Passport Issuance: Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders
Released: 2010-07-14T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The National Sex Offender Registry

All states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and some Indian tribes have laws or codes requiring convicted sex offenders to register with local or state law enforcement authorities to enhance public protection and provide an additional investigative tool to law enforcement agencies. In most states, the sex offender registry is centrally maintained by a state criminal justice agency, such as the state police or a department of public safety.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Walsh Act) requires states to submit sex offender registrant information to the Attorney General for inclusion in a national registry. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains this database, the NSOR. In addition, the Walsh Act established a comprehensive set of minimum standards for states to follow for reporting sex offenders, including who must register, what information must be in the registries, how often registrants must reappear in person to verify their registration information and be rephotographed, the number of years that offenders must maintain their registration, and guidelines for the penalties for failing to register.

Convicted sex offenders who fail to satisfy registration requirements are subject to state or federal prosecution. The Walsh Act requires states to impose criminal penalties (including a maximum potential prison term of more than 1 year) on sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements. In addition, the Walsh Act makes failure to comply with registration requirements a federal crime (punishable by up to 10 years in prison) for sex offenders who travel between states or Indian tribal jurisdictions, or whose offenses are for federal, District of Columbia , Indian, or territorial crimes.

Restrictions on Issuance of U.S. Passports

Although federal law permits certain restrictions on the issuance of passports to individuals, the Secretary of State is not authorized to restrict the issuance of passports to individuals because they are listed in the NSOR. As with any other convicted felon, State lacks the authority to identify such status on these individuals’ passports. Federal law permits the Secretary of State to deny or revoke the issuance of passports only in certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, when the individual is subject to a criminal court order, condition of probation, or condition of parole, any of which forbids departure from the United States and the violation of which could result in the issuance of a federal warrant of arrest, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act; is over $2,500 delinquent in child support; is delinquent in certain State debts; has an outstanding felony warrant; has an outstanding foreign felony warrant; is subject to an extradition request that has been presented to a foreign country; has been declared legally incompetent; used a passport or crossed an international border to commit an act based on which the individual was subsequently convicted of certain drug trafficking crimes, but only during the period the individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release; or used a passport or crossed an international border to commit an act based on which the individual was subsequently convicted under the federal “sex tourism” statute, but only during the period the individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release.

The Department of State Issued Thousands of Passports to Registered Sex Offenders in Fiscal Year 2008

About 4,500 registered sex offenders were issued a passport in fiscal year 2008. However, this number is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers, the key field that we used to match these two databases. In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states. As such, we believe that the 4,500 registered sex offenders is the lowest approximation of registered sex offenders who were issued passports in fiscal year 2008.

According to the NSOR, about half of these passport recipients lived in five states—California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Michigan. The reasons for this large concentration in these five states include that they have large populations, border or are close to foreign countries, and may provide a more comprehensive reporting of sex offenders to the NSOR. The NSOR data also indicated that about 50 registered sex offenders who were issued passports either lived outside of the United States or their whereabouts were unknown. (See table 1.)

In addition, we identified at least 30 federal employees who were registered sex offenders and were issued passports by matching our data with federal civilian salary data from the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Further, at least 12 individuals were landlords in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Section 8 housing program during fiscal years 2006 and 2007 while they were registered sex offenders.

As discussed earlier, although federal law permits certain restrictions on the issuance of passports to individuals, the Secretary of State is not authorized to restrict the issuance of passports to individuals who are listed in the NSOR or to identify such individuals on their passports. State has indicated that it would like to study any proposed legislation to provide additional authority to deny passports to sex offenders, including constitutional, policy, and practical issues that may arise in its application and use. A State official said that the department recently began working with DOJ to develop a procedure for tracking these convictions and a procedure to notify State of those convictions. The official also said that once the agency has worked out these procedures, it will amend the regulations accordingly.

Case Studies Highlight Registered Sex Offenders Who Were Issued Passports despite Other Criminal Convictions or Who Fled the United States

The 30 registered sex offenders investigated for this report were all males who represented a wide array of professions and criminal backgrounds. At the time of their criminal offenses, many of them held positions of public trust—for example, health care provider, school teacher, religious layman, law enforcement official, federal employee, and owner of HUD Section 8 houses. Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts are unknown according to the NSOR. In one case study, the sex offender was issued a passport in his name while in prison, which is allowed under federal law, while another was issued a passport after becoming delinquent in child support, an offense for which State must deny passports. Based on interviews with local police departments, several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico. According to State officials, Mexico does not have a sex offense registration system, so these offenders are likely unknown to authorities and their neighbors. The officials also stated that Mexico is one of the destinations known for sex tourism. Finally, another individual has illegally failed to register with the police department as a sex offender for several years.

