribed than that of

the probation officer.

There is significant variation in district practices in terms

of the degree of restriction that can be imposed upon defendants charged with sex offenses. Thus, a pretrial services office considering development of a policy to facilitate management of defendants charged with sex offenses must first

understand the position of the district toward such defendants.

In 2000, Texas Northern pretrial services developed a

policy for sex offense cases. The policy covers identification

and classification of defendants, issues for consideration during the pretrial interview, special conditions, supervision,

treatment, registration, and mental health concerns, such as

suicide risk.

Identification/classification. The Texas Northern policy

notes that the most common types of federal sex-related offenses in the district are “traveler” cases involving individuals

accused of engaging in interstate travel for sex with a minor

and “producer/distributor” cases in which the defendant is

accused of producing or distributing child pornography.

Issues for consideration during the pretrial interview. In interviewing a defendant charged with a sex-related

offense, the officer should consider whether the defendant

lives with or near children; the defendant’s current family situation and history, including access to children and history of

sexual abuse; the defendant’s employment and social activities, including whether the defendant has access to children

at his or her job or while engaged in hobbies or other social

activities; the defendant’s mental health, including a history

of mental health issues; substance abuse by the defendant,

including use of drugs or alcohol to minimize responsibility

for behavior; the defendant’s criminal history, including

whether the defendant has a history of sex-related offenses or

offenses that might indicate sexual deviancy, as well as

whether the defendant is (or should be) a registered sex offender.

Special release conditions. The different degrees to

which districts restrict the activities of accused sex offenders

can be seen in their wording of special release conditions. For
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 16

example, where a court in Texas Northern may impose a condition prohibiting the defendant from accessing any pornography, a court in another district may impose a condition

only prohibiting access to child pornography.

Supervision. The Texas Northern sex offense policy

states that because many sex offenders present themselves

well and usually produce few case supervision problems, officers may fail to recognize the dangers that such individuals

present to the community. “Sex offenders require constant

monitoring, and supervision strategies should be intensive/

intrusive to the point allowable by the pretrial confidentiality

statutes,” the policy states. It advises officers

• to review the pretrial services report and charging document before the initial meeting with the defendant

• to review the defendant’s criminal history to see if he or

she has prior convictions for sex-related offenses and, if

so, confirm that the defendant is registered as a sex offender

• to maintain frequent face-to-face contact with the defendant

• to emphasize field contact at the defendant’s home and,

when in the home, to walk through and look for evidence of the presence of children (if no children are living with the defendant), such as clothing, toys, photographs, etc.

• to observe, when in the defendant’s neighborhood or

apartment complex, whether there is a playground or

school nearby

• to monitor the defendant’s employment and social activities for access to children

The policy further advises officers to set firm limits

with defendants, use collateral contacts, and use direct

language when speaking with defendants about behavior.

Assessment and treatment. District practices for recommending and imposing treatment conditions at the pretrial stage vary. In districts that order sex offender assessments

of defendants, confidentiality of assessment results is an issue. To ensure confidentiality, some courts seal the results,

allowing access only by pretrial services and the court itself. If

a treatment condition is imposed by the court, the assessment and treatment should be conducted by sex offender

treatment providers approved by the pretrial services office.

Sex offender treatment differs significantly from traditional

mental health treatment, and providers are trained specifically to handle sex offenders (see box, p. 10).

The Texas Northern policy notes that a pretrial defendant

is to be referred to individual rather than group sex offender

counseling because group counseling, though preferred in

sex offender cases, is more intrusive for pre-convicted individuals. As the policy notes, “ineffective sex offender treatment

is always worse than no sex offender treatment at all.” The policy goes on to advise officers to preview treatment goals and

the number of counseling sessions the defendant is required

to attend while on pretrial release. “These issues should be

addressed at the initial and/or subsequent meetings with the

defendant and should be recorded on paper for the defendant (and for the officer’s records),” the policy states.

If a treatment condition is imposed for a defendant who

was in treatment prior to commencing supervision, the officer should try to obtain a release of information from the defendant pursuant to PSA Form 6B (Authorization to Release

Confidential Information). The officer should also communicate often with the treatment provider, verifying his or her

qualifications and, if the provider is unqualified, bringing this

fact to the court’s attention.

Registration. If a defendant is subject to a state sex offender registration requirement due to a prior conviction, the

pretrial services officer should determine if the individual is

in fact registered. Nonregistration is a violation of the mandatory condition that the defendant not commit a federal, state,

or local crime while on release (18 U.S.C. §3142(c)(1)(A)). If

convicted, the defendant must register while awaiting sentencing or voluntary surrender.

