Missouri Supreme Court decision en banc, holding that section 589.400.1(7) of MO-SORA imposes an independent lifetime registration requirement on persons who are or previously have been required to register under federal law.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding, in a matter of first impression, that a conviction for a failure to register under federal SORNA is based on a violation of federal SORNA’s registration requirements, which are independent of state law.
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.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court opinion concluding that based on recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent SORNA II is nonpunitive in effect and retroactive application of the statute did not violate Petitioner's rights under state and federal ex post facto clauses.
Seventh Circuit opinion holding, as a matter of first impression, that courts should employ circumstance-specific approach when determining whether conduct was a sex offense against a minor, as would render a conviction a sex offense under SORNA.
Missouri Court of Appeals decision determining, contrary to prior Missouri appellate court decisions, that a “tier I” sex offender under both MO-SORA and SORNA, who is otherwise eligible for removal from the Registry after satisfying the requirements of relevant MO-SORA provisions, should not be required to remain on the Registry for the remainder of their life due to the purported “interplay” between the requirements of MO-SORA and SORNA.
Missouri Supreme Court opinion holding that allegations in abandoned charges could not be considered in determining sex offense registration status and that a sheriff lacked authority to determine whether Appellant was required to register, but concluding that a writ of prohibition was not appropriate to control the sheriff because his determination was not a judicial or quasi-judicial act.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania opinion holding that retroactive application of sex offender registration law was punitive, supporting finding of unconstitutional ex post facto law, even where triggering offense occurred in another state and defendant complied with that state's registry requirements before moving to Pennsylvania.