Table 2 highlights 15 cases of registered sex offenders who were issued their U.S. passports after their initial offenses. Appendix I provides details on the other 15 cases we examined.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and State for comment. DOJ stated that it did not have comments on the report. State’s comments are reprinted in appendix II, and its technical comments were incorporated as appropriate.

In its written response to our report, State said that our report and its title are misleading because they do not mention the low percentage of passports that were issued to registered sex offenders. Although we made a slight modification to the title to address State’s concern, we believe that our report and its title are fair and factually accurate. About 4,500 registered sex offenders were issued a passport in fiscal year 2008. Further, this number is likely understated because many of the records in State’s passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers, the key field that we used to match these two databases.

In addition, State said that we should make clear that we did not find evidence that it failed to exercise its authority to deny a passport to any sex offender identified in this study. However, we clearly explain that State is not authorized to restrict the issuance of passports to individuals because they are listed in the NSOR. State also said that we should include other relevant data, such as the number of convictions by DOJ under the relevant sex tourism statute and whether the passport could have been denied based on a sex tourism conviction. However, while the federal statute criminalizing sex tourism was in effect during the time period of our data (October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008), the statute that requires State to deny passports to those convicted under that law did not go into effect until after this time period elapsed (December 23, 2008). Furthermore, it is our understanding that State recently began reviewing the statute that requires passports to be denied to these individuals in April 2010, after we brought this statute to its attention because State was not aware of the statute.

State also wrote that our report suggested that the issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex offenses abroad, adding that there was no evidence connecting the sex offenders to sex crimes overseas following their convictions. We disagree. In our report, we did not state that the issuance of passports to sex offenders in fiscal year 2008 facilitated their commission of sex offenses abroad. This was not part of our objectives for this review. However, our introduction does cite examples from DOJ in which prior sex offenders committed sex crimes overseas. Our investigation did find several cases where the passport recipients traveled to locations known for sex tourism, and one of our 30 cases is currently under indictment related to sex crimes overseas.

State also said that there was no logical connection between the issuance of passports and sex offenders’ travel to Mexico, adding that our evidence was based on hearsay information and that a passport was not required to enter the United States from Mexico (via land border) until June 2009. In our report, we state that convicted sex offenders are required to register with local or state law enforcement authorities. As part of this requirement, the pertinent police departments stated that the offenders informed them of their moving to Mexico.

Finally, State wrote that our report provides graphic details that were used to suggest that State knew these details at the time of passport issuance and should have taken action to prevent the issuance of the passport. State’s assessment of the details of our case studies as “graphic” is the result of the nature of the criminal acts of the passport recipients; the offenses are directly relevant to our objective to develop case studies of passport recipients who are sex offenders. In addition, State said that the details of two of our cases in the Highlights could be construed as indicating an “anti-gay” bias. However, the descriptions of these case studies are at the same level of detail that we report in other case studies, describing illegal activities between an adult and a child of either gender. Furthermore, because these case studies only discuss sexual abuse of children, we have not made any assumptions or implications regarding the sexual orientations of these individuals. We do not believe the public would condone such illegal activities, regardless of the genders of the sex offenders or their victims.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Additional Examples of Registered Sex Offenders Who Were Issued U.S. Passports

Passport issuance date

As of fiscal year 2009, the offender was a federal employee with an entity that manages a national historical landmark.

In the mid-1990s, the offender was convicted of committing a lewd or lascivious act with child under 14 years old.

The offender is currently incarcerated.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of indecency with child, including sexual contact.

According to the victim’s statement to the police, the offender restrained and had sexual activity with her. The victim was an 8-year-old girl.

The offender has multiple parole violations and in the mid- to late 2000s, failed to comply with sex offender registration requirements, evaded arrest with a vehicle, and assaulted a public servant.

At the time of the offense, the offender was a practicing physician assistant.

In late 1990s, the offender was convicted of sexual battery.

The offender used his position as a physician assistant to seduce, sexually abuse, and have sexual relations with multiple patients in violation of the doctor-patient trust.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a child.