Mental health/suicide risk. The Texas Northern policy

notes that it is not uncommon for a defendant accused of a

sex-related offense to become suicidal. “Although the defendant may have no . . . history of mental health issues or treatment, this area should be explored carefully both at the time

of the bond interview and throughout any period of supervision,” the policy states.

For more information, contact USPSO Jennifer Coalson

at jennifer_coalson@txnp.uscourts.gov, USPSO Todd

Skipworth at todd_skipworth@wawpt.uscourts.gov, USPSO

Jason Lerman at jason_lerman@nyspt.uscourts.gov, or USPSO Eddie Santos at eddie_santos@nyspt.uscourts.gov.

Training

Internal training

In 2000 and 2002 California Central probation mounted

major in-district training programs on managing mentally ill
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 17

offenders and sex offenders. One goal of the effort has been

to develop specialists. Officers who participated in the 2000

program were designated as mental health officers and, later,

as specialists. These officers work closely with the district’s

contracting specialist regarding treatment vendors, supervision strategies, and procedures. The specialist officers meet at

least four times a year for case sharing and training and serve

as resources for their division offices and the district.

The support of the district’s management team has been

crucial to implementation of this training initiative. Managers are invited to participate in all in-house training and are

provided with materials that officers attending outside training receive. During program development, staff prepared

clear and concise recommendations for management approval and input.

The classroom component of the 2000 program consisted of five full days of training, one of which was dedicated to

sex offender investigation and supervision. The 2002 presentation on sex offender treatment and supervision, delivered

by a local sex offender treatment provider, discussed containment and use of the polygraph, plethysmograph, and Abel

Screen for evaluation and treatment. Representatives from

the district’s federal defender and U.S. attorney offices also

attended the presentation.

As part of the program, officers supervising mental

health and sex offender cases met monthly to discuss casework and review videotapes of National Institute of Corrections and Federal Judicial Center training programs on sex offender management. Several officers attended training at FCI

Butner to learn more about its Sex Offender Treatment Program. While the monthly sessions were primarily for supervision officers, presentence officers attended some as well.

The AO/OPPS Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs office suggested reference materials for the program.

Each mental health specialist received English, et. al’s Managing Adult Sex Offenders (APPA, 1996) and Cumming and

Buell’s Supervision of the Sex Offender (Safer Society Press,

1997). The district also has several copies of the ATSA practice standards and guidelines for treatment providers.

Mental health specialists in the district continue their

professional education by attending ATSA conferences and

meetings arranged by local professional organizations concerned with sex offender management. Officers have been

able to apply what they learned in reviewing treatment providers and dropping those found unqualified or inadequate.

The district now encourages presentence officers to contact the mental health specialists in the field office where the

offender will be supervised to make sure that all appropriate

supervision and treatment conditions are added. In 2001, a

presentence officer accompanied the district’s mental health

specialists to the annual ATSA conference, which led to the

formation of the district’s special conditions committee convened to develop packages of special conditions to address

sex offenders and cyber crime offenders.

For more information, contact USPO and Aftercare Coordinator Helene Creager at helene_creager@cacp.uscourts.

gov. For more information on the containment approach to

sex offender management, see Special Needs Offenders Bulletin: Sex Offenders, pp. 15–17.

External training

Following is a list of organizations offering training related to

sex offender investigation and supervision.

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM).

http://www.csom.org. Training curriculum is available online

(see box, p. 7).

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

(ATSA). http://www.atsa.com. Each year ATSA sponsors a

four-day conference for professionals involved in the assessment, treatment, supervision, or investigation of sex offenders. State chapters sponsor their own conferences as well.

Publications available from ATSA include Practice Standards

and Guidelines for Members of the Association of the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (2001) and Risk Assessment Information Package (2001).

KB Solutions: Managing Sex Offenders’ Computer

Use. http://www.kbsolutions.com. This two-day program,

offered at the 2002 American Probation and Parole Association summer training institute, can be tailored to the needs of

the district. Participants learn about sex-related information

available on the Internet and the distinction between legal

adult sites and those containing illicit material. The program

explains how sex offenders access illicit material and recruit

prospective victims on the Internet. It reviews computer

monitoring software and provides assistance in choosing cyber supervision methods. Advanced supervision training includes using the structured sex offender treatment review

and constructing computer contracts for offenders under supervision.

