California District Court order granting a preliminary injunction, enjoining the federal government from prosecuting California residents under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for a violation of SORNA without first obtaining certification from the State of California that the individual was required to register under California state law, and, in a prosecution for a failure to provide specific required information, that California law allows the individual to furnish that information to state authorities.
California Court of Appeals opinion affirming lower court and holding that under California law Juvenile Court lacked authority to impose sex offense registration requirements upon juvenile who was not committed to Division of Juvenile Justice.
Louisiana Court of Appeals opinion concluding that Louisiana statute, La. R.S. 14:91.5, which prohibits the use of social networking sites by select categories of required registrants, is narrowly tailored and does not violate First Amendment rights.
SORN Secondary Materials
Library of Congress and Department of Justice Issue Survey of Sex Offense Registration and Notification Laws around the World
A recent 2022 global survey highlights the rapid proliferation of sex offense registration laws world-wide since the United States enacted a national sex offense registration system in 1994. The survey, prepared by the Federal Research Division of the …
On December 8, 2021, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published regulations regarding the implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). The new regulations are notable for their emphasis on the responsibility of indiv …
More than forty U.S. states currently track at least some of their convicted sex offenders using GPS devices. Many offenders will be monitored for life. The burdens and expense of living indefinitely under constant technological monitoring have been well documented, but most commentators have assumed that these burdens were of no constitutional moment because states have characterized such surveillance as “civil” in character — and courts have seemed to agree. In 2015, however, the Supreme Court decided in Grady v. North Carolina that attaching a GPS monitoring device to a person was a Fourth Amendment search, notwithstanding the ostensibly civil character of the surveillance. Grady left open the question whether the search — and the state’s technological monitoring program more generally — was constitutionally reasonable. This Essay considers the doctrine and theory of Fourth Amendment reasonableness as it applies to both current and envisioned sex offender monitoring technologies to evaluate whether the Fourth Amendment may serve as an effective check on post-release monitoring regimes.
In response to the current COVID-19 Pandemic, the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center has published a set of guidelines for law enforcement, policy experts, and others with respect to law and policy focused on those with past convictions …Posted: March 28, 2020
By Hallie Lieberman | Feb. 2020 Sandy Rozek is the polar opposite of what comes to mind when you hear the word activist. A 78-year-old great-grandmother and retired high school English teacher who lives in Houston, Rozek is not woke, doesn’t post on Tw …Posted: January 25, 2020
By Sarah Lustbader | December 10th, 2019 Two days ago, the Union-Recorder in Georgia published a bizarre editorial. The editorial board noted that the state’s sex offender registry system drives people into homelessness and deprived them of counseling …Posted: December 14, 2019