The offender was volunteering as an usher for a church and inappropriately touched a 14-year-old boy while the boy was using a urinal.

At the time of the offense, the offender was a licensed physician.

The police reported that at the time of the arrest, the offender was a sworn sheriff’s deputy and was near completing training at a corrections officer academy.

In the late 2000s, the offender was convicted of taking indecent liberties with children.

According to police, the offender attempted to meet someone he believed was a 13-year-old girl for sexual relations on two separate occasions. The case was initiated by an undercover operation targeting adults who were trying to exploit children on the Internet.

At the time of the offense, the offender was employed with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Although the position was one of “public trust,” Treasury was aware of the conviction and has maintained his employment at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

In the mid-1990s, the offender was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child.

According to police reports, the offender had sex multiple times with the 7-year-old daughter of his girlfriend.

The offender regularly traveled to Caribbean islands and Mexico after receiving his passport.

In the late 1990s, the offender was convicted of sexual contact with a minor while traveling on an airplane.

According to the prosecutor, the offender sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl while intoxicated and traveling on an airplane.

The offender traveled to Mexico after receiving his passport.

At the time of the offense, the offender was a practicing physician. The offender lost his medical license for several years after his conviction for child pornography.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of possession of child pornography.

The offender knowingly and intentionally possessed three discs containing images of child pornography and responded to a solicitation—by the state police in a sting operation—to purchase additional pornographic images involving teens and preteens.

After his license was reinstated, the offender began practicing medicine in a practice specializing in providing home visits to adult patients.

The offender traveled to a Caribbean island after receiving his passport.

The offender was employed at a company that constructs toilet partitions and restroom compartments.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of indecency with a child, including exposure.

The offender exposed himself to a 10-year-old child and mother in the parking lot of a sporting goods store.

The offender has a prior conviction for indecent exposure for sexually exposing himself, driving his vehicle without pants, and masturbating at a red light.

The offender stated that he needed the passport for a business trip to Europe but that the trip was subsequently canceled. He does not expect to use the passport in the future.

In the mid-1990s, the offender was convicted of felony sodomy of a 9-year-old girl and misdemeanor assault.

The offender traveled to the Caribbean after receiving his passport.

At the time of the offense, the offender was a licensed physician assistant.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of attempted sexual abuse of a child, a felony.

The offender attempted to rape a child with special needs while the child was sleeping.

At the time of the offense, the offender was employed as an aerospace engineer for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and is currently employed with the agency. The agency does not require a security clearance for this position.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of indecency with a child, including sexual contact.

According to the police report, the offender molested his 15-year-old stepdaughter by fondling, kissing, and touching the victim approximately 20 times in the span of about 9 months.

The offender stated that he used the passport to travel to Japan for business.

At the time of the offense, the offender was a religious layman employed as a teacher at a Catholic school and lured a 15-year-old boy into a storage room and fondled him.

According to the police report, after the offense, the offender stalked the victim repeatedly in the school hallways and bathroom. In the bathroom, the offender engaged in inappropriate sexual contact.

In the late 2000s, the offender was convicted of child abuse that he committed in the late 1970s.

At the time of the offense, the offender was a U.S. Postal Service employee. The offender was still employed by the Postal Service as of fiscal year 2008.

In the mid-1990s, the offender was convicted of aggravated incest and sexual assault of a child.

In the early 2000s, the offender was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, or oral copulation.

The offender was also convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in early 1970s. According to the police report, the offender offered a car ride to a 13- year-old girl as she walked home from school. The victim jumped out of the offender’s moving car after the offender exposed himself while driving.

In an interview with police, the offender stated that he was receiving psychiatric treatment before the offense and admitted that he exposed himself to five or six unknown females in a 3-year span.

According to local authorities, the offender has moved to Mexico.

The offender frequently crossed the Mexican border by vehicle after receiving his passport.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report DEPARTMENT OF STATE: Passports Issued to Thousands of (GAO-10-643, GAO Code 192298)

Thank you for giving the Department of State the opportunity to comment on the draft report to the Senate Committee on Finance concerning the issuance of passports to persons registered as sex offenders. Please find our general comments and concerns set forth below. Our technical comments with requested changes to the text are provided separately.