Federal Judicial Center, http://jnet.fjc.dcn. Printed

program materials can be downloaded from the Center’s

DCN site. To obtain videos, officers should fax a request, in-
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 18

cluding their mailing address, to the Center’s Media Library at

202-502-4077.

• Special Needs Offenders: Sex Offenders (bulletin) and

Overview of Sex Offenders in the Federal System (videotape of FJTN broadcast) (1998). http://156.132.47.230:

8081/newweb/jnetweb.nsf/pages/356. This program

describes sex offender characteristics and the risk- and

case-management issues they pose. The video features

ATSA Executive Member Steve Jensen, and Dr. Andres

Hernandez, director of the Sex Offender Treatment

Program (SOTP) at FCI Butner, describing sex offender

behavioral characteristics, the role of treatment, treatment provider qualifications, and the SOTP. Three federal probation officers discuss supervision strategies,

and AO Associate General Counsel David Adair Jr. addresses pertinent legal issues.

• Special Needs Offenders: Pedophiles Who Use the Internet (1998). http://156.132.47.230:8081/newweb/

jnetweb.nsf/pages/193. Produced in cooperation with

the FBI for probation and pretrial services officers, this

program features a presentation from the FBI’s undercover investigative unit Innocent Images and describes

resources available to probation and pretrial services

officers. Innocent Images Special Agent Rick Potocek

conducts an online demonstration, and Special Agent

Ken Lanning of the FBI’s Child Abduction Serial Killers

Unit profiles pedophiles.

• Assessment of Sex Offenders for Sentencing, Supervision, and Treatment (1999). http://156.132.47.230:

8081/newweb/jnetweb.nsf/pages/19. Panelists in this

three-hour FJTN program, produced by CSOM and the

National Institute of Corrections (NIC), discuss available approaches and instruments for evaluating sex

offenders and critical differences among assessment

tools. The complementary roles of treatment provider

and supervision officer and barriers to and benefits of

collaboration are also examined.

• Effective Supervision of Adult Sex Offenders in the Community (2000). http://156.132.47.230:8081/newweb/

jnetweb.nsf/pages/8. Also produced by NIC and

CSOM, this three-hour FJTN program describes supervision methods that can help ensure community safety

and prevent future victimization. Discussion covers

emerging supervision practices and practical strategies

for line officers and administrators.

• Special Needs Offenders: FCI Butner Sex Offender Treatment Program (2001). http://156.132.47.230:8081/

newweb/jnetweb.nsf/pages/131. This program presents highlights of a question-and-answer session with

nearly 100 probation and pretrial services officers during a seminar in June 2000. SOTP Director Dr. Andres

Hernandez and FCI Butner Psychology Services staff

discuss sex offender assessment and treatment standards, sex offender-specific presentence investigation,

risk assessment, and offender supervision and management.

• Handbook for Working with Mentally Disordered Defendants and Offenders (1999). http://156.132.47.230:

8081/newweb/jnetweb.nsf/pages/360. This handbook

provides basic information on selected mental disorders, suggests strategies for identifying and supervising mentally ill defendants and offenders, defines frequently encountered terms, and lists national resource

agencies. A chapter on child molesters is included.

National Institute of Corrections. http://www.nicic.org.

Sex Offender Treatment Skills for Corrections Professionals

(2001). This course, which consists of six videotapes and two

volumes of print materials, explores various topics concerning sex offender treatment. Primarily for practitioners in institutions, the content is also applicable to community

settings. The course examines sex offender characteristics,

staff issues, program design, legal and ethical issues, and action plans for agency change.

Selected references

Adair, David Jr. “Looking at the Law: The Privilege Against SelfIncrimination and Supervision.” Federal Probation 73–78 (June

1999).

O’Connell, Michael A.; Leberg, Eric; and Donaldson, Craig R.

Working with Sex Offenders: Guidelines for Therapist Selection.

Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1990.

Orlando, Dennise. Special Needs Offenders Bulletin: Sex Offenders.Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center (September

1998).

Walsh, Elizabeth R., and Cohen, Fred. Sex Offender Registration

and Community Notification: A “Megan’s Law” Sourcebook.

Kingston, N.J.: Civic Research Institute, 2000 (loose-leaf).

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Summary

of State Sex Offender Registries, 2001 Fact Sheet. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 19

Federal law requires sex offenders under federal supervision

to register with state authorities (18 U.S.C. §§3563(a)(8),

3583(d)). This job aid summarizes state sex offender registry

information. The Internet sites listed are all state maintained,

with the exception of New Hampshire’s. The sites include offender information, registry requirements, and text of or links

to state sex offender registry statutes. The KlaasKids Web

site (http://www.klaaskids.org) lists some county sites with

offender registry information. This aid does not include:

• “triggering offenses” that tell users the offense of which

the individual must be convicted to be required to register

under the statute. If the offender is convicted of a federal

sex-related offense, it is advisable to cross-check the offense with the state statutory list. Federal supervision

agencies should use the state’s offense equivalent to determine if a federal offense triggers registration. For example, if a state statute requires registration upon conviction

for “enticing a minor over the Internet” (see, e.g., Utah

Code §76-4-401), then a federal conviction for “sexual exploitation of children” (see 18 USC §§2251 (2002)(a))

would be considered a registering offense because the

two crimes are synonymous.

• “conviction required,” since in most states a conviction is

required to warrant registry requirement

• registry information. Federal law requires offenders to register name, address, fingerprints, identifying factors, future residence, and offense history, but state requirements

vary widely. The state registry agency can inform the officer and offender of state requirements.

• prospective versus retroactive application. Some states

require retroactive application of the registry requirement

to sex offenders either convicted and released, incarcerated, or under supervision. This aspect of the law is under

constant judicial scrutiny and changes frequently, however. Therefore, it is advisable to contact the registering

agency for more details.

• registry requirements for change of address and annual

verification. Some states require that sex offenders reregister annually or after changes in residence.

State Registering State Authority State Statute Online Information

Agent

Ju

Registration

Deadline (days)

venile

Registration*

Alabama County sheriff Alabama Department of Public Safety, – 30 Ala. code §§ 13A-11-200 www.gsiweb.net/index.html

Bureau of Investigation, 334-260-1181 et seq.

Alaska State trooper Department of Public Safety, Division of A 1 Alaska Stat. §§ 12.63.010 www.dps.state.ak.us/nsorcr/asp

or city police Alaska State Troopers, Sex Offender Central et seq.

Registry, 907-269-5511

Arizona County sheriff Arizona Department of Public Safety, – 10 Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3821 www.azsexoffender.com

Compliance Unit, 602-255-0611 et seq.

Arkansas Local law Arkansas Crime Information Center, – 10 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 12-12-901 www.acic.org/registration

enforcement 501-682-2222 et seq.

agency

California County sheriff, Sex Offender Tracking Program, – 5 Cal. Penal Code § 290 http://caag.state.ca.us/megan/

chief of police, 916-227-3506

campus police

Colorado County sheriff or Colorado Bureau of Investigation, – 7 Colo. Rev. Stat. www.sor.state.co.us

chief of police 303-239-4222 §§ 16-22-101 et seq.

Connecticut Commissioner Connecticut Department of Public Safety, – 1 Conn. Gen. Stat. www.state.ct.us/dps/Sor.htm

of Public Safety 860-685-8060 § 54-253

Sex Offender Registration and Notification, by State

* It is important to contact a state official to confirm juvenile registration requirements. The absence of specific provisions requiring juvenile sex offenders to register does

not necessarily mean that juveniles are excluded from registering. An “18+” (or “17+” or “15+”) means that the individual must be at least 18 (or 17 or 15) years old to

be classified as a sex offender.
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 20

Delaware State police Delaware State Police, 302-739-5882 – 7 Del. Code Ann. §§ 4120 www.state.de.us/dsp/sexoff/index.htm

et seq.

District of Metropolitan police Court Services and Offender Supervision – NS D.C. Code § 22-4001 www.mpdc.dc.gov/serv/sor/sor.shtm

Columbia Agency, 202-585-7487

Florida Department of Law Florida Department of Law Enforcement, – 2 Fla. Stat. § 943.0435 www.fdle.state.fl.us

Enforcement Missing Children Information Clearinghouse

and Sexual Offender/Predator Unit,

888-357-7332

Georgia Superintendent of Georgia Bureau of Investigation, – 10 Ga. Code Ann. § 42-9-44.1 www.ganet.org/gbi/disclaim.html

school district and 404-656-4747 or 404-656-4763

county sheriff

Hawaii Chief of county police Department of the Attorney General, – 3 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 846E www.state.hi.us/hcjdc/sexoffender.htm

Criminal Justice Data Center, 808-587-3100

Idaho County sheriff Idaho State Police, Bureau of Criminal – 10 Idaho Code §§ 18-8301 www.isp.state.id.us/identification/

Identification, 208-884-7305 et seq. sex_offender/index.html

Illinois Local law Illinois State Police, 217-557-1945 or 17+ 10 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. samnet.isp.state.il.us/

enforcement 217-524-8229 §§ 150/1 et seq.