We think the report is very misleading. Starting with the title, “Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders,” we are concerned that it conveys more “shock value” than factual accuracy. The fact is that the State Department lacks legal authority to deny a passport to a registered sex offender and the title of the report should reflect this. Furthermore, of the over 16 million passport books and cards issued in 2008, less than 0.0003 percent were issued to registered sex offenders according to GAO estimates. Additionally, the title fails to reveal the very low percentage of passports that were issued to registered sex offenders in 2008 and the use of the word “thousands” without a reference point implies otherwise. Moreover, the title fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the Department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders.

The title also fails to convey that GAO found no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad. To be accurate and balanced, the title should read: “Existing U.S. Law Allows Passports to Be Issued to Registered Sex Offenders, Although GAO Found No Evidence That Sex Offenders Used Their Passports to Travel Abroad to Commit Sex Offenses.”

The Secretary of State has responsibility for issuing passports to U.S. nationals and may only deny an application for a passport if there is a legal basis for denial. The Department takes this responsibility very seriously. To that end, trained adjudicators review each passport application and supporting documentation extremely carefully to determine if the individual is entitled to a passport. In most cases, U.S. citizens are entitled to receive a passport regardless of the fact that they previously committed or were convicted of a crime.

The Department does have legal authority to deny passports in certain circumstances, including limited authority to deny in cases involving sex offenders. As noted in the draft report, Congress has already provided the Department authority to deny passports to individuals convicted of the crime of sex tourism involving minors and who used their passport or passport card or otherwise crossed an international border in committing an offense. The Department is currently working with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to implement this legislation. The Department also has authority to deny passports to individuals for whom an order of probation or parole as been entered by a court forbidding departure from the United States. When such orders are entered for sex offenders, the Department has authority to deny their passports on that basis.

To be accurate and fair, the draft report should make clear that GAO found no evidence that the Department failed to exercise its authority to deny a passport to any sex offender identified in this study. It should also include data relevant to this issue, such as the number of convictions by DOJ in fiscal year 2008 under the relevant sex tourism statute, and the number of those convicted who already had valid passports at the time they committed these crimes. The case studies themselves could explain whether there is any evidence that the passport could have been denied based on a sex tourism conviction, whether the criminal courts failed to enter orders of probation/parole for the applicants forbidding departure from the United States, or whether such orders had expired prior to passport issuance.

The report appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the Department’s issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex offenses abroad. There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime. Rather, it appears that most (if not all) the individuals included in the case studies committed sex crimes either within their own state or after traveling to a neighboring state. There also is no evidence connecting the sex offender to sex crimes overseas following their convictions.

Moreover, there is no logical connection between the Department’s issuance of passports and the case studies involving travel to Mexico. First, there is little factual data in the report (beyond mere hearsay) that supports the conclusion that any of the sex offenders in the case studies actually moved to Mexico. But even if they did, the report fails to explain that a passport was (and is) not necessary for U.S. citizens to enter Mexico, and was not required to enter the United States from Mexico via the land border until June 1, 2009.

Ultimately, the Department would want to study any legislative proposal to prohibit issuance of passports to sex offenders beyond our existing authorities. As noted above, we currently have limited authority to deny passports to certain sex offenders. To the extent that this report is prepared for those considering such legislation, the report should provide a more detailed discussion of the FBI’s sex offender data and the limitations that data provides generally and with respect to this study. The Department’s understanding is that such data is derived from individual state reporting and that there may be concerns, even by the Department of Justice, with respect to its accuracy. Each state may choose which offenses to report on, and report on a range of sex offenses. The nature of those offenses, e.g., the elements and penalties, and the reporting requirements differ from state to state. Moreover, as we understand it, the GAO only ran State Department passport data against the social security numbers included in the database and did not attempt to determine which offenses or which range of sex offenses the matched individuals committed. Data on the nature of the offenses committed by the matched individuals could be useful in determining whether legislation is needed.

Including such detail suggests the Department knew or should have known of these details at the time the passport was issued and should have taken some action to prevent issuance of the passport. We are also concerned that the only two case studies highlighted prominently on the first page of the report that describe the sex of both the offender and the victim are descriptions of crimes involving two people of the same sex. The descriptions of the sodomy of a male child and a search for “boy lovers” abroad could be construed to suggest the report has an anti-gay bias. We strongly recommend that GAO revisit its decision to highlight these case studies.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made major contributions to this report: Andrew O’Connell, Assistant Director; Matthew Valenta, Assistant Director; Scott Clayton; Arturo Cornejo; Paul Desaulniers; Alberto Garza; Ken Hill; Steve Martin; James Murphy; Daniel Silva; and Tim Walker.