Indiana Chief of police or Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, – 7 Ind. Code Ann. §§ 5-2-12 www.in.gov/indcorrection/

county sheriff 317-232-1232 et seq. htmlODSdisclaim

Iowa County sheriff Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, – 10 Iowa Code § 692A www.iowasexoffenders.com

Iowa Sex Offender Registry, 515-281-8104

Kansas County sheriff Kansas Bureau of Investigation, – 10 Kan. Stat. Ann. www.ink.org/public/ksag/contents/

785-296-8277 §§ 22-49-001 et seq. sexoffenders/registration.htm

Kentucky County probation or Kentucky State Police, Records Branch, – 10 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. kspsor.state.ky.us/

parole office 502-227-8781 §§ 17.500 et seq.

Louisiana Parish sheriff or Louisiana State Police, 225-925-6100 – 30 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. www.lasocpr.lsp.org/socpr

local police §§ 15:540 et seq.

Maine Department of State Bureau of Investigation, Maine State 5 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. None

Public Safety, Police, 207-624-7100 Title 34A, §§ 11201 et seq.

State Bureau of

Investigation

Maryland Local law Department of Public Safety and Correc- – 7 Md. Code Ann. [crimi- www.dpscs.state.md.us/sor

enforcement tional Services, Crimes Against Children nal procedure]

and Sex Offender Registry Unit, §§ 11-701 et seq.

410-585-3649

Massachusetts Local police Sex Offender Registry Board, – 2 Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 74, www.state.ma.us/sorb

978-740-6506 or 978-740-6400 § 178C-178P

Michigan Local law Michigan State Police, Criminal Justice – 10 Mich. Comp. Laws www.mipsor.state.mi.us

enforcement Information Center, 517-322-4939 §§ 28-721 et seq.;

§§ 791.236

Minnesota Law enforcement Minnesota Bureau of Criminal – 5 Minn. Stat. §§ 243.166 www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/

agency Apprehension, 651-642-0561 et seq.

Mississippi Department of Department of Public Safety, Criminal B 3 Miss. Code Ann. www.sor.mdps.state.ms.us

public safety Information Center, 601-933-2600 §§ 45-33-1 et seq.

Missouri Highway patrol Missouri State Highway Patrol, – 10 Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 589.414 None

573-526-6397 et seq.

Montana Chief of police, Department of Justice, Division of Criminal – 10 Mont. Code Ann. www.svor.doj.state.mt.us

county sheriff, Investigation, 406-444-9479 §§ 46-23-501 et seq.

or probation office

State Registering State Authority State Statute Online Information

Agent

Juve

Registration

Deadline (days)

nile

Registration*
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 21

State Registering State Authority State Statute Online Information

Agent

Juve

Registration

Deadline (days)

nile

Registration*

Nebraska County sheriff Nebraska State Patrol, Sex Offender – 5 Neb. Rev. Stat. www.nsp.state.ne.us/sor/index.cfm

Registry, 402-471-8647 §§ 29-4001 et seq.

Nevada Local law Department of Public Safety, Records and _ 2 Nev. Rev. Stat. ag.state.nv.us/sex_offenders/

enforcement Identification Bureau, 775-687-1600, §§ 179D.010 et seq. adult_offend.pdf

ext. 238

New Department of Public New Hampshire State Police, Special C 30 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. www.theunionleader.com/articles_

Hampshire Safety division of Investigation Unit, Sex Offender §§ 651-B:1 et seq. show.html?article=8404

state police Registry, 603-271-6344 (private site)

New Jersey Chief city law Division of State Police, 609-882-2000, – 70 N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:7 www.njsp.org/info/reg_sexoffend.html

enforcement officer, ext. 2318 et seq.

local police, or

superintendent of

state police

New Mexico County sheriff Department of Public Safety, 18+ 10 N.M. Stat Ann. §§ 29-11A-1 www.nmsexoffender.dps.state.nm.us

505-827-9191 et seq.

New York Division of Criminal Division of Criminal Justice Services, – 10 N.Y. Correc. Law. §§ 168 http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/

Justice Services Sex Offender Registry, 518-457-3175 et seq. nsor/index.htm

North Carolina County sheriff State Bureau of Investigation, – 15 N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-208.5 sbi.jus.state.nc.us/DOJHAHT/SOR/

Division of Criminal Information, et seq. Default.htm

919-662-4500, ext. 6248

North Dakota Attorney general Bureau of Criminal Investigation, – NS N.D. Cent. Code www.ndsexoffender.com/

701-328-5500 §§ 12.1-32.15 et seq.

Ohio County sheriff Bureau of Criminal Investigation and – 7 Ohio Revised Code Ann. www.ag.state.oh.us/bci/bciisum.htm

Identification, 740-845-2223 §§ 2950.01 et seq. (see section titled “SORN”)

Oklahoma Department of Cor- Oklahoma Department of Corrections, – 7 Okla. Stat. tit. 57, By county

rections and chief of 405-228-2065 §§ 581 et seq.

police or county

sheriff

Oregon Department of State Oregon State Police, 503-378-3720, – 30 Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 181.594 By county

Police and city police ext. 4425 et seq.

or county sheriff

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Pennsylvania State Police, 717-783-4363 – 1 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. www.psp.state.pa.us/psp/cwp/

Police and city police §§ 9791 et seq. browse.asp?A=15&BMDRN=

department or 2000&BCOB=0&C=33315

county sheriff

Rhode Island Attorney general Department of the Attorney General, – 1 R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-37.1 None

401-274-4400, ext. 2288 et seq.

South Carolina County sheriff South Carolina Law Enforcement – 60 S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-400 www.sled.state.sc.us/SLED/default.

Department, 803-896-7164 et seq. asp?Category=SCSO&Service=

SCSO_01

South Dakota Chief of police or South Dakota Office of the Attorney 15+ 10 S.D. Codified Laws www.sddci.com/administration/id/

county sheriff General, Division of Criminal §§ 22-22-31 et seq. sexoffender/about.htm

Investigation, 605-773-3331

Tennessee Tennessee Bureau of Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, – 10 Tenn. Code Ann. www.ticic.state.tn.us/SEX_ofndr/

Investigation 615-744-4320 §§ 40-39-101 et seq. search_short.asp

Texas Local law enforce- Texas Department of Public Safety, – 1 Tex. Code Crim. P. records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/

ment agency and AFIS/DJIS Bureau, Sex Offender art. 62.01 et seq. default.cfm

Department of Registration, 512-424-2279

Public Safety
F E D E R A L J U D I C I A L C E N T E R • Close-up • NOVEMBER 2002 22

State Registering State Authority State Statute Online Information

Agent

Juve

Registration

Deadline (days)

nile

Registration*

Utah Department of Department of Corrections, 801-545-5904 – 1 Utah Code Ann. www.udc.state.ut.us/asp-bin/

Corrections § 77-27-21.5 sexoffendersearchform.asp

Vermont Department of Vermont Crime Information Center, D 10 Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, www.dps.state.vt.us/cjs/s_registry.htm

Public Safety 802-241-5400 – §§ 5401 et seq.

Virginia Local law Virginia Department of State Police, – 10 Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.2-298.1 sex-offender.vsp.state.va.us/cool-ICE/

enforcement 804-323-2001 et seq.

Washington County sheriff Washington State Patrol, Identification and – 1 Wash. Rev. Code By county

Criminal History Section, 360-705-5105 § 9A.44.130

West Virginia State police West Virginia State Police, 304-746-2133 – 1 W. Va. Code §§ 15-12-1 www.wvstatepolice.com/sexoff/

et seq. websearchform.cfm

Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, – 10 Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 www.widocoffenders.org

Justice 608-240-5822

Wyoming Division of Criminal Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, – 40 Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-19-301 attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/so/

Investigation 307-777-7181 et seq. so_registration.html

Guam Guam Judicial Superior Court of Guam, 671-475-3270 NI NI NI None

Center

Northern Department of Public Department of Public Safety, Office of NI NI NI None

Mariana Safety Special Programs, 670-664-9120

Islands

Puerto Rico Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Information Systems, NI NI NI None

Information Systems 787-729-2121

U.S. Virgin Department of Virgin Islands Department of Justice, NI NI NI None

Islands Justice 340-774-5666

Legend

A If tried as an adult.

B Must be adjudicated twice before registration is required.

C No juvenile registration, but juvenile offender is required to submit a DNA sample.

D Except conduct that is criminal only because of the age of the victim, if the perpetrator is under 18.

NS State law does not specify a timeframe.

NI No information is available.